# What is the point of GM's notes?



## pemerton

Like the thread title asks: what is the point of GM's notes?

GM's notes can be pretty varied in their content - descriptions of imaginary places; mechanical labels and categories applied to imaginary people or imaginary phenomena; descriptions or lists of imaginary events, some of which are imagined to have already happened relative to the fiction of play and some of which are imagined as yet to happen relative that fiction.

So there may be more than one answer to this question.

Also, it's obvious that GM's notes are not essential to play a RPG. So any answer has to be more precise than just _to facilitate RPG play_.

(This thread was provoked by some of what I read here: D&D 5E - Do You Prefer Sandbox or Party Level Areas In Your Game World?. But I thought a new thread seemed warranted.)


----------



## Manbearcat

Four possibilities immediately spring to life.

1) To set the scaffolding for GM Force to propel or constrain play toward a GM-desired course.

2) For GMs portraying a beloved setting as connected (or disconnected) nodes are uncovered (or funneled to/signposted), as backstory is revealed, and as metaplot churns.

3) To help kindle the GM’s imagination during play so they can provoke/prod players (through their PCs) with premise-addressing, thematically coherent obstacles and inciting situations.

4) To ensure that play is skillful (in the Classic D&D sense) as constrained/mapped adventuring site is explored and “solved” (or not) as a 3D, hazardous puzzle or obstacle course might be.

++++++++

1 is the primordial ooze and constituent parts of Railroading.

2 is either the recipe for neutral sandbox/hexcrawl play or Setting Tourism which typically rides right alongside passive players taking in metaplot imposition (Railroading).

3 is Story Now generation of content to oppose PC goals and find out what the crucible of the opposition turns out.

4 is required for Dungeon Crawling to test Skilled Play.


----------



## Aldarc

Manbearcat said:


> 2 is either the recipe for neutral sandbox/hexcrawl play or Setting Tourism which typically rides right alongside passive players taking in metaplot imposition (Railroading).



While I agree that "metaplot imposition" is often part of Setting Tourism, I'm not necessarily sure if I would call that "railroading." If we were playing, for example, in Middle Earth, then the metaplot of Sauron and the One Ring would likely inform play in the world, if only in the background, but that need not necessarily railroad the players. If we were playing in Eberron, a game setting with lots of various metaplots, then are the players being railroaded if they engage those metaplot threads that are in the GM's Notes or Setting Guides?


----------



## Manbearcat

Aldarc said:


> While I agree that "metaplot imposition" is often part of Setting Tourism, I'm not necessarily sure if I would call that "railroading." If we were playing, for example, in Middle Earth, then the metaplot of Sauron and the One Ring would likely inform play in the world, if only in the background, but that need not necessarily railroad the players. If we were playing in Eberron, a game setting with lots of various metaplots, then are the players being railroaded if they engage those metaplot threads that are in the GM's Notes or Setting Guides?



Let me clarify.

Whenever I say "metaplot imposition" I mean _both inputs and outputs_.  Not just inputs.

So the GM isn't just framing situations around setting-derived conflicts, they're also imposing (or at least deeply curating/constraining) outcomes such that player input becomes muted.  Put another way:

Instantiating this setting/metaplot's initiating conditions 100 times with varying groups (but the same GM) is going to arrive at significant homogeneity with respect to either/or/all (a) the endpoint of play or (b) the nature of node resolution or (c) the nature of node resolution is ultimately irrelevant to (a) (its just set-dressing/color).  The distribution just don't show sufficient variance to conclude "this emerged organically rather than being imposed."


It doesn't have to be imposed (and when its not, its a legitimate sandbox/hexcrawl)...but when it is, you know it.


----------



## Aldarc

Manbearcat said:


> Let me clarify.



Okay. I appreciate your clarification. Would you mind providing some concrete examples of what you have in mind here in terms of "setting tourism railroading" with actual settings, metaplots, inputs/outputs, etc.?


----------



## S'mon

So that when the PCs go to a place, I have material to work from/riff off.

Personally I make 90%+ of my (non-adventure) campaign material publicly available to the players. Only a small minority ever read it, of course!


----------



## John Dallman

The notes I was using last night were about the mission that the PCs (a spaceship crew) had been assigned by their superiors in the Royal Navy, the vessel they would be escorting to Vesta, who'd be travelling on said vessel, and names of people at the destination. I work these things up beforehand because it's easier than improvisation, especially for the names. I also had a list of groups that they'd be likely to run into. 

Some of what happened was what I had anticipated, because it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances. I really had not expected that they'd want to improvise a ship to recover people from Io, the innermost of Jupiter's large moons, too deep inside Jupiter's radiation belts for their own ship. Said people are actually fairly safe where they are, they're just going to be stuck there for several months until the ship that put them there can get back to pick them up. 

Once they decided to stage their own rescue, I had to come up with places they could get the necessary resources (a suitable small asteroid, engines, fuel, etc.). This definitely had me on the hop, but it was all actually practical. Next session, they'll try to actually do it.


----------



## Manbearcat

Aldarc said:


> Okay. I appreciate your clarification. Would you mind providing some concrete examples of what you have in mind here in terms of "setting tourism railroading" with actual settings, metaplots, inputs/outputs, etc.?



You're welcome.

Sure.

Going to make this pithy (time-limited and hopefully there is better explanatory power).

A big published setting like FR has all of the following:


High resolution NPCs, organizations, deities
High resolution geography/backstory/continuity
Conflicts (deeply cosmological but plenty mundane) that intersects with all of that high resolution stuff

A GM buys an Adventuring Path or they come up with their own.  Almost invariably there will be the classic "node-based design" as the architecture for play.  These nodes will be signposted via exposition dumps or not-so-gentle prodding. There will be an overarching (sometimes 2) metaplot as a byproduct of Conflicts above.  This metaplot will have a track with a through-line related to some or all of those nodes, with participant NPCs playing their roles, with contingencies to "re-rail" if the track is perturbed, and a few inescapable endstates and their attendant fallout in mind.  

The players role is overwhelmingly passive.  They take in the signposts.  They take in the well-rendered exposition dumps.  They willingly go along when prodded (or push back only marginally or superficially).  They game progresses in such a way that (again), if you instantiated it 100 times with different groups, there would be extreme homogeneity.  

Yes, things might happen in different order.  Some GMs may be better tour-guides (they signpost better, their exposition dumps are better rendered or more theatrical, their NPCs are more vigorously characterized) for the setting than others.  Some GMs may deploy their Illusionism better than others.  But broadly, the priority of play (to experience the setting and metaplot) and the execution of play yields recognizably homogenous results (in terms of the (a), (b), and (c) in my post above).


----------



## Manbearcat

Let me say 2 other things about "Metaplot Imposition."

1)  There is a case where Metaplot Imposition actually _doesn't have to be about inputs and outputs.  It can be exclusively about the inputs.  _This case is when two things converge:

a)  The table expectation by the players is that play will be driven by their PC's individual dramatic needs and whatever through-line emerges in the way of collective dramatic need.  *They expect to be the protagonists (not to win...but for play to be centered around their dramatic need(s) ).*

b)  The GM instead imposes their own metaplot as the relevant arc of play that isn't driven by PC dramatic need(s).  This metaplot will have its own NPCs with dramatic needs that are the focal point of play.  *This subverts PCs as protagonists and, in their place, puts an NPC villain (or villain) as the protagonist(s).  The players are deprotagonized.*

2)  There is a Metaplot Imposition that actually dovetails with my # 4 in my lead post above.  In this case, play should be looked at more like a CRPG game where the table is "keeping score" about how well the players "solve" the imposed metaplot.  So its basically a form of Skilled Play.


----------



## Marc_C

The point of GM notes:

You are not as good at improvising as you think you are. It's good to have prep notes and lists to fall back on when caught off guard.

Your memory will fail you. GM notes should also be written *after* the game to keep a record of important stuff that happened.


----------



## Emerikol

Well I create a pretty high resolution campaign setting myself when I create one.  That level of detail though is just to provide what I call world level background.  When the PCs ask questions, the DM can give sensible consistent answers about rulers, trade routes, wars fought in the past, legends, etc...  There is a method to the madness as they say.

Then I create a sandbox somewhere in the world.  I often create new sandboxes but keep a campaign setting for a while.  Perusing old maps of my old settings is a great nostalgia trip for me.  I remember all the fun had in that world and it has a distinct flavor.

The sandbox is a deep dive.  I write everything out in great detail.  I make a lot of maps.  I have many possible adventures.  I have villains up to no good that are operating on a calendar.  So there are what I call plot threads running through this sandbox.  Lots of them.  There are also usually a few long buried fairly static tomb like dungeons.  There are some enemy tribes like goblins etc..  operating in the area so I detail out their lairs.  Sometimes they may be led by some exceptional leader and as such they become a villainous plot thread.  Sometimes they are there just to be encountered during wandering monster patrols.

So my PCs can do anything they want.  They can stop or start and adventure.  They are bound by nothing BUT the reality of the existing sandbox/world.  So they can't decide a village isn't there when there is a village there.  But they can burn the village down if they want.  The group then has a lot of freedom AS THEIR CHARACTERS which is the style of play I prefer.  I want my players to be a fusion of themselves and some fantasy archetype they think is cool.  So yes player skill matters.


----------



## Manbearcat

Marc_C said:


> The point of GM notes:
> 
> You are not as good at improvising as you think you are. It's good to have prep notes and lists to fall back on when caught off guard.
> 
> Your memory will fail you. GM notes should also be written *after* the game to keep a record of important stuff that happened.




I'd say the answer to this is 3-fold (one part topical!):

1)  Develop efficient, thematically-provocative notes that can be used for improvisation.  For instance:

The Paladin's Alignment statement says "I'll protect innocents from the inequities that beset them."

The Wizard has a Bond that says "I can't resist a magic trinket!"

So...come up with a couple of situations that will test the Wizard, endanger innocents, and hopefully some that intertwine those two (eg the Wizard failing to resist a magic trinket will endanger an innocent...or endanger an innocent in a way that the Wizard will be able to resolve by ignoring or sacrificing a magical trinket...or create an inequity besetting an innocent that is related to magic).  

Frame a situation around that or use that as a complication generated by action resolution.

2)  Offload overhead onto system or players.  Players can help with continuity and keeping track of logistical stuff.  Some systems are better than others with integrating and simplifying book-keeping into play (use those systems!).

3)  Don't bother thinking "how good am I at improvising."  Its irrelevant.  Get better!  How?  Practice (like anything else)!


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> I'd say the answer to this is 3-fold (one part topical!):



I didn't realize he was asking a question.



Manbearcat said:


> 1)  Develop efficient, thematically-provocative notes that can be used for improvisation.  For instance:
> 
> The Paladin's Alignment statement says "I'll protect innocents from the inequities that beset them."
> 
> The Wizard has a Bond that says "I can't resist a magic trinket!"
> 
> So...come up with a couple of situations that will test the Wizard, endanger innocents, and hopefully some that intertwine those two (eg the Wizard failing to resist a magic trinket will endanger an innocent...or endanger an innocent in a way that the Wizard will be able to resolve by ignoring or sacrificing a magical trinket...or create an inequity besetting an innocent that is related to magic).
> 
> Frame a situation around that or use that as a complication generated by action resolution.



These a good ideas for adding flavor to an NPC whether you prep or improv.



Manbearcat said:


> 2)  Offload overhead onto system or players.  Players can help with continuity and keeping track of logistical stuff.  Some systems are better than others with integrating and simplifying book-keeping into play (use those systems!).



Or just take a few notes.  It's not a big deal.



Manbearcat said:


> 3)  Don't bother thinking "how good am I at improvising."  Its irrelevant.  Get better!  How?  Practice (like anything else)!



Well even in a well prepped campaign, there will always be moments where you have to improv something but hopefully the well laid out campaign world and sandbox will inform your decisions and make life easier.  You know the answer to a lot more questions and can answer as opposed to just make it up.  The improv might add that NPC's opinion about that information.  

I agree that whatever style of play you choose that practice will make you better.


----------



## pemerton

John Dallman said:


> The notes I was using last night were about the mission that the PCs (a spaceship crew) had been assigned by their superiors in the Royal Navy, the vessel they would be escorting to Vesta, who'd be travelling on said vessel, and names of people at the destination. I work these things up beforehand because it's easier than improvisation, especially for the names. I also had a list of groups that they'd be likely to run into.



Are you able to elaborate what the point of the notes was? Were you describing some events in advance, or the outcomes of some action declarations?

Or something else?

(For clarity: I understand the point of a list of names. It's the other stuff I'm curious about.)



Marc_C said:


> The point of GM notes:
> 
> You are not as good at improvising as you think you are. It's good to have prep notes and lists to fall back on when caught off guard.



What do you mean by _falling back on prep notes?_ What does this look like? What work do the notes do, in play, when a GM falls back on them?


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> There is a Metaplot Imposition that actually dovetails with my # 4 in my lead post above.  In this case, play should be looked at more like a CRPG game where the table is "keeping score" about how well the players "solve" the imposed metaplot.  So its basically a form of Skilled Play.



Is there a RPG system you can point to that exemplifies this? Should I be thinking about the escape from Averoigne in X2 Castle Amber as an example?


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I didn't realize he was asking a question.




"You're not as good at improvising as you think you are" and "your memory will fail you."

My post = solutions for this.



> These a good ideas for adding flavor to an NPC whether you prep or improv.




Agreed.



> Or just take a few notes.  It's not a big deal.




Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...one might do the things I wrote if they want to reduce their preparation overhead (only one of the benefits).



> Well even in a well prepped campaign, there will always be moments where you have to improv something but hopefully the well laid out campaign world and sandbox will inform your decisions and make life easier.  You know the answer to a lot more questions and can answer as opposed to just make it up.  The improv might add that NPC's opinion about that information.
> 
> I agree that whatever style of play you choose that practice will make you better.




Quite true!


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Is there a RPG system you can point to that exemplifies this? Should I be thinking about the escape from Averoigne in X2 Castle Amber as an example?




I think that is absolutely the right place to start.

But taken further, I'd say when you look at the subculture that has accreted around Pathfinder Adventure Paths (and now 5e), and you see people recount their play, there is a clear element of (a) championing the efficacy of achieving the Win Con or (b) lamenting it I (if the GM thought the AP was poorly conceived/executed in terms of testing Skilled Play) or (c) lamenting it II (if the GM thought their players did a crap job of executing their Ops to achieve the AP Win Con...which...I'll note, often doesn't involve the GM reflecting on their own potential fault at executing their job in presenting the AP!).

There is a sort of "Abstract High Score" culture around this (akin to the 80s culture of Arcades and, of course, D&D dungeon crawling).  I'm sure you're not familiar with it, but there is a "Speed Run" culture in modern Video Games that is another good analog.

The fact that play is a complete Railroad is irrelevant.  What is relevant is "who can achieve the Win Con of the AP the best/quickest/with least resource expenditure or resource loss."


----------



## Marc_C

Manbearcat said:


> I think that is absolutely the right place to start.
> 
> But taken further, I'd say when you look at the subculture that has accreted around Pathfinder Adventure Paths (and now 5e), and you see people recount their play, there is a clear element of (a) championing the efficacy of achieving the Win Con or (b) lamenting it I (if the GM thought the AP was poorly conceived/executed in terms of testing Skilled Play) or (c) lamenting it II (if the GM thought their players did a crap job of executing their Ops to achieve the AP Win Con...which...I'll note, often doesn't involve the GM reflecting on their own potential fault at executing their job in presenting the AP!).
> 
> There is a sort of "Abstract High Score" culture around this (akin to the 80s culture of Arcades and, of course, D&D dungeon crawling).
> 
> The fact that play is a complete Railroad is irrelevant.  What is relevant is "who can achieve the Win Con of the AP the best/quickest/with least resource expenditure or resource loss."



Reminds me of the behaviour during RPGA AD&D with tournament modules (scoring points at the end to evaluate the performance of the party).


----------



## Marc_C

pemerton said:


> What do you mean by _falling back on prep notes?_ What does this look like? What work do the notes do, in play, when a GM falls back on them?



I don't have a method. I just read my notes, when stuck, and they trigger something not written in them. They act as conduit. It's intuitive.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> The fact that play is a complete Railroad is irrelevant.  What is relevant is "who can achieve the Win Con of the AP the best/quickest/with least resource expenditure or resource loss."



It's definitely a railroad but the AP is not necessarily at fault.  It's perfectly fine to have linked scenarios.  If that is all you have and the expectation is strong you go on to the next one then that is very railroady.  If I took an AP and put it into a sandbox then the AP would no longer be a railroad.  You could continue the AP or go do something else.

Also even in a railroad, there is some character decision making.  Choosing to fight or run.  Exploring one area before another.   What you do between AP's in terms of stocking supplies and making preparations.

I see the AP approach as something popular with beginners.  It takes very little DM work and the players can learn the basics of skilled play.  It's just best if they can eventually go on to a sandbox as they'll enjoy it even more I think.   I probably did the equivalent of an AP when I was really you.   I'd do B2, then the Slavers A1-A4 and then the G1-3 Giants/D1-3 Drow/Q1 Demonweb series.  Somewhere in there I might squeeze in White Plume mountain or at the end Tomb of Horrors.   It's not what I like now but for beginners it's not a terrible way to learn the game.


----------



## Emerikol

Marc_C said:


> Reminds me of the behaviour during RPGA AD&D with tournament modules (scoring points at the end to evaluate the performance of the party).



As both a player and DM, I do like to look over how the group did and do a post game analysis.  A retrospective if your an agile person in the IT world.  I think skilled play is fun and has a place.


----------



## pemerton

Here's an example from my own play of the use of notes (maybe that should be "notes"):

During a Wuthering Heights one-off, one of the PCs died. It had already been established that this took place in a bookshop in Soho, London. Another PC together with a NPC carried the dead PCs body in a box to the Thames, to dump it. It mattered how long this would take, because in the game a dead PC becomes a ghost within 2d10 minutes. To answer the question I Googled up a map of London. On the basis of this we decided that the body was dumped before the PC ghost emerged from it.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> It's definitely a railroad but the AP is not necessarily at fault.  It's perfectly fine to have linked scenarios.  If that is all you have and the expectation is strong you go on to the next one then that is very railroady.  If I took an AP and put it into a sandbox then the AP would no longer be a railroad.  You could continue the AP or go do something else.
> 
> Also even in a railroad, there is some character decision making.  Choosing to fight or run.  Exploring one area before another.   What you do between AP's in terms of stocking supplies and making preparations.
> 
> I see the AP approach as something popular with beginners.  It takes very little DM work and the players can learn the basics of skilled play.  It's just best if they can eventually go on to a sandbox as they'll enjoy it even more I think.   I probably did the equivalent of an AP when I was really you.   I'd do B2, then the Slavers A1-A4 and then the G1-3 Giants/D1-3 Drow/Q1 Demonweb series.  Somewhere in there I might squeeze in White Plume mountain or at the end Tomb of Horrors.   It's not what I like now but for beginners it's not a terrible way to learn the game.




I'm saying something slightly different.

The play priority I'm depicting above doesn't need to apologize for Railroading.  They aren't playing to protagonize their PCs, to have story emerge organically through play around PC dramatic need, or to imprint their will upon a sandbox.

They're playing to keep score regarding achieving the Win Con of a Railroad.  Its actually important that the Railroad aspects be as homogenous/controlled as possible in order to test the variable Skilled Play of the players who are going through the AP.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> They're playing to keep score regarding achieving the Win Con of a Railroad.  Its actually important that the Railroad aspects be as homogenous/controlled as possible in order to test the variable Skilled Play of the players who are going through the AP.



I'm not arguing with that point.  Though, I think informally groups do self evaluate how skillfully they handled a dungeon but not necessarily with regards to another group.  Your concept is very much Gen Con competition module games.  Something I might do at a convention but wouldn't waste my time on at home.  
I was just adding to what you said that railroads can be viewed as bad but sometimes they act like training wheels.   Responding is not always disagreeing.  Sometimes you just add an observation.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> The play priority I'm depicting above doesn't need to apologize for Railroading.  They aren't playing to protagonize their PCs, to have story emerge organically through play around PC dramatic need, or to imprint their will upon a sandbox.
> 
> They're playing to keep score regarding achieving the Win Con of a Railroad.  Its actually important that the Railroad aspects be as homogenous/controlled as possible in order to test the variable Skilled Play of the players who are going through the AP.



I think I'm following, but to get clear:

You're envisaging something a bit like your (4) above ie classic "skilled play" but not identical.

Classic skill play involves the notes being, initially, the (hidden) map and key, which the players have to uncover, by declaring actions which oblige the GM to reveal bits of it; once these have been uncovered, the notes also establish what rewards the players are able to obtain by declaring appropriate actions (everything from "We empty the contents of the chest into our backpacks" to "We throw the aardvark we captured into the magic pool of transforming-aardvarks-to-platinum pieces"). This is all locked down, in advance, as much as possible to prevent GM deliberate cheating or inadvertent bias.

Your "skilled railroad" involves the notes being a sequence of events - probably many but perhaps not solely fights - that will be worked through, either literally in sequence or via "node-based" choices, and which the players have to succeed in, with a constrained resource pool, in order to win. Lose a combat and you lose. Or spend too long restoring your resources, and you lose because (in the fiction) the cultists have completed their evil ritual. Etc.

Have I got that roughly right?


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Have I got that roughly right?



I think he is talking about something pretty much like the tournament modules from the old days.  All of the C modules were "competition" modules and the Tomb of Horrors was as well.  Given how deadly the Tomb of Horrors is it makes sense.  Losing characters is not an issue when it's a competition module.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I think I'm following, but to get clear:
> 
> You're envisaging something a bit like your (4) above ie classic "skilled play" but not identical.
> 
> Classic skill play involves the notes being, initially, the (hidden) map and key, which the players have to uncover, by declaring actions which oblige the GM to reveal bits of it; once these have been uncovered, the notes also establish what rewards the players are able to obtain by declaring appropriate actions (everything from "We empty the contents of the chest into our backpacks" to "We throw the aardvark we capture into the magic pool of transforming-aardvarks-to-platinum pieces"). This is all locked down, in advance, as much as possible to prevent GM deliberate cheating or inadvertent bias.
> 
> Your "skilled railroad" involves the notes being a sequence of events - probably many but perhaps not solely fights - that will be worked through, either literally in sequence or via "node-based" choices, and which the players have to succeed in, with a constrained resource pool, in order to win. Lose a combat and you lose. Or spend too long restoring your resources, and you lose because (in the fiction) the cultists have completed their evil ritual. Etc.
> 
> Have I got that roughly right?




Not "roughly" right.  Exactly right.

I think this form of play would do itself a much better service (like all forms of play), if it didn't apologize for Railroading.  If it proudly and transparently claimed what it was trying to do.  And if it got better/more prolific at performing post-mortems of play excerpts so everyone hoping to optimize that play priority could improve their craft.

EDIT - Its very kindred with what Gloomhaven is doing.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Not "roughly" right.  Exactly right.
> 
> I think this form of play would do itself a much better service (like all forms of play), if it didn't apologize for Railroading.  If it proudly and transparently claimed what it was trying to do.  And if it got better/more prolific at performing post-mortems of play excerpts so everyone hoping to optimize that play priority could improve their craft.



Agree.  I'd probably rather play this than a full improv game.  Neither though satisfies me as much as my traditional sandbox.  As long as it is clear what the point of the game is everyone can partake of what they want.  It's why I've always favored better terms to describe the different sorts of play.   

It's kind of like calling dice a game.  

"What are you guys playing?"    
"Dice"
"Yeah I realize you roll dice but I need more detail than that"

I feel like even table top rpg has gotten to the point that it is practically like saying "dice".  Okay not that bad but bad.  It's a bad thing for a group to show up and realize they don't want to play the same game.


----------



## Umbran

Goodness gracious, how did a discussion of notes become a thing about railroading?  Sheesh!

My notes are there for me to remember stuff I thought of to use in game.  That's it.  There's no deep theory or style connotation to notes.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Not "roughly" right.  Exactly right.
> 
> I think this form of play would do itself a much better service (like all forms of play), if it didn't apologize for Railroading.  If it proudly and transparently claimed what it was trying to do.  And if it got better/more prolific at performing post-mortems of play excerpts so everyone hoping to optimize that play priority could improve their craft.



I don't know enough contemporary modules to comment on how "abashed" they are relative to this play goal.

Module A4 Scourge of the Slave Lords is a bit like this, though. It's not really a _scour and loot the dungeon _adventure, though it has some superficial dungeon trappings. It's a _can you work through this sequence of events to win the story _adventure. This would also be a good structure for a Ravenloft-y PCs-vs-Strahd adventure. No need to pretend it's about player choice of what happens next!



Emerikol said:


> I think he is talking about something pretty much like the tournament modules from the old days.



Many of them have strong dungeoneering aspects, I think, rather than being sequence-of-event based. Though because of the time constraints they don't have the scout-first-then-loot aspect that Gygax at least tends to emphasise in his PHB.


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> Here's an example from my own play of the use of notes (maybe that should be "notes"):
> 
> During a Wuthering Heights one-off, one of the PCs died. It had already been established that this took place in a bookshop in Soho, London. Another PC together with a NPC carried the dead PCs body in a box to the Thames, to dump it. It mattered how long this would take, because in the game a dead PC becomes a ghost within 2d10 minutes. To answer the question I Googled up a map of London. On the basis of this we decided that the body was dumped before the PC ghost emerged from it.



That seems to be to be using notes as a cognitive aid to the tracking of the shared fiction.  You've already established in the fiction that the characters are in London, a real place that has a defined map.  You could have improvised the situation, of course, and left it up to some sort of random resolution, but I imagine referencing a real place granted a sense of grounding within the setting.

If you have the same situation, except the PCs are in Waterdeep, or Absalom, or Minas Tirith, and you pull out a map instead of resolving via random resolution, than I imagine it might invoke a similar sense of grounding within the setting.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> My notes are there for me to remember stuff I thought of to use in game.  That's it.



What does _use _mean here?

A list of names is something to use in the sense that, when a NPC is introduced into the fiction by the GM, s/he can easily give the NPC a name.

A whole lot of descriptions of places might be used to introduce new material into the fiction, via framing. Or to establish the outcomes of action declarations, as in my reply upthread to @S'mon.

I've read modules which include descriptions of events that will happen in the future of play.

Are any of these the sorts of uses you are talking about?


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> If you have the same situation, except the PCs are in Waterdeep, or Absalom, or Minas Tirith, and you pull out a map instead of resolving via random resolution, than I imagine it might invoke a similar sense of grounding within the setting.



One feature of the map of London is that it's shared, not hidden. Upthread @S'mon referred to shared campaign descriptions.

But D&D has a long tradition of hidden maps. I think there's scope for more discussion about when it makes sense for maps to be hidden, and when shared, than we often see.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> What does _use _mean here?
> 
> A list of names is something to use in the sense that, when a NPC is introduced into the fiction by the GM, s/he can easily give the NPC a name.
> 
> A whole lot of descriptions of places might be used to introduce new material into the fiction, via framing. Or to establish the outcomes of action declarations, as in my reply upthread to @S'mon.
> 
> I've read modules which include descriptions of events that will happen in the future of play.
> 
> Are any of these the sorts of uses you are talking about?




All of the above, and probably some you haven't mentioned.  Notes are _INFORMATION_.  Any information use you may have at runtime can be served by notes.  It could be a track list for mood music.  It could be stats of challenges I want to use.  Anything.  

Notes are not specific.


----------



## AmerginLiath

To remember how you described your off-the cuff NPCs for the next time they appear. Because your players somehow will remember perfectly and call you out on the shepherd changing accents.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> Notes are not specific.



I don't understand this claim. The role of notes in Keep on the Borderland is clearly and radically different from the role of the map of London in my Wuthering Heights one-off.

We can talk meaningfully about these different roles for notes. Which is the point of this thread.


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> Agree.  I'd probably rather play this than a full improv game.  Neither though satisfies me as much as my traditional sandbox.  As long as it is clear what the point of the game is everyone can partake of what they want.  It's why I've always favored better terms to describe the different sorts of play.
> 
> It's kind of like calling dice a game.
> 
> "What are you guys playing?"
> "Dice"
> "Yeah I realize you roll dice but I need more detail than that"
> 
> I feel like even table top rpg has gotten to the point that it is practically like saying "dice".  Okay not that bad but bad.  It's a bad thing for a group to show up and realize they don't want to play the same game.



Well, I think most types of games have similar issues of categorization.  If we're grouping up for a night of board games, there's a big challenge is some people want to play Chutes and Ladders and others want to play Twilight Struggle.  If we're going to do a video game night, and some people want to play Call of Duty and other people want to play Mario Party.

The big difference with TTRPGs is that about 80% of the player base assumes that by "RPG" you mean D&D or something D&D-adjacent.  But even then, running a Pathfinder Adventure Path compared to a dungeon crawl in LL or LotFP is a big difference.


----------



## Mallus

I'm tempted to post some of the notes from my --- oh my god it was two years ago?! -- old Spirit of 77 campaign based on our declining middle-aged minds remembering the television from childhood. Perhaps I'll check them for profanity first...


----------



## DemoMonkey

Because they are fun.

Is any other answer relevant?


----------



## TheAlkaizer

Just to clarify, are we talking about notes we write ahead of a session of the inclusion of GM notes in pre-written adventures?


----------



## pemerton

TheAlkaizer said:


> Just to clarify, are we talking about notes we write ahead of a session of the inclusion of GM notes in pre-written adventures?



In the OP I'm referring to notes made in preparation, not notes made ex-post as a record of what happened in the session. The point of that latter category of notes seems clear to me: it's a record of the shared fiction.

I think maybe one of your "of"s should be an "or"? Though even then I'm not fully clear on your question - I don't see any difference, as far as the relationship to play is concerned, between a GM writing his/her own notes in advance of a session and a GM paying someone else to write notes in advance of a session.


----------



## John Dallman

pemerton said:


> Are you able to elaborate what the point of the notes was? Were you describing some events in advance, or the outcomes of some action declarations?
> 
> Or something else?



The setting is not a sandbox: the PCs get given missions, although they have a lot of freedom in how they carry them out. It is not a truly hard SF setting, but it's a lot closer to that than Star Trek or Star Wars (which I'd be utterly unwilling to run, or play in). This means that figuring out how to accomplish things is definitely required. 

One of the simpler points was that the ship they were escorting to Vesta is much larger than their own ship, and has lower acceleration, but much more delta-V (semi-hard SF). The obvious solution, given the numbers, was for the small warship to be refuelled by the large passenger ship, and I suggested this to the players. They took up the idea (they've done this before), but if they'd come up with a different plan, I'd have been happy with that. 

I also asked them how much trouble they wanted to be able to cope with at Vesta, where the situation was legally and politically very complicated. The warship the PCs fly was being sent to make sure that nobody tried violence; that had been established in the previous session. They decided that they wanted to be able to cope with not being able to refuel at Vesta, but also that they wanted to get there faster than a no-refuelling round trip would allow, so they needed to be able to refuel somewhere else. I then had to find somewhere for that to happen, and consider if Biotech Euphrates, the company which has just bought Vesta and is paying expenses, was willing to pay for the refuelling. It seemed like a sensible idea, so they went for it.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> We can talk meaningfully about these different roles for notes. Which is the point of this thread.




After we note that the point of notes is really, "have information at the GM's fingertips", sure.  The top level of this is like, "What is the point of a word processor?"  Given that an argument over frelling railroading came up within two pages, I felt that cementing the general was important.  Notes are not "to impose a railroad" or similar style war stuff.

A more useful form of the question may be - "As a GM, how do you structure or use notes during a session of play to enhance the play experience?" 

This may separate between notes the GM is holding behind their screen at runtime from, say, notes back in their setting binder that they use during adventure design.

We probably also need to come to agreement on what qualifies as "notes".  In basic form, notes are "a brief record of facts, topics, or thoughts, written down as an aid to memory."  A detailed map of London would not count as notes in my book.  A quickly scrawled diagram of London's overall districts might.

With those couple of things mentioned, then...

When using published adventure content, I rarely need much in the way of notes.  I may pull out stats on monsters or the like, because they are rarely included in a way that's easy to reference in play.  But otherwise, I find the text of the adventure sufficient for my needs.

When doing my own adventure design, notes are a whole other ballgame. I don't generally do a full adventure writeup - everything is notes.  I wind up with two levels - one (typically kept in MS OneNote these days) for idea generation and organization, the other, used at runtime, is abstracted from the first, sometimes with stats for things added. 

Then, the notes for doing D&D (which,  for a dungeon crawl, is going to be a sketched map and bits about encounters) is vastly different from when I run Ashen Stars (which is more about the series of events that the characters are investiagting, and the information bits that can be found, and how.


----------



## jmartkdr2

For myself:

1. Improvising is hard. While I know I will need to do it, I'd like to minimize it to a degree. So I pre-plan a number of things that way I can pull up a card rather than make it up on the spot. This is why I prep npc's by knowing motivations, personalities, etc.

2. DnD in particular requires math at some spots, especially combat building, and doing that math at the table can drag things a lot. So I definitely prep combats and other game-based tasks. Because building a fun combat encounter on the fly just doesn't work in DnD, since you need a good mix of enemies and terrain to make something that isn't a punching slog.

3. I also like to over-prep a few drop-in options: I'll prep a few wandering monster encounters just in case I need a quick battle, even if I only know the general area that battle will take place in.

4. I _like_ worldbuilding. I do it for fun. Sometimes, I write bits down and use them later. Sometimes I don't.


----------



## Arilyn

Writing notes ahead of time cements the ideas in my head. How detailed they are depend if I'm playing in a more traditional style, or running a game like Dungeon World. I also condense stat blocks down to absolute minimums for potential antagonists.

APs get reduced to more quickie notes, so at my fingertips. We usually end up in a vastly different place than the AP, so no railroading here!


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> One feature of the map of London is that it's shared, not hidden. Upthread @S'mon referred to shared campaign descriptions.
> 
> But D&D has a long tradition of hidden maps. I think there's scope for more discussion about when it makes sense for maps to be hidden, and when shared, than we often see.



That might help new DMs.  Personally I think I'm at least mostly with you.  I tend to show a city or village map with limited detail early.  I don't show them the interiors of every building or define all the NPCs.  I will give them some further knowledge on people that everyone should know about.   I don't show the whole dungeon map early though.  I also don't show the low level wilderness map early either but I might give them a large scale regional map.  If you have at least one educated person in the group they will likely at least know the names of neighboring kingdoms and the major cities around.


----------



## Emerikol

I would think that in a shared fiction is the only reality style that making sure you don't forget the shared fiction would be important.  So taking a few quick notes would be as important as it would be in a prepped game.  Obviously making notes ahead of time would vary depending on style.

My players tend to map the dungeon and take notes.  Some of them have even taken to writing a journal which is always a colorful narrative of what happened during a session.  Everyone seems to enjoy reading that a day or two later.  I don't force them to do anything but I suggest mapping in the dungeon would be a good idea.  If I have some technology solution it tends to not be as big a deal.  

I absolutely think having NPC/monster names done in advance is a real winner.  So many off the cuff names are really stupid and nearly ruin the game when I'm a player.


----------



## prabe

There are two sets of notes in the campaigns I'm running. Possibly a third.

One set of notes is the notes I write as prep. Names of NPCs, places, and such. Situations as they exist at the start of session (or when encountered). If I'm anticipating combat, lists of the opposition. Treasure, if I'm placing it.

The other set of notes is what my wife writes down. What actually happens in the session. (These are what I'm posting in the Story Hour threads.)

The notes I write in prep, I write after reading my wife's in-session notes for the previous session, so I can keep the situations consistent with prior events. Often, what happens in a session results from (metaphorically) standing at the starting (framed) situation, looking past the PCs' actions, and narrating what we see.

The possible third set of notes is the world-building notes I'm generating as I create the setting the campaigns are happening in. If I'm being honest, I enjoy world-building a lot, and that's a major part of why I reserve most of it for myself.

I saw where @Manbearcat compared AP-play to Gloomhaven, and I think that's a strong comparison. I enjoy the tactical elements of Gloomhaven (and I enjoy other collaborative games like Arkham Horror and Eldritch Horror) but I think the RPG-esque elements--including the campaign style of long-term play--are the weakest parts. Between Arkham Horror 3 (current edition) and Eldritch Horror, I much prefer Eldritch Horror: I find it more-replayable precisely because the elements are more random, and not written to fit into a path. I guess a summary of my feelings here is that I think writing RPG-esque elements into a collaborative boardgame or putting a TRPG on a fixed (ish) path make for games that don't give me what I want out of either. Which isn't really about notes. Sorry.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> What do you mean by _falling back on prep notes?_ What does this look like? What work do the notes do, in play, when a GM falls back on them?



The notes keep things consistent.

If the map of the keep (maps are part of the GM notes) shows a room as 30 x 40 feet then when a player asks how big is the room I can look at the map and say it's 30 x 40 feet.  If instead I were to wing it and say it was 40 x 50 feet then suddenly it wouldn't fit in between all the other rooms and passages around it, thus to make things fit the whole structure has to get bigger, meaning there's now an unacceptable inconsistency between the inside dimensions and the outside dimensions I gave them as they approached the place.

Side note: it's of note that you put this thread in General where the original that spawned it was in - and thus mostly discussing - D&D.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...one might do the things I wrote if they want to reduce their preparation overhead (only one of the benefits).



This assumes the players are willing to take on and-or accept the offloading you suggest.  As a player, in general I'm not willing; instead I'd rather the GM worry about (most of) the bureaucracy and leave me to play my character.


----------



## darkbard

Years ago, when I mostly ran bog-standard D&D (Basic, AD&D, 3E, and early 4E), I viewed preplay notes mainly as constraints on the GM and a facilitator for keeping the PCs within the bounds of the story (be it module, AP, or home design).

These days, as I've come to realize the disconnect between (a) evinced PC interests and GM-curated plot and (b) the kind of gaming I was really interested in: Story Now--and subsequently revised my 4E agendas and principles and explored PBtA/FitD games--I've moved to a minimum of preplay notetaking, both as GM and player.

I prefer terse but evocative bullet points with flexible application ... and rather, as a GM prior to and during a session, to make minimum use of even these, preferring improvisational creativity.

During play, either as GM or player, I take relatively sparse notes, generally of new elements introduced into the shared fiction. Postgame, I keep a log of major locations, personalities, events but those notes are themselves open to revision and reinterpretation as the consensus fiction evolves rather than as an attempt to establish canonicity.

My wife takes extensive notes as a player, which she uses to write fan fiction-esque journals in character, often with the objective of establishing not-yet-introduced PC thoughts, rationales, or even world details post hoc. Often, these become part of the shared fiction. At other times, they are merely the skewed understanding of one participant in the scene.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

pemerton said:


> In the OP I'm referring to notes made in preparation, not notes made ex-post as a record of what happened in the session. The point of that latter category of notes seems clear to me: it's a record of the shared fiction.



In this case...

I tend to end most sessions on a note where I have a pretty good idea of where things will go next. Doesn't always work. But when I can, I do that. It allows me to prepare more effectively. It's very hard to prepare when next session is right after a big closure and there's not anything floating.

That being said. My notes generally fall within two categories:

I'll have some bullet points of things I have prepared. The general structure. Places, events or challenges they will _most likely_ encounter. Ex: last session they were on their way to meet a crimelord. In most cases, he'll offer them a mission. This will most likely lead them to this town. Obviously, sometimes things don't go that way.
I tend to write a few keywords for descriptions of places and locations. A few words, things they can see, hear, smell or touch. It's generally half a dozen keywords so I don't forget stuff.
I tend to have the names of my NPCs, a few words of descriptions and one word that describes their attitude or personality for when I roleplay them: snarky, nervous, bored, insulting, helpful. This is especially true when my players are in or will be in a city with a ton of NPCs.
Lore and exposition. If I know that I'll have go give some important exposition or lore, I write down the information I want to give. For example, in one of my Starfinder sessions, my party was on the verge of making their way into a criminal's room in an hotel. I knew that they would find: proof of his association with a terrorist organization. I also knew what information they needed to get from that to be able to move further in the plot. I didn't know how they would get it. But some of it could be shared through simple Recall Knowledge rolls depending on where the PCs were from, what their backgrounds are, etc.
Sometimes I'll write down quick reminders of some rules I don't use often but might come handy. For example, the skills in Starfinder have pretty precise cases of use. You don't just guess the DC. A specific distance to jump will lead to a specific DC. That's something I might scribble.
Generic content. I always have at least one combat encounters, one interesting NPC and one interesting event that can be plugged anywhere. A traveling merchant that can show up anytime, a thief that steals their purse as he passes them, etc. These can be used to fill some voids and are especially useful if the session goes in a very random direction.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> I think that is absolutely the right place to start.
> 
> But taken further, I'd say when you look at the subculture that has accreted around Pathfinder Adventure Paths (and now 5e), and you see people recount their play, there is a clear element of (a) championing the efficacy of achieving the Win Con or (b) lamenting it I (if the GM thought the AP was poorly conceived/executed in terms of testing Skilled Play) or (c) lamenting it II (if the GM thought their players did a crap job of executing their Ops to achieve the AP Win Con...which...I'll note, often doesn't involve the GM reflecting on their own potential fault at executing their job in presenting the AP!).
> 
> There is a sort of "Abstract High Score" culture around this (akin to the 80s culture of Arcades and, of course, D&D dungeon crawling).  I'm sure you're not familiar with it, but there is a "Speed Run" culture in modern Video Games that is another good analog.
> 
> The fact that play is a complete Railroad is irrelevant.  What is relevant is "who can achieve the Win Con of the AP the best/quickest/with least resource expenditure or resource loss."



Good points; and I see the underlying root issue as being one of closed-endedness.  Adventure Paths by their nature are closed-ended and have a known and specific point of ultimate victory; and on a broader scale 3e-4e-5e are somewhat closed-ended in that they have a capstone level (20-30-20 in order) and thus reaching that capstone level is the victory point.

Thus, the argument that wants to be made is against using closed-ended APs and-or systems rather than against using GM notes.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> Goodness gracious, how did a discussion of notes become a thing about railroading?  Sheesh!



Hardly unexpected, though, as there's a few here who seem to rather equate the two things....


Umbran said:


> My notes are there for me to remember stuff I thought of to use in game.  That's it.  There's no deep theory or style connotation to notes.



Agreed.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> Good points; and I see the underlying root issue as being one of closed-endedness.  Adventure Paths by their nature are closed-ended and have a known and specific point of ultimate victory; and on a broader scale 3e-4e-5e are somewhat closed-ended in that they have a capstone level (20-30-20 in order) and thus reaching that capstone level is the victory point.
> 
> Thus, the argument that wants to be made is against using closed-ended APs and-or systems rather than against using GM notes.



I'm not really seeing a root "issue"; closed adventures have the advantage of brevity and focus, so that we can get on to the next game or next set of characters to play.  In my experience, players generally aren't particularly interested in authorship or in random adventures, they like the sense that they're generally working within the loose confines of a script.  There's a reason AP play is so popular.


----------



## tetrasodium

John Dallman said:


> *The setting is not a sandbox:* the PCs get given missions, although they have a lot of freedom in how they carry them out. It is not a truly hard SF setting, but it's a lot closer to that than Star Trek or Star Wars (which I'd be utterly unwilling to run, or play in). This means that figuring out how to accomplish things is definitely required.
> 
> One of the simpler points was that the ship they were escorting to Vesta is much larger than their own ship, and has lower acceleration, but much more delta-V (semi-hard SF). The obvious solution, given the numbers, was for the small warship to be refuelled by the large passenger ship, and I suggested this to the players. They took up the idea (they've done this before), but if they'd come up with a different plan, I'd have been happy with that.
> 
> I also asked them how much trouble they wanted to be able to cope with at Vesta, where the situation was legally and politically very complicated. The warship the PCs fly was being sent to make sure that nobody tried violence; that had been established in the previous session. They decided that they wanted to be able to cope with not being able to refuel at Vesta, but also that they wanted to get there faster than a no-refuelling round trip would allow, so they needed to be able to refuel somewhere else. I then had to find somewhere for that to happen, and consider if Biotech Euphrates, the company which has just bought Vesta and is paying expenses, was willing to pay for the refuelling. It seemed like a sensible idea, so they went for it.



Why not?  Over the course of 2-3 campaigns precovid my players took a small nothing town in droaam  with a Cyran refugee meets band of war criminals conducting illegal & unethical experiments problem  & built it up to develop an economy of sorts based on the exploration & study of discovered ancient dhakaani ruins  till the dragonmarked houses were willing to station sentinal marshals build an airship dock and built an orien station with teleport room despite the 5 nations not wanting to recognize droaam in ways that make accomplishing those things easy. the DoSK who rule droaam were tickled pink with the PC's progress towards getting the hope to be nation recognized as legitimate enough & they may even have reshaped how politics would develop elsewhere in future campaigns because of the changes they made.  

Even simply failing to save the world or doing a crap job of it can leave a mark on the setting as pathfinder's ill omens/darkest timeline attests by showing what the setting might look like if nobody saved the world over & over again.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> I'm not really seeing a root "issue"; closed adventures have the advantage of brevity and focus, so that we can get on to the next game or next set of characters to play.



Where you see a feature I see a bug; if you want to play another set of characters why not do so in an already-existing campaign to save the DM (or another DM) from having to design yet another campaign and-or setting?  Of course, when most APs end at or near the game's capstone level the obvious question is "where do you go from there?", but to me that's a fault of both the AP design and the system's speed of advancement.

Focus is fine, brevity is not, assuming you and your group are intending to stay together for the long term.


TwoSix said:


> In my experience, players generally aren't particularly interested in authorship or in random adventures, they like the sense that they're generally working within the loose confines of a script.  There's a reason AP play is so popular.



IME players aren't generally interested in authorship* but are more interested in random adventures or a mix of adventures; in that they'll get bored if a single story arc goes on too long.

* - interesting timing in that I and the other main DM in our crew have just started an email exchange regarding adventure roots: whether a given adventure is something the players pushed for, the DM put them in, or some sort of mix.  Early returns show that as a campaign goes on and develops more internal history, players (and their PCs) become more likely to drive adventures based on things that have already happened.  That's still not authorship, in that the players aren't writing the adventures; it's more that the players are to a degree forcing what the DM will run next as opposed to the DM simply deciding.


----------



## Blue

pemerton said:


> Also, it's obvious that GM's notes are not essential to play a RPG. So any answer has to be more precise than just _to facilitate RPG play_.



The purpose of a GM's note is to _facilitate play_.

Sorry, couldn't resist the set up.  You see, facilitate means make a process or action easier, and that's what a GM's notes do.  They help the GM remember both lore and immediate needs, NPCs and plots.  It helps the GM stay consistent.  Remind them of things when lots is going on.  The provide quick access to some things that would have to be looked up otherwise.  All of these can potentially be done without notes, but GM's notes will improve the speed and quality of that.


----------



## Umbran

TwoSix said:


> ... they like the sense that they're generally working within the loose confines of a script.




Perhaps a bit more accurate to say that they like the sense that they're working within a thing that will result in a cohesive narrative when all is said and done?  

Also, an AP provides _context_ in which to make decisions that more sandbox or improvisational play can lack, for both the GM and the Player.

There is a persistent idea that play with minimal constraint necessarily yields the most fun for and creativity from the participants, but that idea is inaccurate.  Some people do shine when they are allowed to do whatever they darned well please.  Others blossom within a framework.


----------



## Ibrandul

Umbran said:


> When using published adventure content, I rarely need much in the way of notes.  I may pull out stats on monsters or the like, because they are rarely included in a way that's easy to reference in play.  But otherwise, I find the text of the adventure sufficient for my needs.



I _mostly_ agree with this—if the published adventure is well organized. Right now I'm running _Princes of the Apocalypse_ and that thing is an underrated adventure path but a total mess, organization-wise. Unless I had a _very_ good memory and/or reread a great deal of the book between every play session, I wouldn't be able to run it (well) without rather thorough notes.

Also: maybe I should let the railroad discussion well enough alone, but, for me, when I run sandbox-style, I need notes much, much more than when I run things railroad-style. When railroading, it's not too hard to achieve a believable, detail-rich world without a ton of notes, because I only have to figure out rich details for one or two paths. When sandboxing, I want my players to be able to say at any moment "No, we're going over here instead," and for "here" to be somewhere I did not at all expect them to go—and, for me at least, that either means that "here" is hastily generated and rather light on detail, or I have a ton of "heres" with some level of interesting detail ready to go: usually in my notes.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Focus is fine, brevity is not, assuming you and your group are intending to stay together for the long term.



Brevity can be (is) just fine, if it's what the table as a whole wants. Especially if you have players who particularly enjoy char-build, it gives them a chance to try out more ideas.


Lanefan said:


> interesting timing in that I and the other main DM in our crew have just started an email exchange regarding adventure roots: whether a given adventure is something the players pushed for, the DM put them in, or some sort of mix.  Early returns show that as a campaign goes on and develops more internal history, players (and their PCs) become more likely to drive adventures based on things that have already happened.  That's still not authorship, in that the players aren't writing the adventures; it's more that the players are to a degree forcing what the DM will run next as opposed to the DM simply deciding.



I'd say the players are contributing at least something in the direction of authorship, if the DMs are being constrained to run adventures that fit the PCs' needs/stories. FWIW, the campaigns I run (which I gather are quite different than the ones your group runs) behave similarly: They start with an instigating event which I write up, then future arcs tend to be based more on the PCs' actions and goals.


----------



## TwoSix

Umbran said:


> Perhaps a bit more accurate to say that they like the sense that they're working within a thing that will result in a cohesive narrative when all is said and done?



I feel that's pretty much synonymous with what I said, but I think we're in general agreement.



Umbran said:


> There is a persistent idea that play with minimal constraint necessarily yields the most fun for and creativity from the participants, but that idea is inaccurate. Some people do shine when they are allowed to do whatever they darned well please. Others blossom within a framework.



Absolutely true.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> IME players aren't generally interested in authorship* but are more interested in random adventures or a mix of adventures; in that they'll get bored if a single story arc goes on too long.




There's also the question of what qualifies as a "story arc" to various people.

I'm in a group that's going through Rime of the Frost Maiden.  In one session we are hunting down a vicious moose, and in the next, we are booting kobolds out of a mine.  These look and play like a mix of or random adventures, though in each one there's a tidbit that leads to the whole.

If your AP is a single dungeon crawl, yes, it will get tiresome.  If your AP is built out of several different threads that combine to bring to an overall culmination, it may feel less constrained, as the PCs activities and concerns change several times over the short term


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> Where you see a feature I see a bug; if you want to play another set of characters why not do so in an already-existing campaign to save the DM (or another DM) from having to design yet another campaign and-or setting?  Of course, when most APs end at or near the game's capstone level the obvious question is "where do you go from there?", but to me that's a fault of both the AP design and the system's speed of advancement.
> 
> Focus is fine, brevity is not, assuming you and your group are intending to stay together for the long term.



My one group has been together for 12 years, we're on our 7th campaign together.  No one has DMed for more than 2 years straight.  We've only hit max level once, the other games ended just because the DM felt like their story was over, and it was time to move on.  No one has much interest in playing in the same world for a decade-plus.   

Brevity is totally fine.  I know that some people like consistency, but I favor novelty.  I'm ready for something new after a few dozen sessions.


----------



## uzirath

My GM notes usually focus on details of the setting that will enrich my ability to present various scenes. Sometimes this includes reminders about game-mechanics that are likely to come into play. Here's an example of notes from a game this winter taking place during a festival. The community was into gambling, so I pulled together some ideas for games and looked up how the gambling skill is handled mechanically.






Other things include lots of potential names of NPCs, sometimes with quick notes about personality or relevant abilities. I often choose a real-world language for a setting and then use Google Translate to generate words that reflect personality quirks. Here's an example from a recent session where the party was likely to run into a powerful individual who was also the father of one of the NPCs with the group. She had run away from her father and joined the group, which created no small amount of tension. 





I often add to my notes during the game so they become an amalgam of my pre-game notes and a record of what happens in the game. (This is especially true when the played events contradict or change ideas that I had in my pre-game notes.)


----------



## John Dallman

John Dallman said:


> The setting is not a sandbox: the PCs get given missions, although they have a lot of freedom in how they carry them out.





tetrasodium said:


> Why not?  Over the course of 2-3 campaigns precovid my players took a small nothing town in droaam  with a Cyran refugee meets band of war criminals ...



It's not a sandbox because it's a lightly settled and fairly civilised solar system (GURPS Transhuman Space), where spaceships are too expensive to run for small self-financed groups to fly around in. Being in the Royal Navy and the crew of a small warship trades some freedom of action for a lot of resources and support. Once they're away from base, they do not get sent orders unless there's some major emergency: responsibility lies with the PC who's the ship's captain. 

An example of the kind of way they work, from recent history: when the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami happened, HMS Chatham (F87) was serving in the Persian Gulf, and was in port for Christmas. As soon as the captain heard of the tsunami, he called the crew back on board and set off down the gulf, on the grounds that they were bound to be needed, and they might as well start going there. Two days later, the British Prime Minister announced that he was sending a warship to assist, but it had actually sent itself. Anticipating orders and doing the right thing is conduct the Royal Navy strongly condones, in peace as well as in war.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> I'm not really seeing a root "issue"; closed adventures have the advantage of brevity and focus, so that we can get on to the next game or next set of characters to play.  In my experience, players generally aren't particularly interested in authorship or in random adventures, they like the sense that they're generally working within the loose confines of a script.  There's a reason AP play is so popular.



There are a lot of reasons it could be popular and yours is just one.  

One reason is that it is easy on the DM.  And DM's are hard to find and good DM's are even harder.  So I suspect that AP's are "fun enough" in many cases and that is what the DM has the time to do.  

Another is that the most of the adventures sold these days are APs so if you want to purchase something you get an AP.  There really are a lot of well done sandboxes to choose from if you are in the market.  

So the people who are still sandboxing are those for whom the prep is half the fun.  Those people are paying that price because for them it's not much of a price.  They love it.  As has been indicated above.  Sadly though not many love it.  Most see it as true work.  I've found a good sandbox DM can get a group any time he or she wants.  It's kind of like you can sell all the Filet Mignon at Hamburger prices but if you charge full rate many choose the Hamburger.  Also, a lot of DMs just don't have the skills to successfully run a sandbox.  So it requires more skill and that is not something a lot of people want to spend the time developing.

Let me recommend the book "Arbiter of Worlds" if you are interested.  Most people though have chosen the path of the book "The Lazy DM" which is incredibly popular and is a fine proponent of that style of play.


----------



## Grogg of the North

My notes typically consist of the following:

Dungeon related stuff. What's in this room? How big is it? Traps? Monsters? Will they fight to the death or flee? Oh look, shinies!
NPC stuff. Who is this guy; what's he got to say? Maybe it's a big long speech I've tried to write out before hand. Maybe it's a few notes scribbled to myself. I find that there are times when I'll get ready for an NPC to speak that my mind gives me ERROR: FILE NOT FOUND, so I try to have things written out beforehand if I can.
Vague general notes. These are usually for when the party has downtime. They're just a quick sentence or two so I don't forget what's happening in the world around them. "Hey while you're hanging around town, Jurin, that kid you saved from town, comes to visit you at the temple....". These are usually used to spur roleplaying with the players and give prompts to the players. Maybe they decide to look into the strange lights in the forest. Maybe not. But at least it's out there now.


----------



## Emerikol

uzirath said:


> View attachment 134359



I just wanted to mention your use of that fae glamour.  I once created a magic ring that had the property of making you utterly forgettable.  No one could remember what you looked like even if they met you over drinks.  They would remember the conversation.  They would remember how they made you feel.  You would not be able to describe them.  It was a highly sought after item in my campaign.


----------



## Emerikol

Grogg of the North said:


> My notes typically consist of the following:
> 
> Dungeon related stuff. What's in this room? How big is it? Traps? Monsters? Will they fight to the death or flee? Oh look, shinies!
> NPC stuff. Who is this guy; what's he got to say? Maybe it's a big long speech I've tried to write out before hand. Maybe it's a few notes scribbled to myself. I find that there are times when I'll get ready for an NPC to speak that my mind gives me ERROR: FILE NOT FOUND, so I try to have things written out beforehand if I can.
> Vague general notes. These are usually for when the party has downtime. They're just a quick sentence or two so I don't forget what's happening in the world around them. "Hey while you're hanging around town, Jurin, that kid you saved from town, comes to visit you at the temple....". These are usually used to spur roleplaying with the players and give prompts to the players. Maybe they decide to look into the strange lights in the forest. Maybe not. But at least it's out there now.



Good points especially the downtime note.  The more you can make the players feel the world is moving along even off camera the more they will feel invested.  Verisimilitude is a wonderful thing at keep players involved.

To me dungeons are interesting and challenging tests of skill but they are in a way the PCs "job".  What is happening in the world is their life and often they will be motivated to get involved which can lead to other adventures.  I've had PCs so liking an NPC that I thought the group was going to cry when he fell.  Let me say they avenged him.  So NPCs that are not enemies are vital to making a game fun.


----------



## pemerton

darkbard said:


> Years ago, when I mostly ran bog-standard D&D (Basic, AD&D, 3E, and early 4E), I viewed preplay notes mainly as constraints on the GM and a facilitator for keeping the PCs within the bounds of the story (be it module, AP, or home design).



So can we talk a bit about how _preplay notes keep the PCs within the bounds of the story?_

To elaborate the question a little bit:

* The notes are (to a significant extent, at least) private to the GM, and (I believe, given your reference to modules) contain things like descriptions of imaginary people, descriptions of imaginary places, and descriptions of posited imaginary events that have not yet "occurred" in the shared fiction;

* The PCs are imagined entities whose actions are, in some fashion, declared by game participants who don't have access to the notes;

* So what exactly does the GM _do_, at the table, which means that the upshot of my second dot point is informed by the material described in my first dot point?


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> A more useful form of the question may be - "As a GM, how do you structure or use notes during a session of play to enhance the play experience?"



Feel free to start you own thread then!

I'm interested in answers to the question that I asked. They are useful to me.


----------



## BookTenTiger

My favorite kinds of notes to prepare are narrative truths about the world, factions, enemies, etc. I usually have a few lists of these on a google doc called "Things I Want the Characters to Know."

Whenever a character searches in an unusual place, talks with an NPC I wasn't expecting, or it's just an opportune time, I'll drop in something from these lists.

I remember one adventure the characters were in a manor owned by a vampire during a big party. They decided to do some sleuthing. One character started rifling through a bookshelf, another started talking with party-goers, and a third found a room used as a trash dump. They all rolled very well on their various skills.

I opened up my doc as was able to drop in some juicy tidbits about their vampiric host, the haunted graveyard outside the manor, and a possible side quest in an upcoming location.

Lots of fun!


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Brevity can be (is) just fine, if it's what the table as a whole wants. Especially if you have players who particularly enjoy char-build, it gives them a chance to try out more ideas.



Of course.  My point is simply that to play new characters or run out new concepts doesn't need a whole new campaign or game.  All you need to do is retire or kill off the character(s) you're playing now and have at it.


prabe said:


> I'd say the players are contributing at least something in the direction of authorship, if the DMs are being constrained to run adventures that fit the PCs' needs/stories.



Different definition, I guess.  When I see "authorship" I think of the designing/writing of those actual adventures, which players in general don't do.


prabe said:


> FWIW, the campaigns I run (which I gather are quite different than the ones your group runs) behave similarly: They start with an instigating event which I write up, then future arcs tend to be based more on the PCs' actions and goals.



In a small way, and over a longer term, mine aren't all that different...ideally.  In practice, and at any point during the campaign, sometimes the players don't have any good ideas what to do next and so I'll run them into something; and-or other times one player might have a good idea what to do next but can't talk the others into it.


----------



## darkbard

pemerton said:


> So can we talk a bit about how _preplay notes keep the PCs within the bounds of the story?_
> 
> To elaborate the question a little bit:
> 
> * The notes are (to a significant extent, at least) private to the GM, and (I believe, given your reference to modules) contain things like descriptions of imaginary people, descriptions of imaginary places, and descriptions of posited imaginary events that have not yet "occurred" in the shared fiction;
> 
> * The PCs are imagined entities whose actions are, in some fashion, declared by game participants who don't have access to the notes;
> 
> * So what exactly does the GM _do_, at the table, which means that the upshot of my second dot point is informed by the material described in my first dot point?




In my opinion, approaching GM notes from this mindset (as I once did) is an invitation to the GM to guide or curate the fiction as they imagine it playing out in their head in advance. Less generously, such notes can serve as an invitation to Force and Illusionism.

They are means for the GM to stake out limits on PC action declaration via fiat or sometimes subtle manipulation to "keep the game on track."

Of course, notes need not be such. But I do think they provide pressure: if the GM wants to tell _this_ cool story, adhere to this plan, with very little variance.

I'm not interested these days in play oriented around PCs exploring GM precrafted plot. And so I find such notes an unwelcome hindrance, by and large, to playing to find out.[/i]


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> There's also the question of what qualifies as a "story arc" to various people.
> 
> I'm in a group that's going through Rime of the Frost Maiden.  In one session we are hunting down a vicious moose, and in the next, we are booting kobolds out of a mine.  These look and play like a mix of or random adventures, though in each one there's a tidbit that leads to the whole.
> 
> If your AP is a single dungeon crawl, yes, it will get tiresome.  If your AP is built out of several different threads that combine to bring to an overall culmination, it may feel less constrained, as the PCs activities and concerns change several times over the short term



I don't know RotFM at all so I'll have to take your word for how it's designed.

That said, it can feel constraining if every adventure, no matter how diverse, still somehow ends up pointing at good ol' Bobby McNasty as being behind it all.  There, I'd just want to get Bobby out of the way as fast as possible so as to get on to something that really is different, even just stand-alone adventures (which IMO are often the best anyway).

_Princes of the Apocalypse_, which I'm more familiar with, can suffer from this if not approached well: one adventure just leads (quite literally - they're joined together by passages!) to the next.  In the long run, this would get really dull.  Far better IMO to break PotA out into however many (15?) little adventures and place those independently around your setting, i.e. remove all the connecting passages; and then throw in some unrelated adventures or even have a second side-along story arc going to keep things fresh as you jumped back and forth.  

The campaign might end up going something like, with each line being an adventure:

PotA 1
PotA 2
Other Arc 1
Stand-alone (with a minor tie-in to Other Arc)
PotA 3
Other Arc 2 but ties in with and leads directly to PotA 4
Other Arc 3
Stand-alone
PotA 5/Other Arc 4 - for one adventure the two arcs merge before again separating
Other Arc 5
etc.

And so you end up with at least a 25-35 adventure campaign* rather than just 15; and yes this would probably mean you'd have to slow down the character advancement rate, but IMO that's always a good thing to do anyway.

* - plus whatever in-game events etc. the players and-or characters want to follow up on later.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> My one group has been together for 12 years, we're on our 7th campaign together.  No one has DMed for more than 2 years straight.  We've only hit max level once, the other games ended just because the DM felt like their story was over, and it was time to move on.  No one has much interest in playing in the same world for a decade-plus.
> 
> Brevity is totally fine.  I know that some people like consistency, but I favor novelty.  I'm ready for something new after a few dozen sessions.



Right. This thread doesn't have a normative focus - _what ought to be the point of a GM's notes?_ It's about eliciting descriptions of varied practices.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> My GM notes usually focus on details of the setting that will enrich my ability to present various scenes.



Thank you for talking about _what you do with your notes as a GM, _and explaining _how you link your pre-play writing to the stuff you do during play_.



uzirath said:


> Sometimes this includes reminders about game-mechanics that are likely to come into play. Here's an example of notes from a game this winter taking place during a festival. The community was into gambling, so I pulled together some ideas for games and looked up how the gambling skill is handled mechanically.



Suppose that a player suggests a different gambling game. Suppose s/he even knows (or claims to know) more about the cultures you're drawing on then you do! Would your notes set a limit on the players implicit action declaration (_No, you can't find a game of X. The only game they're playing here is Y._)? Or would you adapt or even depart from your notes?



uzirath said:


> Other things include lots of potential names of NPCs, sometimes with quick notes about personality or relevant abilities.



Do you use these NPCs simply to frame scenes? Or can they also be used to provide the content of action declarations? Do players get to know about them in advance and make them the objects of action declarations or other contributions to the fiction (eg _I want to meet up with so-and-so?_ or _Given that we've just come back from the Hills of the Moon, wouldn't so-and-so be wanting to looks us up to see what we learned?_)?


----------



## pemerton

jmartkdr2 said:


> I pre-plan a number of things that way I can pull up a card rather than make it up on the spot. This is why I prep npc's by knowing motivations, personalities, etc.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I also like to over-prep a few drop-in options: I'll prep a few wandering monster encounters just in case I need a quick battle, even if I only know the general area that battle will take place i



If you have preplanned a NPC, or a place, or an event, _what is the process, or the trigger_ for describing that NPC or place or event to the players?



Arilyn said:


> Writing notes ahead of time cements the ideas in my head.





Blue said:


> The purpose of a GM's note is to _facilitate play_.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They help the GM remember both lore and immediate needs, NPCs and plots.



Similar to my questions above in this post, are you able to say a bit more about what the relationship is between _these things that the GM imagines prior to play _and _what actually takes place among the participants during the course of play_?



prabe said:


> the notes I write as prep. Names of NPCs, places, and such. Situations as they exist at the start of session (or when encountered). If I'm anticipating combat, lists of the opposition. Treasure, if I'm placing it.



And similar again: are you able to explain how these notes actually get used during play?


----------



## pemerton

John Dallman said:


> The setting is not a sandbox: the PCs get given missions, although they have a lot of freedom in how they carry them out. It is not a truly hard SF setting, but it's a lot closer to that than Star Trek or Star Wars (which I'd be utterly unwilling to run, or play in). This means that figuring out how to accomplish things is definitely required.
> 
> One of the simpler points was that the ship they were escorting to Vesta is much larger than their own ship, and has lower acceleration, but much more delta-V (semi-hard SF). The obvious solution, given the numbers, was for the small warship to be refuelled by the large passenger ship, and I suggested this to the players. They took up the idea (they've done this before), but if they'd come up with a different plan, I'd have been happy with that.



Are you able to say how _the players figuring out how to accomplish things_ relates to your notes?

Your example makes it seem like your notes establish the possible solution-space for figuring these things out. Is that right?


----------



## pemerton

TheAlkaizer said:


> My notes generally fall within two categories:
> 
> I'll have some bullet points of things I have prepared. The general structure. Places, events or challenges they will _most likely_ encounter. Ex: last session they were on their way to meet a crimelord. In most cases, he'll offer them a mission. This will most likely lead them to this town. Obviously, sometimes things don't go that way.
> I tend to write a few keywords for descriptions of places and locations. A few words, things they can see, hear, smell or touch. It's generally half a dozen keywords so I don't forget stuff.
> I tend to have the names of my NPCs, a few words of descriptions and one word that describes their attitude or personality for when I roleplay them: snarky, nervous, bored, insulting, helpful. This is especially true when my players are in or will be in a city with a ton of NPCs.
> Lore and exposition. If I know that I'll have go give some important exposition or lore, I write down the information I want to give. For example, in one of my Starfinder sessions, my party was on the verge of making their way into a criminal's room in an hotel. I knew that they would find: proof of his association with a terrorist organization. I also knew what information they needed to get from that to be able to move further in the plot. I didn't know how they would get it. But some of it could be shared through simple Recall Knowledge rolls depending on where the PCs were from, what their backgrounds are, etc.
> Sometimes I'll write down quick reminders of some rules I don't use often but might come handy. For example, the skills in Starfinder have pretty precise cases of use. You don't just guess the DC. A specific distance to jump will lead to a specific DC. That's something I might scribble.
> Generic content. I always have at least one combat encounters, one interesting NPC and one interesting event that can be plugged anywhere. A traveling merchant that can show up anytime, a thief that steals their purse as he passes them, etc. These can be used to fill some voids and are especially useful if the session goes in a very random direction.



That sounds like the main function of your notes is to enable you to tell the players what the outcomes of their action declarations are.

In the case of your first dot point, it also seems that you use your notes to tell the players what their PC goals are, which shapes what their action declarations will be.

Have I understood that properly?


----------



## John Dallman

pemerton said:


> Are you able to say how _the players figuring out how to accomplish things_ relates to your notes?
> 
> Your example makes it seem like your notes establish the possible solution-space for figuring these things out. Is that right?



Thinking about the forthcoming situation, I noticed the problem, and a bit more thought revealed a reasonable solution, as well as a poor one that I didn't write down. So I had established that the problem did have solutions. I was not limiting the PCs to ones I'd thought of. 

I have, on occasion, set PCs problems I didn't have a solution for, when they emerged from the ongoing story. So far, they've always found solutions.


----------



## pemerton

John Dallman said:


> Thinking about the forthcoming situation, I noticed the problem, and a bit more thought revealed a reasonable solution, as well as a poor one that I didn't write down. So I had established that the problem did have solutions. I was not limiting the PCs to ones I'd thought of.
> 
> I have, on occasion, set PCs problems I didn't have a solution for, when they emerged from the ongoing story. So far, they've always found solutions.



Sure. But am I right in thinking that your notes establish the solution-space?

For instance, suppose the players invent a solution that involves access to 10 kg of copper wire of 5mm or less thickness. Are your notes the basis for resolving the action declaration _We obtain for ourselves 10 kg of copper wire of 5 mm or less thickness_?


----------



## tetrasodium

pemerton said:


> Sure. But am I right in thinking that your notes establish the solution-space?
> 
> For instance, suppose the players invent a solution that involves access to 10 kg of copper wire of 5mm or less thickness. Are your notes the basis for resolving the action declaration _We obtain for ourselves 10 kg of copper wire of 5 mm or less thickness_?



that's obviously a solution likely outside the rules, but this would help offer guidance to me for leveraging other stuff as a gm



Spoiler: fate core golden & silver rule









In a way it's an extended rule zero


----------



## pemerton

tetrasodium said:


> that's obviously a solution likely outside the rules



Well in the game @John Dallman was describing it seemed like some of the problems are technical ones (eg managing the joint travel of two spaceships with different acceleration and fuel capacities). So I think it is possible that there are going to be some problems where the solution will be materials like the copper wire I conjectured. I can imagine this sort of thing coming up in my Classic Traveller game. It's not outside the rules.


----------



## tetrasodium

pemerton said:


> Well in the game @John Dallman was describing it seemed like some of the problems are technical ones (eg managing the joint travel of two spaceships with different acceleration and fuel capacities). So I think it is possible that there are going to be some problems where the solution will be materials like the copper wire I conjectured. I can imagine this sort of thing coming up in my Classic Traveller game. It's not outside the rules.



Look at the gold & silver rules there, it's about deciding on the thing your trying to accomplish & then leveraging the existing rules to fit the goal by bending them as needed.  It sounds like that is extremely specific wire needed & I'm not super familiar with traveler but it might be reasonable to break down one thing (ie sensors, life support, etc) to recover the wire needed & shift the problem from a dead end ~"we can't move together" kind of thing to some other interesting problem most or all of the group can participate in handling/suffering from in their own ways


----------



## Arilyn

pemerton said:


> If you have preplanned a NPC, or a place, or an event, _what is the process, or the trigger_ for describing that NPC or place or event to the players?
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to my questions above in this post, are you able to say a bit more about what the relationship is between _these things that the GM imagines prior to play _and _what actually takes place among the participants during the course of play_?
> 
> And similar again: are you able to explain how these notes actually get used during play?



From a purely mechanical perspective I have stat blocks on hand for conflicts. As mentioned, notes help ground things in my head, so I know who is likely to be in area, or the name of the shopkeeper or that homeless man who is actually a faery, etc. Writing helps me think.

Other than stat blocks, I don't actually consult my notes, even though they're sitting there. By the end of the session, the adventure often has very little resemblance to what I wrote down. So, I use them during play as a very rough sketch of places, people and potential problems, but at the table play becomes much more collaborative. Things happen, or players do things or have ideas that we run with, destroying my prepped plans completely and utterly. That's why, even if I'm using an AP, it becomes pretty unrecognizable pretty quickly. 

I've learned not to do extensive planning, but still do some notes. So using them as a psychological prop would be their main purpose. 

I guess, I'd have to say when I prep for games, it's for my peace of mind. Once I start GMing, notes fall to the wayside.

In terms of preplanned encounters I know I want to have occur, I have those in my head cause I already wrote them down. I don't look during play, except maybe for name. These characters and encounters may morph organically depending on what's happening. A change might feel better.


----------



## John Dallman

pemerton said:


> Sure. But am I right in thinking that your notes establish the solution-space?
> 
> For instance, suppose the players invent a solution that involves access to 10 kg of copper wire of 5mm or less thickness. Are your notes the basis for resolving the action declaration _We obtain for ourselves 10 kg of copper wire of 5 mm or less thickness_?



If that was a solution I thought of in preparations, yes. If not, not. The purpose of notes, for me, is getting things started, not controlling the content of the session.


----------



## jmartkdr2

pemerton said:


> If you have preplanned a NPC, or a place, or an event, _what is the process, or the trigger_ for describing that NPC or place or event to the players?



When the pc's encounter them?


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> Suppose that a player suggests a different gambling game. Suppose s/he even knows (or claims to know) more about the cultures you're drawing on then you do! Would your notes set a limit on the players implicit action declaration (_No, you can't find a game of X. The only game they're playing here is Y._)? Or would you adapt or even depart from your notes?




In the context of this sort of scenario, my notes rarely "set a limit on the players implicit action declaration." I would absolutely include games that they suggest. I think my players are fairly traditional in the sense that they like to explore a fictional world where I generate most of the scenery and NPCs. I present situations with potential conflicts, but the PCs often come up with their own conflicts or subvert/invert my ideas. I do sometimes have notes that might limit player actions if they delve into a dungeon or something like that. I have not (yet) experimented with styles of play that might allow players to, for example, suggest what might be behind a given door in a dungeon. In town, on the other hand, everyone at the table knows that I don't have every building mapped and keyed, so we often collaborate on describing locations, NPCs, etc.  



pemerton said:


> Do you use these NPCs simply to frame scenes? Or can they also be used to provide the content of action declarations? Do players get to know about them in advance and make them the objects of action declarations or other contributions to the fiction (eg _I want to meet up with so-and-so?_ or _Given that we've just come back from the Hills of the Moon, wouldn't so-and-so be wanting to looks us up to see what we learned?_)?




If I'm understanding these distinctions correctly, I think the players are welcome to make the NPCs the objects of action declarations. They definitely say things like, "I want to meet up with so-and-so" regularly. Part of the tension of the episode with Orm (Ylsa's father) was that the party became aware that he was in town and they _thought_ he knew that they were there too, but no official communication had occurred. There was much debate about whether they should initiate contact, or wait to be contacted, or skip town (i.e., avoiding contact). I was happy to run with any possibility.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> I don't know RotFM at all so I'll have to take your word for how it's designed.




I can only speak of what I have seen so far - I'm a player, not the GM, so I haven't read the thing.



Lanefan said:


> That said, it can feel constraining if every adventure, no matter how diverse, still somehow ends up pointing at good ol' Bobby McNasty as being behind it all.  There, I'd just want to get Bobby out of the way as fast as possible so as to get on to something that really is different, even just stand-alone adventures (which IMO are often the best anyway).




So, some of this I get - if you are stuck in basically the same physical environment, solving the same kinds of problems over and over, that's monotonous.  I'm not much of a fan of mega-dungeons for that reason.  But so far, we haven't had two sessions in a row that were the same place, with the same problems or activities or tactical considerations.  

And it isn't so much that there's one villain that's "behind it all" (though, admittedly, its presence is pervasive in the area), so much as we have decided that we want to end the bad guy, and that most of what we do serves the end of finding out how to accomplish that.

But, even if it were one bad guy behind it all, I don't find that as a sticking point.  

Like, say the party were doing some tomb raiding, and have learned that this series of tombs is going to lead to some big nasty lich that is, long term a threat to a nation of people.  Okay.  Taking time off from that series of tomb-raids to undertake a side mission for a local merchant... that turns out to be more tomb raid that just isn't related to the lich, is not, for me, an improvement.


----------



## pemerton

tetrasodium said:


> Look at the gold & silver rules there, it's about deciding on the thing your trying to accomplish & then leveraging the existing rules to fit the goal by bending them as needed.  It sounds like that is extremely specific wire needed & I'm not super familiar with traveler but it might be reasonable to break down one thing (ie sensors, life support, etc) to recover the wire needed & shift the problem from a dead end ~"we can't move together" kind of thing to some other interesting problem most or all of the group can participate in handling/suffering from in their own ways



I'm not really following your posts. @John Dallman posted about a GURPS game. I have never played GURPS but I have a general sense of how it works as a system. I think it's similar enough to Classic Traveller in how it handles action resolution that I can extrapolate from my experience with Traveller to think about GURPS play. That is reinforced by John Dallman's description, upthread, of how the problem of acceleration and fuel across two spaceships was resolved. A similar sort of thing could happen in Traveller.

I don't see how Fate's Golden and Silver Rules shed any light on this, or on the role that GM prep notes play in John Dallman's game.



John Dallman said:


> If that was a solution I thought of in preparations, yes. If not, not. The purpose of notes, for me, is getting things started, not controlling the content of the session.



Suppose the players come up with the copper wire solution that you haven't anticipated. And you haven't got anything in your notes about copper wire. How do you handle the ensuing action declarations?

In my Traveller game the PCs have come into possession of a second starship, which powers its jump drives by means of a large solar panel that generates energy that is stored in capacitors that then power the jump drive. The PCs wanted to jump that ship but didn't have time for the charging to take place (multiple weeks). So they refuelled their other ship with an ordinary drive (fusion, we assume, though the game rules never quite come out and say it), burned the fuel to power up its jump drive, and then transferred the power from their standard ship to the capacitors on the solar-powered ship.

This required a seriously heavy-duty cable to link the drives of the two ships. Hence the players declared, as an action, that they were acquiring such a cable. I can't remember now exactly how we resolved that, but I know that my notes established that the world in the orbit of which this was happening was tech level 8 (so mostly above current earth), non-industrial but with a population of a bit over 100,000 people and an Imperial Navy base forming part of a high quality starport with repair facilities as well as the ability to construct non-starships. And play had already established that the PCs were on good terms with the commander of the naval base. So I don't think I even called for a check to confirm the availability of the cable the PCs wanted; I just allowed the players to establish that they acquired it and used it (there was no doubting the PC group had the necessary jury-rigging skills to pull off a jump drive jump start).

That would be an example of my notes shaping, though not fully determining, the solution space to the problem that the players had posed themselves (ie how to jump their new ship without engaging in solar recharging?).


----------



## Ovinomancer

I'm running a 5e AP right now, Descent into Avernus.  I'm absolutely using those notes to constrain the solution space at many levels.  Now, I'm not a huge fan of this (anymore), so I'm available to solutions that aren't in the notes, but scene framing is hard coded, and largely the next scene is hard coded by the notes.  All of the APs, even the ones hailed as "sandboxes" like Curse of Strahd or the middle of Storm King's Thunder are really still straight up railroads -- you might be able to wander around the station a bit at stops, or take a taxi into the city for some sightseeing, but when the whistle blows, it's straight to the next stop.  This appeals to the skilled play angle, I'd say, in that the challenge isn't really to engage in protagonism, but instead efficiently defeat the challenges presented in the AP.  @Manbearcat did a good job with this summation above.

As I alluded to, this isn't exactly my preferred approach, but my players bought it for me because they thought it would be less work (I'm traveling quite a bit for work lately). It's not, and I find @Emerikol's statement upthread that APs are less work to only be true in contrast to his truly herculean amount of effort into a game.  I spend far more time on an AP prep than I do on any of my own stuff, including when I've run Big Plot and hexcrawl sandbox games (both within the last 5-6 years).


----------



## pemerton

jmartkdr2 said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have preplanned a NPC, or a place, or an event, _what is the process, or the trigger_ for describing that NPC or place or event to the players?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the pc's encounter them?
Click to expand...


OK, so what is the process for determining _when the PCs encounter them_?

Suppose the GM has a note which channels some mix of the Odyssey and REH Conan and reads: _The temple of Olath is of predominantly black marble with the occasional lurid green mottling. The high priest is pleasant enough company, but at his core as cruel as his divine master. He may try to trap unsuspecting travellers to sacrifice them on Olath's profane altar! _And then maybe there's a map and key to the temple, and a stat block for the evil high priest.

There are very many ways that such a note could be used in play. Just as a handful of examples:

* it could be used to frame a situation (_After many days lost at sea, you are able to anchor your galley in a sheltered bay. The beach slopes up quite steeply, and above the beach is a hill. At the top of the hill sits what looks like a temple that glistens black in the sunlight._);

* it could be used to establish a consequence of a failed check (eg an orienteering check, or teleportation roll, or similar sort of manoeuvre is failed, and the GM narrates _Instead of arriving safely at the destination you had hoped, you find yourself lost in the swamp - but through the mists you can see a building all of black that looks like a temple . . .)_;

* it could be used to determine an outcome of an action declaration (one of the PCs has been captured by the high priest of Olath, and the player of another PC declares _I want to sneak in and rescue my friend. I believe temples of Olath often have a concealed way in and out. Can I find one here?_ The GM might then consult the previously-drawn map, note the absence of any concealed way drawn on that map, and answer "No").​
There are other ways, too, and each of the above has "sub-ways" - eg a GM might use notes (like a "world map" or "region map") to decide what are the possible suite of consequences for a failed orienteering check, and this might help the GM decide whether or not the Temple of Olath is a possible narration on this particular occasion of failure.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> IPart of the tension of the episode with Orm (Ylsa's father) was that *the party became aware that he was in town*



Did the bolded bit happen because you (the GM) told them something that was in your notes?


----------



## pming

Hiya!

TL;DR = "Notes about things that are ongoing to the campaign as a whole, and the current PC's predicament specifically".

For me... mental "memory-prod" relating to stuff going on behind the scenes or that has happened, or will happen without intervention.

So I might have a note of "Belaraz the Cutpurse has still been successful in tailing the PC's. He's seen them talking with both the Mayor and the High Paladin of the Order of Tyr, so he knows they are probably all working together. He will report back to Guildmaster Khorbal after the PC's go to sleep for the night".

That gives me an idea of what the Thieves Guild is doing in regards to the PC's poking their noses in their business. It also lets me have 'targets' if the PC's get up to 'no good' and start to do drastic things (like arresting/killing thieves), then maybe the Mayor's family gets threatened or his house burned down. Or if they do nothing, then the Guildmaster will be informed of everything the PC's have been doing up until the end of that day.

I also make notes of important events that happened in the previous session; like poisons, diseases, curses, etc. that haven't been "realized" yet by the PC's. These I usually put in red at the top of the page. These are the things that instill a large amount of, hmmm.... campaign continuity of time. This, the time in the campaign thing, is one of the worst tragedies of 5e; 5e only seems to pay, at best, lip service to this. It's why there are very little "permanent drawbacks" in the game (re: save or die, debilitating diseases that change a PC in some permanent way, guidelines for long-term projects like building a keep, church or tower, etc). Fifth edition has "glossed over" these as being "boring and not fun"...focusing on a more action-movie style of play. This has, to me, greatly harmed the integrity of a true Campaign (which is why people think of a D&D Campaign as a set story line that takes characters from 1st level to 20th level, and ends). I'll take the never-ending-Greyhawk campaign that I started back in 1981 over a $70 hard-to-read full colour 'Adventure Path Campaign' any day of the week! 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> I can only speak of what I have seen so far - I'm a player, not the GM, so I haven't read the thing.



Once your crew have finished it, it'd be interesting to know whether the DM is running it stock or has mixed things up a little for variety.


Umbran said:


> So, some of this I get - if you are stuck in basically the same physical environment, solving the same kinds of problems over and over, that's monotonous.  I'm not much of a fan of mega-dungeons for that reason.  But so far, we haven't had two sessions in a row that were the same place, with the same problems or activities or tactical considerations.
> 
> And it isn't so much that there's one villain that's "behind it all" (though, admittedly, its presence is pervasive in the area), so much as we have decided that we want to end the bad guy, and that most of what we do serves the end of finding out how to accomplish that.
> 
> But, even if it were one bad guy behind it all, I don't find that as a sticking point.



I've been in games where it's been a sticking point for me - "It points back to this guy _again_? Can we just go nuke him already?".


Umbran said:


> Like, say the party were doing some tomb raiding, and have learned that this series of tombs is going to lead to some big nasty lich that is, long term a threat to a nation of people.  Okay.  Taking time off from that series of tomb-raids to undertake a side mission for a local merchant... that turns out to be more tomb raid that just isn't related to the lich, is not, for me, an improvement.



Oh, I agree.  I'm thinking more where the merchant mission is an actual change of pace - instead of tombs it's a forest adventure, say, where the opponents are living breathing creatures that Clerics can't turn but Fighters can make bleed. 

And that another reason to change things up: some characters or classes are simply stronger or weaker in some adventure types than others.  Changing up the adventure types gives everyone a chance to shine and-or be less effective for a while, and ideally it all more or less evens out in the end.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> I spend far more time on an AP prep than I do on any of my own stuff, including when I've run Big Plot and hexcrawl sandbox games (both within the last 5-6 years).




As it intersects with my #4 above (and my elaboration), this is a key point.

An AP run like this requires tremendous prep (certainly compared to my typical prep) in the same way that exhaustively constructing a multi-tiered megadungeon would involve.  

For this sort of Skilled Play to be the apex priority of play, you have to nail down everything from the foundations to the finishings.  Players are working through an objectively framed, fully-fleshed obstacle course of danger/hazards/plights et al.  To play Skillfully here means to solve that obstacle course efficiently and robustly.  GM's need to have the material pre-constructed (just like a dungeon) and fully assimilated for the players to both edify and exemplify their skill.  This is why GM notes need to have uses of Force available to constrain the players to the obstacle course and the continuity of the obstacle course (because, unlike in a dungeon, they may not know when they're straying).  

Its a huge undertaking cognitively.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> As I alluded to, this isn't exactly my preferred approach, but my players bought it for me because they thought it would be less work (I'm traveling quite a bit for work lately). It's not, and I find @Emerikol's statement upthread that APs are less work to only be true in contrast to his truly herculean amount of effort into a game.  I spend far more time on an AP prep than I do on any of my own stuff, including when I've run Big Plot and hexcrawl sandbox games (both within the last 5-6 years).




Speaking for myself, I very much concur with this statement given my experience.
AP's are without doubt more work for me than when I do my own stuff, this could be due to my failing of wanting to include the myriad of ideas on the net about the specific AP.

Unlike Ovinomancer though I am a fan of AP's - although Descent into Avernus did not appeal to me.


----------



## John Dallman

pemerton said:


> Suppose the players come up with the copper wire solution that you haven't anticipated. And you haven't got anything in your notes about copper wire. How do you handle the ensuing action declarations?



At that point, the other major source for the campaign, the _GURPS Transhuman Space_ series of sourcebooks, comes into play. That provides me with quite detailed background for the game, most of it not specific to scenarios. 

Copper wire is a commonplace industrial material, and when they were faced with the problem of ships with different performance, the characters were at a naval base in Earth orbit. So if they needed ordinary cabling, for a purpose in accordance with the mission the Navy had given them, the base would be willing and able to supply it. If it was very unusual cable, getting it would take longer, because the Navy would have to get it manufactured, but provided the PCs had a sensible reason for needing it, they'd get it. Their successes over the course of the campaign have made the Navy look good, so it is quite helpful to them.


----------



## tetrasodium

John Dallman said:


> At that point, the other major source for the campaign, the _GURPS Transhuman Space_ series of sourcebooks, comes into play. That provides me with quite detailed background for the game, most of it not specific to scenarios.
> 
> Copper wire is a commonplace industrial material, and when they were faced with the problem of ships with different performance, the characters were at a naval base in Earth orbit. So if they needed ordinary cabling, for a purpose in accordance with the mission the Navy had given them, the base would be willing and able to supply it. If it was very unusual cable, getting it would take longer, because the Navy would have to get it manufactured, but provided the PCs had a sensible reason for needing it, they'd get it. Their successes over the course of the campaign have made the Navy look good, so it is quite helpful to them.



This is why I assume the wire situation is an in the field need it now but cant just get from the rack situation that could warrant cannibalizing it from some other situation when o brought up fate's gold & silver rule.


----------



## pemerton

@John Dallman, did my description of the cable episode from my Traveller play make sense to you, or seem reasonably familiar in approach?


----------



## pemerton

pming said:


> I might have a note of "Belaraz the Cutpurse has still been successful in tailing the PC's. He's seen them talking with both the Mayor and the High Paladin of the Order of Tyr, so he knows they are probably all working together. He will report back to Guildmaster Khorbal after the PC's go to sleep for the night".
> 
> That gives me an idea of what the Thieves Guild is doing in regards to the PC's poking their noses in their business. It also lets me have 'targets' if the PC's get up to 'no good' and start to do drastic things (like arresting/killing thieves), then maybe the Mayor's family gets threatened or his house burned down. Or if they do nothing, then the Guildmaster will be informed of everything the PC's have been doing up until the end of that day.



Can you say a little more about how this relates to actual play? What difference does it make to what happens at the table that you as GM have written down all this stuff about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?


----------



## John Dallman

pemerton said:


> @John Dallman, did my description of the cable episode from my Traveller play make sense to you, or seem reasonably familiar in approach?



It made sense for Traveller, as far as I understand that game. But I think I may be missing some aspect of what you're talking about.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> This appeals to the skilled play angle, I'd say, in that the challenge isn't really to engage in protagonism, but instead efficiently defeat the challenges presented in the AP.  @Manbearcat did a good job with this summation above.



It's generalizations like this that get people angry with you.  I get you like your style but you constantly misrepresent the motivations and payoffs of my style.   You honestly don't know what you are talking about which is why I present my arguments as if you don't understand my style.  You may claim to play my way on occasion but based on what you say I don't see you really playing my way.

Skilled play is a thing unto itself but it in no way impacts roleplaying or protagonism.  You can have it or not have it.  It's more of an opt in.   So sure in an AP that has no world under it and devotes everything to skilled play lacks the roleplaying elements.  By definition.   That is just one tiny case of skilled play.

On the other hand, I would say that I engage in a campaign based upon skilled play and yet the roleplaying is very deep and the protagonism is quite strong in my games.  There is zero railroading in my campaigns.   Skilled play is just a characteristic of adventures.   Player agency is very much front and center in my games.   So having a game where skilled play is one ingredient doesn't imply anything else.  Think of it like sugar.  You can make a cake or a pie with sugar.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> Speaking for myself, I very much concur with this statement given my experience.
> AP's are without doubt more work for me than when I do my own stuff, this could be due to my failing of wanting to include the myriad of ideas on the net about the specific AP.
> 
> Unlike Ovinomancer though I am a fan of AP's - although Descent into Avernus did not appeal to me.



If I truly disliked them, I wouldn't be running one.  There just aren't near the top of my preference list.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> It's generalizations like this that get people angry with you.  I get you like your style but you constantly misrepresent the motivations and payoffs of my style.   You honestly don't know what you are talking about which is why I present my arguments as if you don't understand my style.  You may claim to play my way on occasion but based on what you say I don't see you really playing my way.
> 
> Skilled play is a thing unto itself but it in no way impacts roleplaying or protagonism.  You can have it or not have it.  It's more of an opt in.   So sure in an AP that has no world under it and devotes everything to skilled play lacks the roleplaying elements.  By definition.   That is just one tiny case of skilled play.
> 
> On the other hand, I would say that I engage in a campaign based upon skilled play and yet the roleplaying is very deep and the protagonism is quite strong in my games.  There is zero railroading in my campaigns.   Skilled play is just a characteristic of adventures.   Player agency is very much front and center in my games.   So having a game where skilled play is one ingredient doesn't imply anything else.  Think of it like sugar.  You can make a cake or a pie with sugar.




I don’t understand your response here.

@Ovinomancer clearly was talking about what I was talking about above which you seemed to (at least nominally) agree with; the AP as my # 4 in my original post here...Skilled Play exclusively like Gloomhaven or a CRPG.
*
He not only wasn’t talking about your games*, but he actually went out of his way to dilleneate your described play from the type of play depicted in his post (which I spoke of upthread and you didn’t find terribly controversial).

The only contentious point in his post (which I don’t find contentious at all) was his disagreement with the position that running an AP wasn’t prep-intensive (it clearly is).


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Can you say a little more about how this relates to actual play? What difference does it make to what happens at the table that you as GM have written down all this stuff about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?



I can't answer for him but for me knowing what is going on behind the scenes in the sandbox helps in interpreting the response to PC actions.  I don't just make it up.  I make an informed decision based upon the knowledge of the environment I have.  It's a combination of knowledge about the current state of affairs and the history behind it.   Thus if the Thieves guildmaster is a calm cool customer or a hot head, that might dictate the sort of action that is taken if the PCs cross them.  It's all just feeder information when the GM is figuring out what happens as a result of PC actions.   I find, in my experience, that having this backdrop makes the game seem more real and authentic.  I guess verisimilitude is the word.  Does the world seem to have a life of its own outside the group.  Do things appear to happen and time pass around the group even without them prodding the environment.

A good example might be the group deciding to take a month of downtime.  I will consult my calendar and figure out what is going to happen during that month in the world and to the degree the players would experience it I let them know.   It's like having consistent holidays and festivals.  If the players see a particular festival that happens every year happen right on the day it is supposed to happen as opposed to whenever it might fit some plot, they players will feel like the world is real.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> I don’t understand your response here.
> 
> @Ovinomancer clearly was talking about what I was talking about above which you seemed to (at least nominally) agree with; the AP as my # 4 in my original post here...Skilled Play exclusively like Gloomhaven or a CRPG.
> 
> *He not only wasn’t talking about your games*, but he actually went out of his way to dilleneate your described play from the type of play depicted in his post (which I spoke of upthread and you didn’t find terribly controversial).
> 
> The only contentious point in his post (which I don’t find contentious at all) was his disagreement with the position that running an AP wasn’t prep-intensive (it clearly is).




Well, the way he stated it was that "skilled play" games are typically railroaded APs.  It's fine to say that railroaded APs often use skilled play as a payoff.  But skilled play does not necessarily lead to any style of game besides skilled play.   You can have a deep immersive world with skilled play or you can have a fully railroaded AP.   It's an independent variable.  I was taking issue with his wording indicating it was a dependent variable.


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> Well, the way he stated it was that "skilled play" games are typically railroaded APs.  It's fine to say that railroaded APs often use skilled play as a payoff.  But skilled play does not necessarily lead to any style of game besides skilled play.   You can have a deep immersive world with skilled play or you can have a fully railroaded AP.   It's an independent variable.  I was taking issue with his wording indicating it was a dependent variable.



It's not dependency, it's just demographics.  Way more people play APs than do OSR style sandboxes.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> It's not dependency, it's just demographics.  Way more people play APs than do OSR style sandboxes.



I know there is no dependency.  My criticism was that he made the connection when there is not one.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Well, the way he stated it was that "skilled play" games are typically railroaded APs.  It's fine to say that railroaded APs often use skilled play as a payoff.  But skilled play does not necessarily lead to any style of game besides skilled play.   You can have a deep immersive world with skilled play or you can have a fully railroaded AP.   It's an independent variable.  I was taking issue with his wording indicating it was a dependent variable.



No, dude, I said APs are typically railroads.  Sheesh.

As far as roleplaying goes, we do that in spades, pretty much in any game we play.  My group plays Gloomhaven, most recently the early access digital version due to COVID, but even there we roleplay.  Skilled play is not the enemy of roleplaying, in any way I understand, although you can absolutely approach it that way.

As for protagonism, it may be that you're not following what is meant by this.  Protagonism is where the dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play.  This doesn't mesh well with your previously stated goals of prep of having a world independent of the characters and having things that happen independent of them, nor that goal that they discover things to do in your setting.  And none of this a dig -- protagonism is a specific play goal, and not a fixed good.  The AP I'm running lacks all protagonism in it's design, and has to, because it cannot anticipate the dramatic needs of any given PC, and so must center the needs of the villains and the NPCs.  It's a perfectly valid approach (clearly I don't have a problem with it).  Now, I've worked with the players to find dramatic needs that fit alongside the already detailed needs, and so have 3/4 PCs that have dramatic needs that will feature at times in the game, which is going past the AP and specifically including material that does so.  From what you've said, you don't do this (write campaign material specifically tailored to the PCs).  If you do, then there's some protagonism there.  If you don't, there's not, and there's nothing at all wrong with this.  Protaganism doesn't mean "good game" and it's lessening does not mean "bad game" -- it's a label for talking about how the game is structured.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> It's not dependency, it's just demographics.  Way more people play APs than do OSR style sandboxes.



And to be honest, this was probably true in Gygax's day as much as it is today.  So it's not a game system issue.  It's a time and commitment issue.  Some just don't have the time and/or committment.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> As for protagonism, it may be that you're not following what is meant by this.  Protagonism is where the dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play.  This doesn't mesh well with your previously stated goals of prep of having a world independent of the characters and having things that happen independent of them, nor that goal that they discover things to do in your setting.  And none of this a dig -- protagonism is a specific play goal, and not a fixed good.  The AP I'm running lacks all protagonism in it's design, and has to, because it cannot anticipate the dramatic needs of any given PC, and so must center the needs of the villains and the NPCs.  It's a perfectly valid approach (clearly I don't have a problem with it).  Now, I've worked with the players to find dramatic needs that fit alongside the already detailed needs, and so have 3/4 PCs that have dramatic needs that will feature at times in the game, which is going past the AP and specifically including material that does so.  From what you've said, you don't do this (write campaign material specifically tailored to the PCs).  If you do, then there's some protagonism there.  If you don't, there's not, and there's nothing at all wrong with this.  Protaganism doesn't mean "good game" and it's lessening does not mean "bad game" -- it's a label for talking about how the game is structured.



I guess I was thinking the players would be free in a sandbox to pursue whatever goals they wanted.  They are of course constrained by what exists in the sandbox.  This may be another one of those game terms that I've not heard that much about until now.  And I didn't mean to imply that protagonism meant good.  I guess I was thinking player agency vs what you are calling protagonism.  

I guess as you describe protagonism the world reshapes itself to fit the players desires and not what would be their characters desires in game?   For example if a player expresses the fact he always wanted to save a princess from a dragon then whatever the world was like before it now has a dragon holding a princess who needs rescued?  Is that what you mean?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I guess I was thinking the players would be free in a sandbox to pursue whatever goals they wanted.  They are of course constrained by what exists in the sandbox.  This may be another one of those game terms that I've not heard that much about until now.  And I didn't mean to imply that protagonism meant good.  I guess I was thinking player agency vs what you are calling protagonism.
> 
> I guess as you describe protagonism the world reshapes itself to fit the players desires and not what would be their characters desires in game?   For example if a player expresses the fact he always wanted to save a princess from a dragon then whatever the world was like before it now has a dragon holding a princess who needs rescued?  Is that what you mean?



No, I wouldn't describe it as such.  I'd say that the game focuses on the PC's dramatic needs.  This seems to be headed back towards our disagreement on when fiction is malleable -- I can't see any change in the GM's notes to be a reshaping of the world, just a changing of the mind prior to introduction in play, but this is really not the case either.  The case is that the GM isn't creating material that doesn't address the dramatic needs of the PCs to begin with.

And, it's not really "the player expresses a desire" so much, because the concept requires that the player be advocating for their PC, which means that saving a princess from a dragon has to be baked into the PC, not a passing player whim for fun.  Protagonism is about the needs of the PC, not the wants of the player.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Once your crew have finished it, it'd be interesting to know whether the DM is running it stock or has mixed things up a little for variety.




She says she's running it stock.  



Lanefan said:


> I've been in games where it's been a sticking point for me - "It points back to this guy _again_? Can we just go nuke him already?".




I mean, the whole region is cursed in darkness, so it isn't like we can really ignore the issue.  And no, we can't "just go nuke them" - we are second level.  We aren't "nuking" much of anything.



Lanefan said:


> And that another reason to change things up: some characters or classes are simply stronger or weaker in some adventure types than others.  Changing up the adventure types gives everyone a chance to shine and-or be less effective for a while, and ideally it all more or less evens out in the end.




On that point, we agree.


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> Did the bolded bit happen because you (the GM) told them something that was in your notes?




Yes. In that episode, Orm was basically a complication that I could drop in at any point. Once introduced, the players could move the story in a variety of different directions.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> As for protagonism, it may be that you're not following what is meant by this.  Protagonism is where the dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play.  This doesn't mesh well with your previously stated goals of prep of having a world independent of the characters and having things that happen independent of them, nor that goal that they discover things to do in your setting.




Well, that would depend _entirely_ on the dramatic needs of the PCs, now wouldn't it?  It isn't like a GM cannot predict a lot of the dramatic needs ahead of time, and prepare for them.  If the PCs are positioned as explorers or investigators, then their dramatic needs will commonly be discovering things, for example.

In addition, for something like an AP, there does not _need_ to be a lack of protagonism in play, if everyone is on board.  I'm playing through Rime of the Frostmaiden right now.  Knowing a small bit about it, I created a character that is by nature positioned to play well into the likely elements of the adventure.  I set myself up to succeed, so that what's happening in the adventure automatically plays to my needs.

A lot of the dramatic needs of protagonism are _of the moment_ - what is happening in one session in terms of pacing and dramatic beats, which is not strongly linked to what's in the world, in a general sense.


----------



## jmartkdr2

pemerton said:


> OK, so what is the process for determining _when the PCs encounter them_?
> 
> Suppose the GM has a note which channels some mix of the Odyssey and REH Conan and reads: _The temple of Olath is of predominantly black marble with the occasional lurid green mottling. The high priest is pleasant enough company, but at his core as cruel as his divine master. He may try to trap unsuspecting travellers to sacrifice them on Olath's profane altar! _And then maybe there's a map and key to the temple, and a stat block for the evil high priest.
> 
> There are very many ways that such a note could be used in play. Just as a handful of examples:
> 
> * it could be used to frame a situation (_After many days lost at sea, you are able to anchor your galley in a sheltered bay. The beach slopes up quite steeply, and above the beach is a hill. At the top of the hill sits what looks like a temple that glistens black in the sunlight._);​​* it could be used to establish a consequence of a failed check (eg an orienteering check, or teleportation roll, or similar sort of manoeuvre is failed, and the GM narrates _Instead of arriving safely at the destination you had hoped, you find yourself lost in the swamp - but through the mists you can see a building all of black that looks like a temple . . .)_;​​* it could be used to determine an outcome of an action declaration (one of the PCs has been captured by the high priest of Olath, and the player of another PC declares _I want to sneak in and rescue my friend. I believe temples of Olath often have a concealed way in and out. Can I find one here?_ The GM might then consult the previously-drawn map, note the absence of any concealed way drawn on that map, and answer "No").​
> There are other ways, too, and each of the above has "sub-ways" - eg a GM might use notes (like a "world map" or "region map") to decide what are the possible suite of consequences for a failed orienteering check, and this might help the GM decide whether or not the Temple of Olath is a possible narration on this particular occasion of failure.



The thing is, from that note (not that mine look like that - they're much less wordy) I could do any of those things. The Temple is in a place. If the pc's are close enough, they can see it and choose to go there or not. The priest has motivations and resources, and so would be doing things to make that happen (not in these notes but would be in mine). This creates rumor the pc's might hear, which they can follow up on or not. A teleport mishap might lad them there, though IME players go out of their way to never have mishaps if those are in any way avoidable.

The map would guide any attempt to do things at the Temple - if there's a back way or not, etc. (Although depending on my mood I might add one if it makes sense that it would be there but isn't on my map.)


I don't have a plan for how to use the notes beyond "if it comes up." I'm not super-consistent about it, since they're just a bunch of ideas for me to use if I think they would be useful.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Well, that would depend _entirely_ on the dramatic needs of the PCs, now wouldn't it?  It isn't like a GM cannot predict a lot of the dramatic needs ahead of time, and prepare for them.  If the PCs are positioned as explorers or investigators, then their dramatic needs will commonly be discovering things, for example.



Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need.  No drama.  This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism -- it's not a thing that having makes your game better.  It makes it different.


Umbran said:


> In addition, for something like an AP, there does not _need_ to be a lack of protagonism in play, if everyone is on board.  I'm playing through Rime of the Frostmaiden right now.  Knowing a small bit about it, I created a character that is by nature positioned to play well into the likely elements of the adventure.  I set myself up to succeed, so that what's happening in the adventure automatically plays to my needs.



This is an interesting point -- is your choice to embrace the known elements of the AP, which are fixed ahead of time and known to you, a form of protagonism?  Is the game now about your PC's dramatic needs, in some way, or have you just adopted the dramatic cues available to you so as to borrow them for yourself?  It's an interesting point.




Umbran said:


> A lot of the dramatic needs of protagonism are _of the moment_ - what is happening in one session in terms of pacing and dramatic beats, which is not strongly linked to what's in the world, in a general sense.



Protagonism isn't about pacing and dramatic beats.  These usually focus on non-protagonist play, where the GM is driving a fun story using pacing and beats to engage the players.  Protagonism is when the game is about the PCs, first and foremost.

I see this argument coming from the same place that says that the GM's notes are the world, even if they haven't been entered into play.  If this is the case, then the game is clearly not about protagonism, it's about discovering the GM's notes.  This is a fine way to play -- I'm playing this way right now -- but it's not about protagonism.

And, again, this is fine.  Protagonism isn't about something you should have in your games.  It's just a descriptor that describes a certain approach -- one where play is about the PCs dramatic needs.  This isn't a positional good, it's just a way to play.


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need.  No drama.  This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism -- it's not a thing that having makes your game better.  It makes it different.



I don't think he's saying little-e exploring, rather a character being [dramatic fanfare]an *Explorer!* [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare]. I mean, what qualifies as a "dramatic need" and why can't being [dramatic fanfare]an *Explorer!* [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare] qualify?


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need.  No drama.  This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism -- it's not a thing that having makes your game better.  It makes it different.
> 
> This is an interesting point -- is your choice to embrace the known elements of the AP, which are fixed ahead of time and known to you, a form of protagonism?  Is the game now about your PC's dramatic needs, in some way, or have you just adopted the dramatic cues available to you so as to borrow them for yourself?  It's an interesting point.



I also thought this was an interesting point.  It's definitely not player choice driven but it is protagonistic it seems.   In fact, I'd say AP's in general are highly party spotlight.   Spotlight is a term I hear all the time as a way to describe campaigns.  The reality is though that the spotlight is either 100% the party or it's 85% the party.  



Ovinomancer said:


> Protagonism isn't about pacing and dramatic beats.  These usually focus on non-protagonist play, where the GM is driving a fun story using pacing and beats to engage the players.  Protagonism is when the game is about the PCs, first and foremost.
> 
> I see this argument coming from the same place that says that the GM's notes are the world, even if they haven't been entered into play.  If this is the case, then the game is clearly not about protagonism, it's about discovering the GM's notes.  This is a fine way to play -- I'm playing this way right now -- but it's not about protagonism.
> 
> And, again, this is fine.  Protagonism isn't about something you should have in your games.  It's just a descriptor that describes a certain approach -- one where play is about the PCs dramatic needs.  This isn't a positional good, it's just a way to play.



I want to disagree here but not be disagreeable about it.  I think again you are inferring something.  Yes the world is a DM known quantity and what the PCs can theoretically do is limited to that setting.  They can't fight Zeus for example if Zeus is not a god in that campaign.  

I like to think that my campaigns are similar to how people approach the real world if the real world was a fantasy world and they were the adventurous sort.   That means exploration could very well be a motive and when you say exploration I assume you mean discovery in general as well.   But as the world moves all sorts of other motivations crop up.  Revenge, love, greed, all come into play.  It's what a living world produces.  You have people doing things and those things are noticed by the PCs and the PCs are sometimes motivated by those things.  On occasion the PCs do things that causes the world to take notice.   So I think exploration is an oversimplification of my style.  I do agree exploration being fun is usually a given for people who like the style.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need.  No drama.




Define how you are using "drama" please.  The idea that drama and exploration are mutually exclusive seems... a pretty narrow view of drama, and I don't want to be talking past each other here.



Ovinomancer said:


> This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism




Stop trying to cast my discussion as such, please and thank you, as your mind-reading abilities to tell what I am trying to do are... very bad.  Really.  Just awful.



Ovinomancer said:


> This is an interesting point -- is your choice to embrace the known elements of the AP, which are fixed ahead of time and known to you, a form of protagonism?  Is the game now about your PC's dramatic needs, in some way, or have you just adopted the dramatic cues available to you so as to borrow them for yourself?  It's an interesting point.




I think of it as setting myself up for success.  There's a bazillion dramatic needs I, the player, could set my character up for that would be enjoyable for me.  If it is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, why not choose the ones that will be less work for the GM?  Do I, the player, have to be willfully difficult for it to be protagonism?



Ovinomancer said:


> Protagonism isn't about pacing and dramatic beats.  These usually focus on non-protagonist play, where the GM is driving a fun story using pacing and beats to engage the players.  Protagonism is when the game is about the PCs, first and foremost.




Where I come from, "dramatic needs" includes pacing and dramatic beats - these are major parts of how drama is expressed.  If that drama is supposed to be focused on the character, it needs to land in a time and way that is appropriate for the character, doesn't it?



Ovinomancer said:


> I see this argument coming from the same place that says that the GM's notes are the world, even if they haven't been entered into play.




So, again, your ability to read minds is not serving you well, as I am not of that school in the slightest.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> I don't think he's saying little-e exploring, rather a character being [dramatic fanfare]an *Explorer!* [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare]. I mean, what qualifies as a "dramatic need" and why can't being [dramatic fanfare]an *Explorer!* [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare] qualify?




Exactly  If the player has taken Indiana Jones as a character, places to explore that they don't know about are necessary components of their dramatic needs, no?

And, to come back around to the point of notes - if the PC is Indiana Jones, isn't the GM having prepared notes on various things to explore really setting themselves up to serve those needs?


----------



## Imaro

My prep notes usually involve the following (Note this is for D&D play)...

1. General facts about people places and things the players may or may not encounter.
2. Suggestions for what the result may be for certain decisions or actions the players/PC's may or may not make during gameplay.
3. Includes maps for geography and/or structures I expect the players/PC's to encounter and interact with.
4. Contains stats for monsters & NPC's I expect the players/PC's to encounter and/or initiate combat with.
5. Generic stats based around level for improvising unexpected combat encounters.
6. Various tables for random generation of things such as neighborhoods in a city, weather during travel, random encounters, etc.  Depending on what direction I expect the game session to go in.
7. Names for people & places for use on the fly.

I tend to run a game that is a mix between GM driven and player driven.  If there is something the players wish to explore, attain or some aspect of their character they wish to delve into then that is what will drive the session.  However if the players just want to explore and adventure amongst my creations they can also do that within the agreed upon paradigms of the campaign.

EDIT: I find it weird how often these discussions force GM driven and player driven campaigns into an either/or situation.  I think both the GM and the players should be allowed to direct the game at times, and the most enjoyable games I've run have never been either/or.


----------



## tetrasodium

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need.  No drama.  This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism -- it's not a thing that having makes your game better.  It makes it different.



I'm going to agree with @Umbran in 118, the gm can predict the dramatic needs of exploring.  If you assume that your PCs are proactive competent & dramatic individuals living a life or engaging in an exploration of something* with those elements it's easy even.  It helps if your players also view their characters that way as they are more likely to charge in dramatically when your are describing some dramatic person place thing or event  even though Ackbar is screaming about traps in the background.  IME you can encourage them to engage in the dramatic rather than tomb of horrors style poke every square first by rewarding it with meaningful results. You can do things like make "traps" that aren't a simple die roll & let the players devise a solution organically to add some drama & excitment to things when you feel like exploring needs something to add spice & shake things up.  That extends to any kind of exploring, traps can be an npc with a problem  a magical ward with enough power that you feel it 20feet away or anything.

* plot, ancient ruins, the bbeg's scheme, cult temple, haunted house, whatever.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> She says she's running it stock.



Sounds cool.  I should give it a look sometime.


Umbran said:


> I mean, the whole region is cursed in darkness, so it isn't like we can really ignore the issue.  And no, we can't "just go nuke them" - we are second level.  We aren't "nuking" much of anything.



Fair enough - I was speaking in more general terms and of situations that spanned more levels than just two.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need.  No drama.



Interesting take.  Maybe this, if commonly held, explains why exploration for its own sake doesn't seem big among the story-now types.

Thing is, though: exploration *is* dramatic - or certainly can be.  What danger lurks around the next corner?  How are we going to approach it?  Are we going to approach it at all or has fear finally stopped us from moving forward?

Hell, much of the horror genre is built around exploring where you shouldn't, and the resulting fear and-or actualization of bad results when you do.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Define how you are using "drama" please.  The idea that drama and exploration are mutually exclusive seems... a pretty narrow view of drama, and I don't want to be talking past each other here.



The alternative is that anything is drama.  If "exploring" is a dramatic need, then so is "fighting" and "resting" and pretty much anything else.

No, a dramatic need is something much deeper.  The need to be the best explorer ever is a dramatic need, or the need to be the best fighter ever is a dramatic need.  These involve exploration or fighting, but are not satisfied by just that -- instead it's deeper and more meaningful.

"I have exploring, and it's dramatic" speaks to a need that's not the characters -- the drama here belongs to the player, not the character.


Umbran said:


> Stop trying to cast my discussion as such, please and thank you, as your mind-reading abilities to tell what I am trying to do are... very bad.  Really.  Just awful.



Roll eyes.  Trying to foreclose a line whereby it seems I'm claiming protagonism is a need isn't trying to read your mind.  You trying to assume that's what I was doing is as bad.  Quite often you're quick to accuse others of behavior you engage in, although you have some pretty nice top cover to avoid being called on it.


Umbran said:


> I think of it as setting myself up for success.  There's a bazillion dramatic needs I, the player, could set my character up for that would be enjoyable for me.  If it is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, why not choose the ones that will be less work for the GM?  Do I, the player, have to be willfully difficult for it to be protagonism?



What are you even talking about?  Being willfully difficult?  This is only a concept if the game is about what the GM says it's about, and you the player have to adapt to it.  If the GM is setting themes and conditions, then the game's not really about your PCs, even if you bend to this and make a PC that's about the GM's game.


Umbran said:


> Where I come from, "dramatic needs" includes pacing and dramatic beats - these are major parts of how drama is expressed.  If that drama is supposed to be focused on the character, it needs to land in a time and way that is appropriate for the character, doesn't it?



Sorry, then, that there's a disconnect in your understanding due to your place of origin.  Pacing and dramatic beats are not about dramatic needs -- these are very different things.  Pacing and dramatic beats are about how the GM is presenting story, not what story is being presented.  Dramatic needs are about what the story is about.  


Umbran said:


> So, again, your ability to read minds is not serving you well, as I am not of that school in the slightest.



Are you sure?  Many of your arguments, including the one immediately above about picking character goals that align with the GM's game being contrasted by being "difficult."  If you intend something else, I'm all ears - and it would be a boon to conversation if you actually explained instead of just pouting.  I thought you often caution people about engaging in discussion to just win points?  What else is this about?


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> No, a dramatic need is something much deeper.  The need to be the best explorer ever is a dramatic need, or the need to be the best fighter ever is a dramatic need.  These involve exploration or fighting, but are not satisfied by just that -- instead it's deeper and more meaningful.
> 
> "I have exploring, and it's dramatic" speaks to a need that's not the characters -- the drama here belongs to the player, not the character.



How much deeper? What does deeper mean here? Right now, "dramatic need" seems fuzzier than Potter Stewart's comment on porn because I'm not even sure I'd know it when I see it. At least not in any way you'd define it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

billd91 said:


> How much deeper? What does deeper mean here? Right now, "dramatic need" seems fuzzier than Potter Stewart's comment on porn because I'm not even sure I'd know it when I see it. At least not in any way you'd define it.



"I will get revenge on the man who killed my father."

"I will reclaim my lost one true love."

"I will be tge most famed explorer of my age."

Simply put, a dramatic need is something you can hang a complete story on.  If it's driven by the character and not about someone or something else, this protagonizes the character.  If the character is just responding to the GM, it's not protagonism.  Ie, if I'm exploring because the GM dropped a dungeon, that's not protagonism.  If I can drive play such that I can explore and discover world changing things without having to ask the GM, that's protagonism.  Yes, D&D doesn't do this well because it's not structured to, and that's fine -- it's not aimimg for this.

And, this isn't binary.  You can have a little or a lot.  This is why I was pondering on protagonism as picking up things the GM put down as part of a character.  I think this can be weak protagonism.


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> In my opinion, approaching GM notes from this mindset (as I once did) is an invitation to the GM to guide or curate the fiction as they imagine it playing out in their head in advance. Less generously, such notes can serve as an invitation to Force and Illusionism.
> 
> They are means for the GM to stake out limits on PC action declaration via fiat or sometimes subtle manipulation to "keep the game on track."
> 
> Of course, notes need not be such. But I do think they provide pressure: if the GM wants to tell _this_ cool story, adhere to this plan, with very little variance.
> 
> I'm not interested these days in play oriented around PCs exploring GM precrafted plot. And so I find such notes an unwelcome hindrance, by and large, to playing to find out.[/i]



This is so far away from what DM notes are for in the vast majority of games that it isn't even funny.  It sounds like you've had an experience with a bad DM, not notes.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, D&D doesn't do this well because it's not structured to, and that's fine -- it's not aimimg for this.
> 
> And, this isn't binary.  You can have a little or a lot.  This is why I was pondering on protagonism as picking up things the GM put down as part of a character.  I think this can be weak protagonism.




I'm curious why you think that D&D doesn't do this well?  I'd say it offers a tool (ideals & inspiration) for this this type of thing, but doesn't mandate that you must use them in order to play the game... Not sure I consider making it an optional component necessarily means it's not done well. Now whether it does it in a way that aligns with your personal preference is another matter entirely.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I'm curious why you think that D&D doesn't do this well?  I'd say it offers a tool (ideals & inspiration) for this this type of thing, but doesn't mandate that you must use them in order to play the game... Not sure I consider making it an optional component necessarily means it's not done well. Now whether it does it in a way that aligns with your personal preference is another matter entirely.



Because the basic structure of D&D is that the GM decides.  The GM's job is to present the scene, then adjudicate actions, and then to narrate results.  At all positions, it's the GM's job to decide what happens.  This doesn't well support PC protagonism, because the player has no real inputs into the processes of play except to declare an action, which is already framed by the GM's scene setting.

You have a good point that BIFTs are an attempt to add some protagonism, but it's very weak.  The way it's presented puts it as yet another point the GM decides what happens, and it's quite often just ignored.  Inspiration is not a tool for protagonism, it's just a way to adjust odds from the player side.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Because the basic structure of D&D is that the GM decides.  The GM's job is to present the scene, then adjudicate actions, and then to narrate results.  At all positions, it's the GM's job to decide what happens.  This doesn't well support PC protagonism, because the player has no real inputs into the processes of play except to declare an action, which is already framed by the GM's scene setting.
> 
> You have a good point that BIFTs are an attempt to add some protagonism, but it's very weak.  The way it's presented puts it as yet another point the GM decides what happens, and it's quite often just ignored.  Inspiration is not a tool for protagonism, it's just a way to adjust odds from the player side.




Wait I'm confused... 

Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.
DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
Player A (Rolls a 12)
DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches.  They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,

This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"?  The player declared their action and intended result and the dice decided success or failure.  In what way, besides adjudication based upon the relevant rules of the game (ability checks and saving throws for the most part in D&D) does protagonism need to be supported more?

As to your second point, I don't think it's weak... I think it's purposefully optional.  Again I'm confused by how it is a point where the GM decides what happens, can you elaborate more on this?  My opinion is that Inspiration = incentive without control, though again if you care to expound on why you think it's "*just* a way to adjust odds..." (isn't that nearly any mechanic in an rpg?), I'd be interested in hearing it.


----------



## pemerton

jmartkdr2 said:


> The Temple is in a place. If the pc's are close enough, they can see it and choose to go there or not. The priest has motivations and resources, and so would be doing things to make that happen (not in these notes but would be in mine). This creates rumor the pc's might hear, which they can follow up on or not. A teleport mishap might lad them there
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The map would guide any attempt to do things at the Temple - if there's a back way or not, etc. (Although depending on my mood I might add one if it makes sense that it would be there but isn't on my map.)



The Temple _being in a place_ suggests that it is used both in framing eg "You've arrived at such-and-such. You see the gleaming black marble of the temple of Olath."

It sounds also like you use it to resolve action declarations. eg "We look around - what do we see?", then you check your notes, observe that the PCs are near the temple, and so reply "You see the gleaming black marble of a temple." Or alternatively - "I'm looking around for the Temple of Olath - can I see it?" and you respond by checking your notes and map, and on that basis answering _yes_ or _no_.

With the secret entrance/back way, you seem to suggesting the same general approach - using the map/notes to resolve the action declaration. (With the possible exception of mood-dependent departures.)



Emerikol said:


> I guess as you describe protagonism the world reshapes itself to fit the players desires and not what would be their characters desires in game?   For example if a player expresses the fact he always wanted to save a princess from a dragon then whatever the world was like before it now has a dragon holding a princess who needs rescued?  Is that what you mean?



That's a slightly strange way to describe the play of a RPG, because it seems to treat the fiction as if it was real and mind-independent.

In the sort of protagonistic-play @Ovinomancer is describing, action declarations like _My ears are open for any rumours of dragons in these parts _are not resolved by the GM inspecting notes that were written in advance, and on that basis resolving the declaration. Rather, the GM frames situations or sets difficulties for checks or whatever it might be having regard to the players evinced preferences for their PCs' protagonism.


----------



## tetrasodium

Imaro said:


> Wait I'm confused...
> 
> Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.
> DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
> Player A (Rolls a 12)
> DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches.  They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,
> 
> This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"?  The player declared their action and intended result and the dice decided success or failure.  In what way, besides adjudication based upon the relevant rules of the game (ability checks and saving throws for the most part in D&D) does protagonism need to be supported more?
> 
> As to your second point, I don't think it's weak... I think it's purposefully optional.  Again I'm confused by how it is a point where the GM decides what happens, can you elaborate more on this?  My opinion is that Inspiration = incentive without control, though again if you care to expound on why you think it's "*just* a way to adjust odds..." (isn't that nearly any mechanic in an rpg?), I'd be interested in hearing it.



That's not protagonism, supporting characters doomed to die often do amazing stuff in books tv & movies, sidekicks like Robin & even _Arthur_ have successfully climbed walls as sidekicks.  With that example though 5e* does a particularly bad job of empowering the GM to feel like they can make things up while players have nothing to latch onto for a common  frame of reference in what is plausible.  in 3.x you had +2/-2 & the bonus types so both players & gm had an area where they could find common ground to negotiate how  that back & forth could work & what benefits might go from doing it or doing it differently.  

Also in prior editions there was a lot less box text & random tables to build things for the gm than todays HC  campaign length modules because you were usually expected to work them into your own campaign & refluff as needed to fit.  Sure you might see x module is meant to be run after Y module, but even then there was more gm empowerment.    

All of that results in the GM being left with a dearth of tools & resources to build the skills needed to handle the kind of activity you describe.  Lets say bob succeeds in climbing over the wall.... so what?  he escaped... and?...  And the GM needs to do something on the fly for bob & maybe everyone else to do  or even worse it was written with two outcomes of climb the wall or fight the guards & now bob left his buds behind to fight the guards without him if any of them fail to climb over too.  If Bob wants to stand on top of the wall & shoot the guards he has an idea how that can work in 3.x & earlier the GM has experience+advice making up how it could help... in 5e bob has no idea & the GM has "hmm... it doesn't list any bonus for that"

* and maybe 4e, I mostly skipped it so won't go there & shall pretend it never happened in this post.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Wait I'm confused...
> 
> Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.



This requires an earlier step, where the GM frames an obstacle for the PC to overcome.  The GM decides this.  Honestly, this is pretty common in most RPGS -- opposition is part of the GM's job.


Imaro said:


> DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
> Player A (Rolls a 12)



Here, the GM decides if the action can succeed, and if it can, whether or not it's uncertain.  If uncertain, the GM determines the ability to be used, and assigns a DC.  In your example, the GM is also picking what proficiency is to be used with the ability check.  In all of these regards, the GM is the one deciding.


Imaro said:


> DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches.  They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,



This is not the only possible outcome.  The GM may have checked their notes and noted an heretofore unnoticed guard at the top of the wall, and so narrated the player climbing the wall only to have the alarm raised anyway.  You've selected an outcome here, but the upshot is that you did this selection in the guise of the GM.  I'm not even postulating bad faith GMing here -- it's literally up to the GM to narrate the result of a check -- nothing in the 5e rules demands they particularly honor success in any specific or defined way.  Heck, the GM might actually call for a second climb check after the first if they determine it's necessary, meaning the first check isn't really a success but just a wicket passed on the way to the second check.  

The GM is deciding what happens here, at all points along the way after "I'm climbing the wall to avoid the guards."


Imaro said:


> This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"?  The player declared their action and intended result and the dice decided success or failure.  In what way, besides adjudication based upon the relevant rules of the game (ability checks and saving throws for the most part in D&D) does protagonism need to be supported more?
> 
> As to your second point, I don't think it's weak... I think it's purposefully optional.  Again I'm confused by how it is a point where the GM decides what happens, can you elaborate more on this?  My opinion is that Inspiration = incentive without control, though again if you care to expound on why you think it's "*just* a way to adjust odds..." (isn't that nearly any mechanic in an rpg?), I'd be interested in hearing it.



Optional doesn't require it to be weak. Feats and multiclassing are both optional and not weak.  The point remains that the only mechanic in 5e that remotely goes to protagonism is both optional _and _very weak.  D&D does protagonism poorly, and by _design_.  Having a game that does a thing (or doesn't) by design means it's just not meant to be played in a way that promotes that play agenda.  This is fine.  Blades in the Dark is terrible for skilled-play dungeon crawling -- by (or rather because of) _design_.  D&D is pretty good at this.


----------



## Imaro

tetrasodium said:


> That's not protagonism, supporting characters doomed to die often do amazing stuff in books tv & movies, sidekicks like Robin & even _Arthur_ have successfully climbed walls as sidekicks.




It's not supposed to be an example of protagonism... it was addressing the statement that the GM/DM decides everything that happens.  that said could you provide an example of protagonism?



tetrasodium said:


> With that example though 5e* does a particularly bad job of empowering the GM to feel like they can make things up while players have nothing to latch onto for a common  frame of reference in what is plausible.  in 3.x you had +2/-2 & the bonus types so both players & gm had an area where they could find common ground to negotiate how  that back & forth could work & what benefits might go from doing it or doing it differently.
> 
> Also in prior editions there was a lot less box text & random tables to build things for the gm than todays HC  campaign length modules because you were usually expected to work them into your own campaign & refluff as needed to fit.  Sure you might see x module is meant to be run after Y module, but even then there was more gm empowerment.





I am truly lost if this is supposed to be addressing what I posted since I wasn't specifically speaking to empowering GM's, HC's or text boxes...


tetrasodium said:


> All of that results in the GM being left with a dearth of tools & resources to build the skills needed to handle the kind of activity you describe.  Lets say bob succeeds in climbing over the wall.... so what?  he escaped... and?...  And the GM needs to do something on the fly for bob & maybe everyone else to do  or even worse it was written with two outcomes of climb the wall or fight the guards & now bob left his buds behind to fight the guards without him if any of them fail to climb over too.  If Bob wants to stand on top of the wall & shoot the guards he has an idea how that can work in 3.x & earlier the GM has experience+advice making up how it could help... in 5e bob has no idea & the GM has "hmm... it doesn't list any bonus for that"
> 
> * and maybe 4e, I mostly skipped it so won't go there & shall pretend it never happened in this post.




Huh?  You seem to be making alot of assumptions about what I posted by taking it out of the context of what it was addressing.  If you want to discuss something besides what I was addressing I'm all for it, just post it as a statement or question... but taking an example out of context and using it to prove things it was never intended to address really doesn't show anything.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> If the player has taken Indiana Jones as a character, places to explore that they don't know about are necessary components of their dramatic needs, no?



If someone asked me what Indiana Jones dramatic needs are, these would include:

* To repair his relationship with Marion;

* To prove himself as an archaeologist by outwitting his rivals in his quests for treasure;

* (At least in the last movie) to prove himself to his father as an appropriate heir to the family tradition.​
This brings with it a number of components of the fiction: Marion; a father; treasures to be recovered; rivals to be outwitted.



Umbran said:


> There's a bazillion dramatic needs I, the player, could set my character up for that would be enjoyable for me.  If it is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, why not choose the ones that will be less work for the GM?  Do I, the player, have to be willfully difficult for it to be protagonism?





Ovinomancer said:


> What are you even talking about?  Being willfully difficult?  This is only a concept if the game is about what the GM says it's about, and you the player have to adapt to it.



I 100% agree with Ovinomancer here: the idea that choosing a dramatic need for a PC could be difficult - moreover _wilfully _so - is strange to me. The last time I GMed a RPG session in which I, as GM, already had situation and broad parameters of resolution sketched out as a one-session run through Castle Amber (we did PC generation and then a modest number of rooms). But precisely because the parameters were already established I didn't bother asking the players to decide on dramatic needs for their PCs!

But in other games, where I generally do have some interest in dramatic need, I don't establish the situation or any broad parameters of resolution until after the players have said what their dramatic needs are.

I think Imaro's post gives a clear outline of what seems to me a fairly typical way of using GM notes:



Imaro said:


> My prep notes usually involve the following (Note this is for D&D play)...
> 
> 1. General facts about people places and things the players may or may not encounter.
> 2. Suggestions for what the result may be for certain decisions or actions the players/PC's may or may not make during gameplay.
> 3. Includes maps for geography and/or structures I expect the players/PC's to encounter and interact with.
> 4. Contains stats for monsters & NPC's I expect the players/PC's to encounter and/or initiate combat with.
> 5. Generic stats based around level for improvising unexpected combat encounters.
> 6. Various tables for random generation of things such as neighborhoods in a city, weather during travel, random encounters, etc.  Depending on what direction I expect the game session to go in.
> 7. Names for people & places for use on the fly.
> 
> I tend to run a game that is a mix between GM driven and player driven.  If there is something the players wish to explore, attain or some aspect of their character they wish to delve into then that is what will drive the session.  However if the players just want to explore and adventure amongst my creations they can also do that within the agreed upon paradigms of the campaign.



We can see here that the role of notes (beyond serving as memory aids for mechanics - 4, 5) is to support framing (1, 2 3, 6) and to help determine consequences of action declarations (maybe 1, definitely 2, and also 3 and perhaps 6).

In protgaonistic play the notes that the GM makes at 1, 2 and 3 would all be done _after_ learning of the dramatic needs established for the players.



tetrasodium said:


> If you assume that your PCs are proactive competent & dramatic individuals living a life or engaging in an exploration of something* with those elements it's easy even.  It helps if your players also view their characters that way as they are more likely to charge in dramatically when your are describing some dramatic person place thing or event  even though Ackbar is screaming about traps in the background.  IME you can encourage them to engage in the dramatic rather than tomb of horrors style poke every square first by rewarding it with meaningful results.



I am big fan of non-turtling play, for much the same reason that I prefer backgammon to chess as a boardgame and five hundred to bridge as a card game. But this really doesn't have much connection to the idea of protagonistic RPGing. And it doesn't really shed light on the role of GM notes.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> It's not supposed to be an example of protagonism... it was addressing the statement that the GM/DM decides everything that happens.  that said could you provide an example of protagonism?




Is someone I can't see trying to claim that DM notes = railroading?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> nothing in the 5e rules demands they particularly honor success in any specific or defined way.  Heck, the GM might actually call for a second climb check after the first if they determine it's necessary, meaning the first check isn't really a success but just a wicket passed on the way to the second check.



This is the definition of DM'ing in bad faith and what your entire presumption seems to be based upon.  Not only that the DM doesn't honor the success but that he actively disregard it.  Well yeah if we don't honor the rules of any game protagonism suffers...


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.
> DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
> Player A (Rolls a 12)
> DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches.  They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,
> 
> This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"?



Well, it's a bit hard to tell what's going on, in terms of table decision-making, until we know:


Who narrated the existence of the wall, and why - ie via what process and according to what principles?
Similarly, who narrated the existence of the guards?
Similarly, who established that there is an alley for the guards to look down?
Perhaps most importantly, what has brought it about that the PC is _in this place_ trying to achieve _this particular thing?_
EDIT: I've seen @Ovinomancer's posts in response to this example. We're not carbon copies but I think nevertheless are in broad agreement. His point about _what follows, in the fiction, from getting to the top of the wall _(eg hiding as opposed to being discovered by a hitherto-unnoticed NPC the GM has secretly recorded as present) is particularly well-made.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> This is the definition of DM'ing in bad faith and what your entire presumption seems to be based upon.  Not only that the DM doesn't honor the success but that he actively disregard it.  Well yeah if we don't honor the rules of any game protagonism suffers...



I gave two examples -- which is in bad faith?  The first was that the GM's notes indicated a guard on top of the wall that had not yet been noticed, so the character does successfully climb the way but doesn't get their intended result.  There's no bad faith here, you see this kind of thing all the time in games that feature the GM's notes as both secret and inputs to resolution.  The second?  There's lots of talks about how climbs of various lengths could require multiple checks.  I haven't seen you in those threads labeling GMs that determine the need for a second check to be playing in bad faith.  

Bad faith would be seeing the success and then just saying that the action failed.  I'm not suggesting this.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> We can see here that the role of notes (beyond serving as memory aids for mechanics - 4, 5) is to support framing (1, 2 3, 6) and to help determine consequences of action declarations (maybe 1, definitely 2, and also 3 and perhaps 6).
> 
> In protgaonistic play the notes that the GM makes at 1, 2 and 3 would all be done _after_ learning of the dramatic needs established for the players.



 But if they are only suggestions... they can be.  Furthermore I want to clarify that part of my prep is probably based on the fact that I have been gaming with my group for nearly 15 years and I can anticipate alot of what many of them will choose to do.  I would probably prep differently for complete strangers.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> But if they are only suggestions... they can be.



I don't quite know what the _they _refers to here. Who is making suggestions to whom?


----------



## tetrasodium

pemerton said:


> I am big fan of non-turtling play, for much the same reason that I prefer backgammon to chess as a boardgame and five hundred to bridge as a card game. But this really doesn't have much connection to the idea of protagonistic RPGing. And it doesn't really shed light on the role of GM notes.



Did you quote the wrong post?  Beyond the ability to recognize the board I don't know anything about tbackgammon or either of those card games. The post you quoted of mine (126) is about drama & dramatic needs. turtling along till the GM has had it & is forced to introduce a pyramidhead type threat of urgency or something is the opposite of drama.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I gave two examples -- which is in bad faith?  The first was that the GM's notes indicated a guard on top of the wall that had not yet been noticed, so the character does successfully climb the way but doesn't get their intended result.  There's no bad faith here, you see this kind of thing all the time in games that feature the GM's notes as both secret and inputs to resolution.  The second?  There's lots of talks about how climbs of various lengths could require multiple checks.  I haven't seen you in those threads labeling GMs that determine the need for a second check to be playing in bad faith.
> 
> Bad faith would be seeing the success and then just saying that the action failed.  I'm not suggesting this.




No, bad faith is violating the implicit agreement the DM made when the player stated his goal (avoiding the guards), the DM agreed to a DC for success and the player rolled successfully.  To then find a way through narration to negate that agreement is DM'ing in bad faith.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't quite know what the _they _refers to here. Who is making suggestions to whom?



The notes on resolution are suggestions.  I state that in the post.


----------



## pemerton

tetrasodium said:


> The post you quoted of mine (126) is about drama & dramatic needs.



But your pst didn't say anything about dramatic needs. That was my point. Your post seemed to be about ways to avoid turtling (both player-side and GM-side ways); but turtling is nothing to do with dramatic needs and rather is a problem particular to some GM-driven play.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Well, it's a bit hard to tell what's going on, in terms of table decision-making, until we know:
> 
> 
> Who narrated the existence of the wall, and why - ie via what process and according to what principles?
> Similarly, who narrated the existence of the guards?
> Similarly, who established that there is an alley for the guards to look down?
> Perhaps most importantly, what has brought it about that the PC is _in this place_ trying to achieve _this particular thing?_
> EDIT: I've seen @Ovinomancer's posts in response to this example. We're not carbon copies but I think nevertheless are in broad agreement. His point about _what follows, in the fiction, from getting to the top of the wall _(eg hiding as opposed to being discovered by a hitherto-unnoticed NPC the GM has secretly recorded as present) is particularly well-made.




What does any of this have to do with who decided what happened?  Scene framing sure but the resolution of action in this example is determined by the roll of the dice... so the DM couldn't have determined *everything* that happened.


----------



## tetrasodium

pemerton said:


> But your pst didn't say anything about dramatic needs. That was my point. Your post seemed to be about ways to avoid turtling (both player-side and GM-side ways); but turtling is nothing to do with dramatic needs and rather is a problem particular to some GM-driven play.



it did, I talked about "traps" & ways to make them into dramatic elements.  The players need to proactively act in some form of competent/dramatic action with an expectation of plausible actions reaping meaningful results to really crank up the drama they offer & make them more than  a speedbump or hunting for the right solution though.

edit: I recommend the video I linked in it

This one is good too


----------



## pemerton

tetrasodium said:


> I talked about "traps" & ways to make them into dramatic elements.  The players need to proactively act in some form of competent/dramatic action with an expectation of plausible actions reaping meaningful results to really crank up the drama they offer & make them more than  a speedbump or hunting for the right solution though.



Sure, I understand that advice.  I've run dynamic traps and similar in 4e D&D (eg a flooding room full of coffins to float on; a chain across a river to stop the progress of the PCs' boat; a "gauntlet" of blasters that needs to be traversed to get to where the real action is; etc). It just has nothing to do with the issue of protagonism/dramatic need that @Ovinomancer introduced into the discussion.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> What does any of this have to do with who decided what happened?



Because what happened was that the PC ended up on top of a wall with some guards below looking for him but (it seems) assuming that whatever they might have heard was just some noise down an alley. (We don't know _why_ the PC was there or hiding from the guards, which is also part of what happened.)

Until we know those things, and who decided them, we can't really say who decided what happened.

For instance: suppose that the player turned up to the session and the GM said _today's mission is for you to break into the Tower of the Elephant. _And then narrates a bit of context and backstory (mysterious wizard, fabulous jewels, etc). And then there is a bit of free narration which ends up with the GM telling the player that his/her PC is at the wall that surrounds the Tower of the Elephant. The player describes his/her PC trying to force the gate, but the GM says (perhaps after calling for a check; maybe not) that _you can't force the door, but you do make quite a loud noise which is probably audible to anyone in the neighbourhood_. And then follows up with _you hear the approach of guards, and can see the shadows of their flickering torches as they approach the corner of the wall nearest you!_ 

And so the player declares the action to climb the wall so as to hide from the guards (and perhaps also gain entrance to the Tower). And the GM sets the DC by referring to his/her notes made about the wall around the Tower of the Elephant, and decides whether being on top of the wall exposes the PC to observation by other NPCs by reference to those same notes.

I can't speak for @Ovinomancer, but for me this would count as an example where _the GM _has decided much of what has happened.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Because what happened was that the PC ended up on top of a wall with some guards below looking for him but (it seems) assuming that whatever they might have heard was just some noise down an alley. (We don't know _why_ the PC was there or hiding from the guards, which is also part of what happened.)
> 
> Until we know those things, and who decided them, we can't really say who decided what happened.




But the fact that dice decided failure or success does tell us the DM doesn't decide everything... right?



pemerton said:


> For instance: suppose that the player turned up to the session and the GM said _today's mission is for you to break into the Tower of the Elephant. _And then narrates a bit of context and backstory (mysterious wizard, fabulous jewels, etc). And then there is a bit of free narration which ends up with the GM telling the player that his/her PC is at the wall that surrounds the Tower of the Elephant. The player describes his/her PC trying to force the gate, but the GM says (perhaps after calling for a check; maybe not) that _you can't force the door, but you do make quite a loud noise which is probably audible to anyone in the neighbourhood_. And then follows up with _you hear the approach of guards, and can see the shadows of their flickering torches as they approach the corner of the wall nearest you!_
> 
> And so the player declares the action to climb the wall so as to hide from the guards (and perhaps also gain entrance to the Tower). And the GM sets the DC by referring to his/her notes made about the wall around the Tower of the Elephant, and decides whether being on top of the wall exposes the PC to observation by other NPCs by reference to those same notes.
> 
> I can't speak for @Ovinomancer, but for me this would count as an example where _the GM _has decided much of what has happened.



Again no one is claiming the DM can't decide the lions share (I chalk this up more to individual playstyle in D&D as it's pretty flexible when it comes to this sort of thing... though I would think it's a rare game where DM and player responsibility for scene framing, adventure design, antagonist creation and so on are equal...do you know of one perchance?)... that said, IMO the DM doesn't decide everything, unless he is DM'ing in bad faith.


----------



## Imaro

Maybe I'm not understanding the defintion of protagonism being used in this thread, I'd appreciate if someone could tell me what is meant by  it so that I can perhaps understand better??

It seems, and I could be wrong, that there is some sort of criteria outside of having the freedom to declare actions for my character within the fictional confines of the game with all parties applying the rules in good faith that is being used here to define... "true protagonism"??  if so what are we using the word to mean here?


----------



## tetrasodium

pemerton said:


> Sure, I understand that advice.  I've run dynamic traps and similar in 4e D&D (eg a flooding room full of coffins to float on; a chain across a river to stop the progress of the PCs' boat; a "gauntlet" of blasters that needs to be traversed to get to where the real action is; etc). It just has nothing to do with the issue of protagonism/dramatic need that @Ovinomancer introduced into the discussion.



It has quite a bit to do with "the post from 118 from Umbran about how the gm can predict the dramatic needs of exploring"  Ovinomancer was saying is not a dramatic need & has no drama.  It seems like you are very upset about my point  about how it can be a predictable dramatic need and are attempting to actively dismiss it on the grounds of... who knows.  With that said, I don't know what point your trying to make so... I'll say "sure ok."


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> I 100% agree with Ovinomancer here: the idea that choosing a dramatic need for a PC could be difficult - moreover _wilfully _so - is strange to me.




Yes, because apparently my phrasing didn't hit home.  To be "willfully difficult" is to willfully make life harder for someone else.

The issue is not that it is difficult for me, the player, to choose a dramatic need.  The issue is that the GM is trying to juggle a half dozen players and all their dramatic needs at once, and as a player, my choice can make the GM's job more difficult... or easier.

And then, if it is all the same to me, why not make the GM's job easier - set myself up with dramatic needs that are easy for the GM to meet?  

This started with an example where I posit helping a GM make a published adventure into a tool for protagonistic play - by choosing dramatic needs that fit the published work easily.  But that's hardly the only example.  Consider romance - some GMs are not comfortable with playing through romantic scenes in game, and others are good at and enjoy it.  The former kind of GM will have difficulty meeting dramatic needs for romance, the latter will find it easy.  Does is cease to be protagonism if, in creating my character, I take the GM's comfort and skills into account?  

I, personally, don't think it ceases to be protagonism - it is simply a thoughtful choice by the player to recognize some practical realities of play.  The end result is still about the character's dramatic needs, after all.  I've just chosen what those needs will be, which is my right, as a player, is it not?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding the defintion of protagonism being used in this thread, I'd appreciate if someone could tell me what is meant by  it so that I can perhaps understand better??
> 
> It seems, and I could be wrong, that there is some sort of criteria outside of having the freedom to declare actions for my character within the fictional confines of the game with all parties applying the rules in good faith that is being used here to define



Correct. What you describe in your second paragraph is a general property of RPGing.

Whereas, as @Ovinomancer has explained, by _player protagonism _he is referring to a phenomenon that is a particular property of only some RPGing.

Hence what he is referring to is not what you describe. It is the sort of approach that is quintessentially found in such games as Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, DitV, and most PbtA games. Ovinomancer's own experience of this sort of play is, I believe, primarily with Blades in the Dark.

One feature of those games, relevant to this thread, is that the GM's pre-play notes _do not _serve the function of establishing the principal parameters for framing or for action resolution.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> The issue is that the GM is trying to juggle a half dozen players and all their dramatic needs at once, and as a player, my choice can make the GM's job more difficult... or easier.
> 
> And then, if it is all the same to me, why not make the GM's job easier - set myself up with dramatic needs that are easy for the GM to meet?



Games which emphasise the centrality of player-authored dramatic needs for PCs typically have a range of formal and informal techniques and processes for handling this.

Collaboratively establishing the setting is one of those: @hawkeyefan gave a good example in a recent thread, though it may have been the antagonism/opposition thread rather than this one.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Correct. What you describe in your second paragraph is a general property of RPGing.
> 
> Whereas, as @Ovinomancer has explained, by _player protagonism _he is referring to a phenomenon that is a particular property of only some RPGing.
> 
> Hence what he is referring to is not what you describe. It is the sort of approach that is quintessentially found in such games as Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, DitV, and most PbtA games. Ovinomancer's own experience of this sort of play is, I believe, primarily with Blades in the Dark.
> 
> One feature of those games, relevant to this thread, is that the GM's pre-play notes _do not _serve the function of establishing the principal parameters for framing or for action resolution.



So far all intents and purposes, "protagonism" is a word being used as a placeholder for a nebulous grouping of characteristics shared by some games but not D&D? If thats the case have those characteristics been defined in this discussion at some point? If not how can a discussion take place if the thing we are discussing is ill-defined and vague in meaning?

Edit: Instead of discussing "protagonism" perhaps a discussion of the specific characteristics that define the word should be the topic...


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> Games which emphasise the centrality of player-authored dramatic needs for PCs typically have a range of formal and informal techniques and processes for handling this.




So, this doesn't directly relate to what I was saying, leaving me to have to guess why it is relevant.

I am not regarding protagonism as a thing that one only aims at with purpose-built rules, so the existence of those rules are really not telling.


----------



## pemerton

@Imaro, this thread is in General, not D&D. Deliberately so.

Those games and the sort of RPGing they support are pretty well known. And it's not particularly nebulous, ill-defined or vague. To paraphrase @Ovinomancer from post 112 upthread, what distinguishes these games is that _the player-authored dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play_. Which means that players have a significant degree of authorship responsibility in respect of key NPCs, places and events in the shared fiction; and player provide the primary trajectory of play.

To again try and make this relevant to this thread, that sort of RPGing calls for GM notes to perform a very different purpose from the purpose performed by (say) an Adventure Path used in its standard fashion.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Correct. What you describe in your second paragraph is a general property of RPGing.



Wanted to address this separately.

Is it though? It seems a general property of some ways of RPG'ing but not all. As an example, a game ran in bad faith will not necessarily have these properties... another example might be a game run with high degrees of illusionism.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> So, this doesn't directly relate to what I was saying, leaving me to have to guess why it is relevant.
> 
> I am not regarding protagonism as a thing that one only aims at with purpose-built rules, so the existence of those rules are really not telling.



I took you to be saying that it is hard to "juggle" half-a-dozen PCs' dramatic needs at once. And I replied by saying that games that prioritise PC dramatic needs as a focus of play have techniques to respond to this perceived difficulty, so as to render it _merely_ an apparent difficulty.

I thought that my reply was relevant to your concern.

Its relevance to this thread is that some of those techniques implicate the GM's notes: _how _they are written; _what _they include; _how _they are used; etc.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> No, bad faith is violating the implicit agreement the DM made when the player stated his goal (avoiding the guards), the DM agreed to a DC for success and the player rolled successfully.  To then find a way through narration to negate that agreement is DM'ing in bad faith.



See, here I actually agree with you, but this is not how play normally fares, nor is it even implied in the rules for 5e.  I mean, find the rules passage that says this -- you cannot.  You can find the rules passage that says the GM narrates the result of an action declaration.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> It seems, and I could be wrong, that there is some sort of criteria outside of having the freedom to declare actions for my character within the fictional confines of the game with all parties applying the rules in good faith that is being used here to define... "true protagonism"??  if so what are we using the word to mean here?





pemerton said:


> What you describe <snippage> is a general property of RPGing.





Imaro said:


> It seems a general property of some ways of RPG'ing but not all. As an example, a game ran in bad faith will not necessarily have these properties... another example might be a game run with high degrees of illusionism.



I wasn't thinking of degenerate cases. Chess played in bad faith can include accidentally-on-purpose tipping over the board if one is losing, but I don't think we need to factor that into any general discussion of how chess can be played.

Illusionism is not in my view generally bad faith. The example the @Ovinomancer gave - of allowing the check to climb the wall to be resolved although the GM knows it won't result in being hidden because there is another guard atop the wall - doesn't look like bad faith to me. It seems like completely standard D&D-ish GMing.

Upthread a poster - @jmartkdr2, I think - said that in the right mood s/he might allow the players to have their PCs find a secret passage that wasn't on his/her map. That sounds to me like a type of illusionism, but not remotely bad faith. When you refer to your notes being "suggestions" - so you might use them to settle the outcomes of declared actions, but might not - I also see the possibility of illusionism. But where is the bad faith?

In these games with illusionistic features in action resolution, the player has the freedom to declare actions, and the GM resolves these applying the rules in good faith, which includes a permission on the part of the GM to adjudicate by reference to posited elements of the fiction which _only s/he knows about _and which, at the moment of resolution, _s/he has unilateral control over_.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> @Imaro, this thread is in General, not D&D. Delibeillusionist.




Yes, I know that. I'm not sure what bearing that has on whether the definition of protagonism being used in this thread is understood by the majority of users on the site, or even the majority of those in this particular thread...



pemerton said:


> Those games and the sort of RPGing they support are pretty well known. And it's not particularly nebulous, ill-defined or vague.
> To paraphrase @Ovinomancer from post 112 upthread, what distinguishes these games is that _the player-authored dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play_.




Ok, and D&D can easily be played this way if your group wants to, it just doesn't force you to play in this way.



pemerton said:


> Which means that players have a significant degree of authorship responsibility in respect of key NPCs, places and events in the shared fiction; and player provide the primary trajectory of play.



See this is where it falls apart for me because I don't see why the above stated playstyle necessarily needs to have this... especially the first part of your statement.


pemerton said:


> To again try and make this relevant to this thread, that sort of RPGing calls for GM notes to perform a very different purpose from the purpose performed by (say) an Adventure Path used in its standard fashion.




But these aren't the only 2 forms notes take and I don't believe there's only one way to play a game where _player-authored dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play_.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> See, here I actually agree with you, but this is not how play normally fares, nor is it even implied in the rules for 5e.  I mean, find the rules passage that says this -- you cannot.  You can find the rules passage that says the GM narrates the result of an action declaration.



So we need a rule that states the agreed upon goal and the agreed upon threshold to successfully attain said goal when following the game mechanics as laid out in the books should be... Really agreed upon instead of fake agreed upon?? Are you serious right now?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So far all intents and purposes, "protagonism" is a word being used as a placeholder for a nebulous grouping of characteristics shared by some games but not D&D? If thats the case have those characteristics been defined in this discussion at some point? If not how can a discussion take place if the thing we are discussing is ill-defined and vague in meaning?
> 
> Edit: Instead of discussing "protagonism" perhaps a discussion of the specific characteristics that define the word should be the topic...



Yes, I defined it previously, and game examples.  Protagonism is where the focus of play is on the character's dramatic needs.

Dramatic needs are things that the character is about -- ie, things that are defining for the character -- and that you can hang a story on all by itself (ie, it can drive an entire story arc in play).  I'm not talking about scripting, here, but that the dramatic need is the impetus for story.  The examples I gave including such things as "I will get revenge on the murder of my family, no matter the cost."  This is meaty -- it's defining, and it's something that a lot of story can hang on.

So, then protagonism would be that the game that features the character with the above example of a dramatic need would have play that focuses on that need, and not something the GM wants in play.  IE, the protagonist of the story is the character, because the story is going to be about them.

This is clearly NOT D&D, as D&D is focused on a story/location/hexcrawl/sandbox created by the GM, often without direct concern for the characters.  Sometimes the characters are built into a session, but only as the GM allows.  This means the play is usually about something other than the dramatic needs of the PCs -- usually it's about the dramatic needs of some NPC, which the players then try to foil.  This isn't a bad thing -- D&D does D&D very well, but that's just not protagonism.  As I still run D&D (and am doing so now), this clearly isn't something that I think is, in any way, a bad or negative thing.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So we need a rule that states the agreed upon goal and the agreed upon threshold to successfully attain said goal when following the game mechanics as laid out in the books should be... Really agreed upon instead of fake agreed upon?? Are you serious right now?



Yes.  Let's say that I've never run an RPG before, and I pick up 5e.  It tells me that, as the GM, I choose what happens.  It doesn't tell me that I'm playing wrong if I do not.

And, the examples that I gave are easy to find similar cases argued for in the 5e forum of this very site.  If you want to make the case that the examples of play I provided are playing in bad faith, you have a much larger group of people to disagree with than just me.  I agree with you, in that I strongly dislike the implication that the goal of a player action can be thwarted while the action succeeds, but there's examples of this in published WotC APs, so neither your or my preferences in this matter seem to be the accepted norm.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I wasn't thinking of degenerate cases. Chess played in bad faith can include accidentally-on-purpose tipping over the board if one is losing, but I don't think we need to factor that into any general discussion of how chess can be played.
> 
> Illusionism is not in my view generally bad faith. The example the @Ovinomancer gave - of allowing the check to climb the wall to be resolved although the GM knows it won't result in being hidden because there is another guard atop the wall - doesn't look like bad faith to me. It seems like completely standard D&D-ish GMing.
> 
> Upthread a poster - @jmartkdr2, I think - said that in the right mood s/he might allow the players to have their PCs find a secret passage that wasn't on his/her map. That sounds to me like a type of illusionism, but not remotely bad faith. When you refer to your notes being "suggestions" - so you might use them to settle the outcomes of declared actions, but might not - I also see the possibility of illusionism. But where is the bad faith?
> 
> In these games with illusionistic features in action resolution, the player has the freedom to declare actions, and the GM resolves these applying the rules in good faith, which includes a permission on the part of the GM to adjudicate by reference to posited elements of the fiction which _only s/he knows about _and which, at the moment of resolution, _s/he has unilateral control over_.






Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, I defined it previously, and game examples.  Protagonism is where the focus of play is on the character's dramatic needs.
> 
> Dramatic needs are things that the character is about -- ie, things that are defining for the character -- and that you can hang a story on all by itself (ie, it can drive an entire story arc in play).  I'm not talking about scripting, here, but that the dramatic need is the impetus for story.  The examples I gave including such things as "I will get revenge on the murder of my family, no matter the cost."  This is meaty -- it's defining, and it's something that a lot of story can hang on.
> 
> So, then protagonism would be that the game that features the character with the above example of a dramatic need would have play that focuses on that need, and not something the GM wants in play.  IE, the protagonist of the story is the character, because the story is going to be about them.
> 
> This is clearly NOT D&D, as D&D is focused on a story/location/hexcrawl/sandbox created by the GM, often without direct concern for the characters.  Sometimes the characters are built into a session, but only as the GM allows.  This means the play is usually about something other than the dramatic needs of the PCs -- usually it's about the dramatic needs of some NPC, which the players then try to foil.  This isn't a bad thing -- D&D does D&D very well, but that's just not protagonism.  As I still run D&D (and am doing so now), this clearly isn't something that I think is, in any way, a bad or negative thing.



You have a very limited and incorrect view of the ways in which one can prep for and run D&D. It can easily be prepped by the DM around the goals, desires and dramatic needs of their PC's. You seem to be under a misguided assumption that pre-packaged adventure is the only way to run D&D. Its not.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes.  Let's say that I've never run an RPG before, and I pick up 5e.  It tells me that, as the GM, I choose what happens.  It doesn't tell me that I'm playing wrong if I do not.
> 
> And, the examples that I gave are easy to find similar cases argued for in the 5e forum of this very site.  If you want to make the case that the examples of play I provided are playing in bad faith, you have a much larger group of people to disagree with than just me.  I agree with you, in that I strongly dislike the implication that the goal of a player action can be thwarted while the action succeeds, but there's examples of this in published WotC APs, so neither your or my preferences in this matter seem to be the accepted norm.



Show me where someone advocated for agreeing to a players set goal, seting and informing the player of the DC for successful action resolution to attain said goal, have the player succeed at said DC and then negate the agreed upon goal... go ahead, ill wait because I don't thinkmost on this site would argue that its not bad faith DM'ing.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> You have a very limited and incorrect view of the ways in which one can prep for and run D&D. It can easily be prepped by the DM around the goals, desires and dramatic needs of their PC's. You seem to be under a misguided assumption that pre-packaged adventure is the only way to run D&D. Its not.



Nope, I do not harbor this view you have attributed to me.  If you actually run a D&D game where everything you do is always about the PC goals, and those goals are the dramatic needs I've highlighted (and not earn xp, get loot, and such), then you run an extremely unusual D&D game and I'd been keenly interested to hear a brief snippet of what you prepped for your last session and how it revolved around PC dramatic needs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Show me where someone advocated for agreeing to a players set goal, seting and informing the player of the DC for successful action resolution to attain said goal, have the player succeed at said DC and then negate the agreed upon goal... go ahead, ill wait because I don't thinkmost on this site would argue that its not bad faith DM'ing.



There has to be a very bad communication breakdown, here.   Let me see if I can find out where we've broken down, because this seems to be a very strange argument.

Which of these do you have the problem with (it can be more than one):

1.  There is an undetected guard atop the wall, as detailed in the GM's prep.
2.  This guard automatically sees the climber when then crest the top of the wall, because they have a clear view of them in this situation.
3.  That this guard then raises the alarm that the PC hoped to avoid by climbing the wall.

I think that once we nail this down, we can probably proceed.  I mean, I don't think that your position is that there cannot be a guard on the wall because that would violate the goal of the action declaration.  If it is -- if you're talking about it being bad faith to NOT change prep because it would violate the player's goal for an action, then I'm struggling to understand why you're running D&D and not a game that does this kind of play better.  Or, maybe it's that you think that the GM should just skip straight to the narration of the guard atop the wall raising the alarm, because you called for a check?  That's an interesting take, although I'm not sure you're going to actually get a lot of traction on the with the D&D players -- there was a very recent thread about climbing a tower with a rope where the majority of posters felt that the physical act of climbing absolutely required the check, regardless of goal, so they'd absolutely call for the check to see if the wall was climbed and the goal to avoid notice wouldn't have been part of what the check was meant to resolve.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, I do not harbor this view you have attributed to me.  If you actually run a D&D game where everything you do is always about the PC goals, and those goals are the dramatic needs I've highlighted (and not earn xp, get loot, and such), then you run an extremely unusual D&D game and I'd been keenly interested to hear a brief snippet of what you prepped for your last session and how it revolved around PC dramatic needs.




My personal game is a mixture of the two there are times where the game is about the dramatic needs (we just call them PC goals) and there are times where it is the PC's exploring, adventuring in the creation of the GM.  The first is facilitated by our discord server where those who can participate for the coming weeks session (on Saturday or Sunday afternoon depending on the groups preference) let me know by Wednesday.  It is also here, by Wednesday, that those who have specific goals, desires, dramatic needs, etc. in mind post in a dedicated chat room detailing what those goals they want to explore are.  I'm open to broad suggestions but both I and my players leave the details of said goal exploration largely up to me as DM.  They want an element of the unknown to be present.  Honestly I rarely if ever (I actually don't remember a time where the entire group had personal goals they wanted to explore) have had to prep like this for the entire group.  Usually 2 or 3 post in the forum and the rest either don't have a strong desire to explore their own goals this week or find the goals another player posted for their character interesting enough that they are willing to go along to see what happens. 

That said I have had weeks here and there where all of the players just wanted to explore or weren't up for pursuing their goals or just wanted a low investment session and what I've found is, just like an ongoing tv show, those interludes serve as refreshers and to help them blow off steam at times while giving me a chance to flex my own creativity outside the boundaries of what my players have set as their goals.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> My personal game is a mixture of the two there are times where the game is about the dramatic needs (we just call them PC goals) and there are times where it is the PC's exploring, adventuring in the creation of the GM.  The first is facilitated by our discord server where those who can participate for the coming weeks session (on Saturday or Sunday afternoon depending on the groups preference) let me know by Wednesday.  It is also here, by Wednesday, that those who have specific goals, desires, dramatic needs, etc. in mind post in a dedicated chat room detailing what those goals they want to explore are.  I'm open to broad suggestions but both I and my players leave the details of said goal exploration largely up to me as DM.  They want an element of the unknown to be present.  Honestly I rarely if ever (I actually don't remember a time where the entire group had personal goals they wanted to explore) have had to prep like this for the entire group.  Usually 2 or 3 post in the forum and the rest either don't have a strong desire to explore their own goals this week or find the goals another player posted for their character interesting enough that they are willing to go along to see what happens.
> 
> That said I have had weeks here and there where all of the players just wanted to explore or weren't up for pursuing their goals or just wanted a low investment session and what I've found is, just like an ongoing tv show, those interludes serve as refreshers and to help them blow off steam at times while giving me a chance to flex my own creativity outside the boundaries of what my players have set as their goals.



Yes, this sounds low protagonism to me.  Contrast this with a game like Burning Wheel, which play is entirely funneled through the PC's dramatic needs, and you'll notice a large difference.  

And it's perfectly fine for this difference to exist.  Different games do different things.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> You have a very limited and incorrect view of the ways in which one can prep for and run D&D. It can easily be prepped by the DM around the goals, desires and dramatic needs of their PC's. You seem to be under a misguided assumption that pre-packaged adventure is the only way to run D&D. Its not.



I don't think I'm the one who brought D&D into the conversation. You did post an example of how you prep for D&D, and the notion of _player-author PC dramatic needs_ didn't figure anywhere in it. That's not a criticism, just an observation.



Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means that players have a significant degree of authorship responsibility in respect of key NPCs, places and events in the shared fiction; and player provide the primary trajectory of play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this is where it falls apart for me because I don't see why the above stated playstyle necessarily needs to have this... especially the first part of your statement.
Click to expand...


If the players aren't providing the primary trajectory of play, it follows that _player-authored PC dramatic needs_ are not at the heart of play. Which in turn tells us that the play is not _protagonistic_ in the sense that @Ovinomancer has talked about.

And players can't author dramatic needs for their PCs without enjoying authorship responsibility in respect of key NPCs, places and events. A player can't establish a revenge goal, for instance, without establishing that _some or other NPC wronged his/her PC in some or other fashion_. A player can't establish a goal to redeem a family member or family line without establishing the existence and dubious past of the relevant NPCs. Even a more abstract goal, such as _being the greatest explorer of the age_ or _showing that Elvish ideals can triumph over Orcish ones_, can't be the focus of play without the GM paying significant regard to it in framing situations, meaning that the player is setting significant constraints on the GM's framing decisions.

I'm sure that some people play 5e D&D in something like this fashion. But I agree with @Ovinomancer that it has some features that aren't ideal for this sort of play, and that a lack of finality in non-combat resolution is one of those. To once again bring that back to the topic of this thread, 5e D&D tends to assume that non-combat resolution will take place in a context of, and by reference to, features of a fictional situation that the GM has already established independently of the declaration of the action. (A dungeon map and key is the paradigm in this respect.) And that sort of preparation tends not to fit that well with player-authored dramatic needs being at the heart of play. If you look at systems that are expressly designed for protagonistic play, one feature of them tends to be prising action resolution of any need to have already settled all the details of the fictional situation that would matter, in the fiction, to how things turn out. (This is sometimes lampooned as "Schroedinger's _whatever_".)


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> That's an interesting take, although I'm not sure you're going to actually get a lot of traction on the with the D&D players -- there was a very recent thread about climbing a tower with a rope where the majority of posters felt that the physical act of climbing absolutely required the check, regardless of goal, so they'd absolutely call for the check to see if the wall was climbed and the goal to avoid notice wouldn't have been part of what the check was meant to resolve.




Would you then make the same claim about 4e games who use the climbing check as part of a skill challenge, that they are facilitating a low protagonist game (at least at that point)?


----------



## pemerton

AnotherGuy said:


> Would you then make the same claim about 4e games who use the climbing check as part of a skill challenge, that they are facilitating a low protagonist game (at least at that point)?



I don't know what @Ovinomancer's answer is, but the fundamental difference in 4e D&D is that skill challenge's are closed resolution that produce finality. They are part of a family of closed-scene resolution frameworks first found (I believe) in Prince Valiant in incipient form and in Maelstrom Storytelling in full-fledged form and perhaps reaching its apogee in HeroWars/Quest.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, I defined it previously, and game examples.  Protagonism is where the focus of play is on the character's dramatic needs.
> 
> Dramatic needs are things that the character is about -- ie, things that are defining for the character -- and that you can hang a story on all by itself (ie, it can drive an entire story arc in play).  I'm not talking about scripting, here, but that the dramatic need is the impetus for story.  The examples I gave including such things as "I will get revenge on the murder of my family, no matter the cost."  This is meaty -- it's defining, and it's something that a lot of story can hang on.



And this is all absolutely wonderful...provided you're the only player in the game.

But most of the time you're not; there's other players as well, which rather demands that all the "I will..." or "I am going to..." parts of those examples need to somehow be converted to "we will..." or "we are going to..." - i.e. the goals (dramatic or otherwise) need to be party-as-a-whole goals rather than individual goals.

Otherwise, to be a bit blunt, it all sounds rather selfish.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Which of these do you have the problem with (it can be more than one):
> 
> 1.  There is an undetected guard atop the wall, as detailed in the GM's prep.
> 2.  This guard automatically sees the climber when then crest the top of the wall, because they have a clear view of them in this situation.
> 3.  That this guard then raises the alarm that the PC hoped to avoid by climbing the wall.
> 
> I think that once we nail this down, we can probably proceed.  I mean, I don't think that your position is that there cannot be a guard on the wall because that would violate the goal of the action declaration.  If it is -- if you're talking about it being bad faith to NOT change prep because it would violate the player's goal for an action, then I'm struggling to understand why you're running D&D and not a game that does this kind of play better.  Or, maybe it's that you think that the GM should just skip straight to the narration of the guard atop the wall raising the alarm, because you called for a check?  That's an interesting take, although I'm not sure you're going to actually get a lot of traction on the with the D&D players -- there was a very recent thread about climbing a tower with a rope where the majority of posters felt that the physical act of climbing absolutely required the check, regardless of goal, so they'd absolutely call for the check to see if the wall was climbed and the goal to avoid notice wouldn't have been part of what the check was meant to resolve.



If nothing else the check determines _where_ the PC is if-when noticed by the guard: at the top of the wall or the bottom.

That said, this is one of those rare instances where a failed check (and a creative DM) might work at least somewhat in the PC's favour: if the DM decides that the reason the check failed was because the PC noticed or heard the guard up top and stopped climbing!  Or, perhaps: the check failed, the PC is still on the ground, the guard aloft remains unaware of the PC's presence, and the PC has to come up with a Plan B before those other guards round the corner.

It's one of those situations that arise now and then where achievement of the PC's stated goal isn't necessarily in fact the best result for the PC.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> And this is all absolutely wonderful...provided you're the only player in the game.
> 
> But most of the time you're not; there's other players as well, which rather demands that all the "I will..." or "I am going to..." parts of those examples need to somehow be converted to "we will..." or "we are going to..." - i.e. the goals (dramatic or otherwise) need to be party-as-a-whole goals rather than individual goals.
> 
> Otherwise, to be a bit blunt, it all sounds rather selfish.



This claim seems to be based on a lack of experience with integrating individual PCs' dramatic needs into one game. It can be done. There are fairly well-known ways of dong it. It's not rocket science, not untrodden ground.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, this sounds low protagonism to me.  Contrast this with a game like Burning Wheel, which play is entirely funneled through the PC's dramatic needs, and you'll notice a large difference.
> 
> And it's perfectly fine for this difference to exist.  Different games do different things.



But what about D&D makes it unable to do these games well. My group chooses not to do an entire campaign focused on PC dramatic needs but that's not the same as stating D&D doesn't serve us well when we do or that D&D couldn't handle it well.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't think I'm the one who brought D&D into the conversation. You did post an example of how you prep for D&D, and the notion of _player-author PC dramatic needs_ didn't figure anywhere in it. That's not a criticism, just an observation.



The prep would be the same but the focus would be different. See the post where I explain that said focus would be communicated to me via discord on the Wednesday before our Saturday or Sunday game. I would still prep the same but the focus of the prep would be on the goals and needs of the PC's my players have communicated to me.

This statement actually seems to confirm my belief that you believe there is this rigid, "proper" way to prep in order to infus ones games with protagonism. On the other hand I don't believe that there is one true way to prep said games but am concerned only with whether the result is 


pemerton said:


> And players can't author dramatic needs for their PCs without enjoying authorship responsibility in respect of key NPCs, places and events. A player can't establish a revenge goal, for instance, without establishing that _some or other NPC wronged his/her PC in some or other fashion_. A player can't establish a goal to redeem a family member or family line without establishing the existence and dubious past of the relevant NPCs. Even a more abstract goal, such as _being the greatest explorer of the age_ or _showing that Elvish ideals can triumph over Orcish ones_, can't be the focus of play without the GM paying significant regard to it in framing situations, meaning that the player is setting significant constraints on the GM's framing decisions.



I disagree with all of this. If the player and DM are transparent with one another and communicate well outside of the game a player can have goals & needs that are addressed in game without having to author much, If any, of what you claim above.

A player might prefer to fully create the assasin who killed their clan one fateful night leaving them the last of their bloodline with a burning need for vengeamce...or they could just state their clan was assassinated and they seek revenge on the murderer as backstoryand goals while leaving it up to the DM to create it all. You are laying out a method/preference but not the only method/preference for achieving protagonism in play.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't know what @Ovinomancer's answer is, but the fundamental difference in 4e D&D is that skill challenge's are closed resolution that produce finality. They are part of a family of closed-scene resolution frameworks first found (I believe) in Prince Valiant in incipient form and in Maelstrom Storytelling in full-fledged form and perhaps reaching its apogee in HeroWars/Quest.



Is there a specific statement of this as a rule in 4e? Mainly that the DM can not override, introduce hidden fiction that affects or alter the outcome of a skill challenge?


----------



## pming

Hiya!


pemerton said:


> Can you say a little more about how this relates to actual play? What difference does it make to what happens at the table that you as GM have written down all this stuff about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?




I'll try. 

What it does is allow me to handle the "winging it" part of DM'ing (which is most of DM'ing if you think about it; choosing names, choosing if the little 12 year old bakers daughter has a cat or a dog or a duck as a pet, deciding if the inn is surrounded by lush grass, or sparse weeds, if the birds are singing, or if it's the sound of ravens, etc; all the "dressing", so to say). When I have a general idea of "The thieves guild is doing X, they have sent Y to do Z...who will return when Y has enough information to be useful", that lets me "wing" other things that MAY come up during play.

For example, if a Player suddenly, in a spark of genius, just blurts out: "Wait. We're investigating the Thieves Guild's possible involvement. What if they actually ARE involved? Wouldn't they be, you know, trying to spy on us to see what we know or how close we're getting? Ok everyone...keep an eye out for someone following us!". Now, I know that there is a thief who is, indeed following them. So now I might have to assign a DC or roll one (usually my go to; start with a base, then make a roll and use that; say...DC 8 + 2d4; I get a 6, so DC 14). Every Player at the table says "Good idea. We are all going to keep looking over our shoulders more. Actually, I'm going to do a double-back; everyone keep heading to the docks, I'm going to head around here (points to map), then here and here (map again), then come back here (where they are right now on the map) and see if I can see anyone following us".

Well now I have a thing to deal with!  Because I know the thief is focused on the GROUP, not an individual; so there will be dice rolled to determine if the Thief notices the PC behind him, or vice a versa. Also, if the 'sneaky' PC manages to catch the Thief; I know what the thief was doing, how long, and why. Any Roleplaying won't be based on simply "rolling dice to beat a DC"; we can actually RP it all with very little dice rolling, and this feels MUCH more organic and believable than "Ok, roll a DC 16 Diplomacy".

So the "play" events that unfold are based on something already happening (as they typically do in an RPG), but due to a note I know when, who, what, why and how (to some degree), and it is a visual reminder. Now, of course this is generally a normal thing a DM does when running an adventure; know what the bad guys are doing (this is normal, right?). But there are less "important" notes that can be had as well. For example, what if the PC's were NOT actually looking into the thieves guild? What if they were tracking down an evil cult of Cthulhu worshippers? Thieves Guild probably doesn't care...but they might THINK the PC's were looking into them. So, spying. Fast forward a half dozen or so game sessions. The Cultists are dead or captured and the PC's are hanging out at the inn, enjoying their victory. ... ... I can "wing it" and decide that the thief who was spying on them a few months ago, recognize them and approach them. "I know of your exploits, good Adventurers! I also know of your removal of those foul Cultists! Thank you, their, lets say, 'meddling', caused my employer quite the difficulty. [starts using Thieves Cant]. My uncle is particularly impressed, having several nieces and nephews who get up to no good every now and then. He was concerned they might fall in to the cult and it's desires, having seen soo much. As a loving uncle, he is glad to get back to normal, well, once all the corpses are flushed out of the system, to to say Can't have them rotting up the city, right? There may yet be cultists hiding in our midst. A small fortune could be had if someone didn't mind getting dirty doing corpse disposal. I'm certainly not up for it. At any rate, thank you for your help, may the Golden Eye of Horus be ever watchful. Until the next moon, fair-well, brave adventurers! {Thieves Cant translation: my guildmaster has a lot of underlings and we would like you to deal with some rivals and blame it on the cultists; we'll pay you a lot of gold, you have until the next full moon to decide}".

Basically, those notes can lead to little tid bits of inspiration and story/plot's that can crop up after the 'main' adventure is over.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## jmartkdr2

pemerton said:


> The Temple _being in a place_ suggests that it is used both in framing eg "You've arrived at such-and-such. You see the gleaming black marble of the temple of Olath."
> 
> It sounds also like you use it to resolve action declarations. eg "We look around - what do we see?", then you check your notes, observe that the PCs are near the temple, and so reply "You see the gleaming black marble of a temple." Or alternatively - "I'm looking around for the Temple of Olath - can I see it?" and you respond by checking your notes and map, and on that basis answering _yes_ or _no_.
> 
> With the secret entrance/back way, you seem to suggesting the same general approach - using the map/notes to resolve the action declaration. (With the possible exception of mood-dependent departures.)



Yeah - pretty much. It's there so that when a player says "I look around, what do I see?" I'm less likely to need to make up something on the spot, because doing that all the time is too much brainwork. But the notes don't rule out any changes I might decide to make on the fly.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> This statement actually seems to confirm my belief that you believe there is this rigid, "proper" way to prep in order to infus ones games with protagonism. On the other hand I don't believe that there is one true way to prep said games but am concerned only with whether the result is



I haven't said much at all about how to prepare a protagonistic game. I did say, in post 159, that in protagonistic play "the GM's pre-play notes _do not _serve the function of establishing the principal parameters for framing or for action resolution." Which is true.

Prep in AW or DW mostly consists of preparing fronts. (I say this based on reading the respective rulebooks.) Prep in Burning Wheel mostly consists of "burning" NPCs and/or monsters. (I say this based on both reading the rulebooks and having GMed the system.) In AW, DW and BW, the principal parameters for framing emerge out of previous moments of resolution, not out of the GM's pre-play notes. In AW and DW the parameters for action resolution following from that framing plus the framework of the various moves; in BW they follow from that framing plus the intent and task declared by the player in declaring the action.

Map-and-key prep of the D&D sort has no role to play in either system. Of the 7 sorts of prep that you mentioned as typical for your D&D prep, the following three do not figure in prep for AW, DW or BW:


Imaro said:


> 2. Suggestions for what the result may be for certain decisions or actions the players/PC's may or may not make during gameplay.
> 3. Includes maps for geography and/or structures I expect the players/PC's to encounter and interact with.
> 6. Various tables for random generation of things such as neighborhoods in a city, weather during travel, random encounters, etc.  Depending on what direction I expect the game session to go in.



And the following works quite differently from how it works in typical D&D prep:



Imaro said:


> 1. General facts about people places and things the players may or may not encounter.



In standard D&D prep, those general facts are treated as constraints upon action resolution, whether that be in determining the success of a search for a secret way into the temple, or determining whether there is a guard atop the wall where the PC is trying to hide, or whether there is coin in the chest that the PC searches. The GM may be at liberty to "change" these general facts at the time of play, but that is a unilateral permission.

In AW, DW and BW - as I have stated - GM prep notes do not play a role in framing the outcomes of action resolution.



Imaro said:


> I disagree with all of this. If the player and DM are transparent with one another and communicate well outside of the game a player can have goals & needs that are addressed in game without having to author much, If any, of what you claim above.
> 
> A player might prefer to fully create the assasin who killed their clan one fateful night leaving them the last of their bloodline with a burning need for vengeamce...or they could just state their clan was assassinated and they seek revenge on the murderer as backstory and goals while leaving it up to the DM to create it all.



From your second paragraph, it follows that the shared fiction contains a central NPC - the assassin - and a central past event - the murder of the PC's clan members. This is an example of what I said upthread in post 163: the player has exercised "a significant degree of authorship responsibility in respect of key NPCs, places and events in the shared fiction."



Imaro said:


> Is there a specific statement of this as a rule in 4e? Mainly that the DM can not override, introduce hidden fiction that affects or alter the outcome of a skill challenge?



From the 4e D&D PHB, p 179:

In contrast to an obstacle that requires one successful skill check, a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter. . . .​​Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks).​
From the 4e D&D DMG, pp 72, 74 76:

An audience with the duke, a mysterious set of sigils in a hidden chamber, finding your way through the Forest of Neverlight - all of these present challenges that test both the characters and the people who play them. The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions. . . .​​Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. . . .​​Level and complexity determine how hard the challenge is for your characters to overcome. The skill challenge’s level determines the DC of the skill checks involved, while the grade of complexity determines how many successes the characters need to overcome the challenge, and how many failures end the challenge. . . .​​What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?​​When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure. . . .​​Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. Running the challenge itself is not all that different from running a combat encounter . . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​​When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat - experience and perhaps treasure. The consequences of total defeat are often obvious: no XP and no treasure.​​Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure - the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure.​
This is all pretty clear, as clear now as it was a decade ago: a skill challenge is the resolution of a particular challenge/situation that arises in the fiction; the players (and their PCs) succeed or fail based on their checks made within a "clock" framework of successes-before-failures; and the success or failure is just that: either the players (and PCs) achieve their goal within the situation, or they do not.

As has been extensively discussed in many threads over the years, a number of which I would imagine you have participated in, the challenge in GMing a skill challenge is narrating movement towards overall success with each individual skill checks (this is essential or else a final overall success will not make sense within the fiction) while leaving open the fictional "space" for narrating both individual failures (if subsequent successes do not succeed) and overall failure (if the "clock" reaches an overall failure state rather than an overall success state). This is a context where pre-play prep may play a role, as notes of possible consequences and complications can help with managing this task. A key difference between the role of notes used in this way, and notes used in a map-and-key style, is that the notes do not serve as any sort of constraint or, or determiner of, the success of action declaration. That is determined via the die roll. Rather, they are a type of "aide memoire" for managing the fiction that emerges on the way through the challenge - the _narration of results_ referred to on p 74 of the DMG.



Imaro said:


> You are laying out a method/preference but not the only method/preference for achieving protagonism in play.



I am talking about the methods used - including the role of GM prep notes - in the games that I am familiar with, and in the case of BW and 4e have experience with, that support protagonistic RPGing.

I haven't said much about Prince Valiant yet in this thread, but I'm happy to do so: the short version is that pre-prep notes in Prince Valiant consist of establishing a single situation that will (1) engage the players who are, by default, playing knights errant, and (2) has a trope-ish NPC or creature as its core antagonist. There is no use of map-and-key in resolution, and no general apparatus of notes concerning geography, architecture etc that is typical of D&D play. We could also talk about Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP, which like Prince Valiant eschews map-and-key completely, and which deals with some of the challenges of skill challenge-type narration by using the Scene Distinction device (and hence does not benefit in the same way from pre-play prep of aides memoire) but poses its own GMing challenges in managing the Doom Pool.

If someone else wants to talk about other ways they are doing protagonistic play they should by all means do so. But in the context of this thread actual play examples are going to be far more interesting and relevant than abstract speculation.


----------



## pemerton

pming said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say a little more about how this relates to actual play? What difference does it make to what happens at the table that you as GM have written down all this stuff about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, if a Player suddenly, in a spark of genius, just blurts out: "Wait. We're investigating the Thieves Guild's possible involvement. What if they actually ARE involved? Wouldn't they be, you know, trying to spy on us to see what we know or how close we're getting? Ok everyone...keep an eye out for someone following us!". Now, I know that there is a thief who is, indeed following them. So now I might have to assign a DC or roll one (usually my go to; start with a base, then make a roll and use that; say...DC 8 + 2d4; I get a 6, so DC 14).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Because I know the thief is focused on the GROUP, not an individual; so there will be dice rolled to determine if the Thief notices the PC behind him, or vice a versa. Also, if the 'sneaky' PC manages to catch the Thief; I know what the thief was doing, how long, and why. Any Roleplaying won't be based on simply "rolling dice to beat a DC"; we can actually RP it all with very little dice rolling, and this feels MUCH more organic and believable than "Ok, roll a DC 16 Diplomacy".
> 
> So the "play" events that unfold are based on something already happening (as they typically do in an RPG), but due to a note I know when, who, what, why and how (to some degree), and it is a visual reminder.
Click to expand...


Suppose that the players do not blurt out anything about possibly being followed by guild thieves. What, then, is the effect _on play _of the GM having made notes about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> Would you then make the same claim about 4e games who use the climbing check as part of a skill challenge, that they are facilitating a low protagonist game (at least at that point)?



So, some streams got crossed here, and I was talking specifically about the intricacies of check resolutions in 5e and not about the climb check serving protagonism at all.  With regards to protagonism, I don't see how the climb check cuts either way -- it's not really about anything, and could be part of anything else.  This is part of the reason I say 5e does protagonism poorly -- it's primary out-of-combat resolution focus is task, not goal. You can try and use it for goal resolution, but this is blurry and unfocused.

So, for the individual climb check, I don't think it matters at all if it's in 5e or as part of a 4e skill challenge -- we don't know the purpose of either example of play, and so cannot say what play agenda or play goals it's serving.  Both could serve protagonism, or neither could.

I will echo @pemerton, though, in saying that the 4e skill challenge framework is much nicer towards protagonism than any other version of D&D.  Unlike @pemerton, though, I don't think it's presented as clearly as such in the early 4e core books, and so takes bringing in an outside D&D understanding and approach.  The mechanics don't need any changes, just how you interface with them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> My personal game is a mixture of the two there are times where the game is about the dramatic needs (we just call them PC goals) and there are times where it is the PC's exploring, adventuring in the creation of the GM.  The first is facilitated by our discord server where those who can participate for the coming weeks session (on Saturday or Sunday afternoon depending on the groups preference) let me know by Wednesday.  It is also here, by Wednesday, that those who have specific goals, desires, dramatic needs, etc. in mind post in a dedicated chat room detailing what those goals they want to explore are.  I'm open to broad suggestions but both I and my players leave the details of said goal exploration largely up to me as DM.  They want an element of the unknown to be present.  Honestly I rarely if ever (I actually don't remember a time where the entire group had personal goals they wanted to explore) have had to prep like this for the entire group.  Usually 2 or 3 post in the forum and the rest either don't have a strong desire to explore their own goals this week or find the goals another player posted for their character interesting enough that they are willing to go along to see what happens.
> 
> That said I have had weeks here and there where all of the players just wanted to explore or weren't up for pursuing their goals or just wanted a low investment session and what I've found is, just like an ongoing tv show, those interludes serve as refreshers and to help them blow off steam at times while giving me a chance to flex my own creativity outside the boundaries of what my players have set as their goals.



Let me provide an example. Let's say we have the character I used as an example previously, the one who's dramatic need is to get revenge on their family's murderer.  Let's further say that the PCs have arrived in a new town.  The example PC's player declares an action to search for clues to the murderer's location in this town, because the PC believes that it's likely the murderer passed through here (all on their own).  The response from the GM can be a number of things, but here's the two big categories:

1.  The GM checks their notes:
1a.  The notes indicate that the murderer did indeed come through this town, and there are clues, and so play progresses with the player trying to discover these clues.
1b.  The notes indicate either that the murderer when in a different direction, or say nothing about the murderer in this town, and so play on this matter stops or is thwarted because the GM narrates failure to the action (or provide some non-answer).

2.  The GM goes with the player's action and assumes that the may be something in this town:
2a.  The GM wings this entirely on their own estimation of the what's here.
2b.  The GM uses the mechanics of the system to test the player's action, and honors the results, narrating clues on a success.

In this structure, all of 1 is no or low protagonism.  The PC's need are not centered in play, but rather the GM's notes are.  By this I mean that the GM is protagonizing the murderer, and has written down their story, which the PC then can discover if the notes indicate the are in a place to be discovered.

2a is uncertain protagonism -- this is still very subject to the GM protagonizing other things, but may not be.

2b is high protagonism.  Play centers on the PC's dramatic needs.

That said, I think all of 1 is a great way to run a mystery game that focuses on the player solving the mystery through play.  This can be very engaging and lots of fun, and is absolutely a fun way to play.  Protagonism isn't an absolute good, it's just a way to play.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> From the 4e D&D PHB, p 179:
> 
> In contrast to an obstacle that requires one successful skill check, a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter. . . .​​Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks).​
> From the 4e D&D DMG, pp 72, 74 76:
> 
> An audience with the duke, a mysterious set of sigils in a hidden chamber, finding your way through the Forest of Neverlight - all of these present challenges that test both the characters and the people who play them. The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions. . . .​​Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. . . .​​Level and complexity determine how hard the challenge is for your characters to overcome. The skill challenge’s level determines the DC of the skill checks involved, while the grade of complexity determines how many successes the characters need to overcome the challenge, and how many failures end the challenge. . . .​​What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?​​When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure. . . .​​Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. Running the challenge itself is not all that different from running a combat encounter . . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​​When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat - experience and perhaps treasure. The consequences of total defeat are often obvious: no XP and no treasure.​​Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure - the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure.​
> This is all pretty clear, as clear now as it was a decade ago: a skill challenge is the resolution of a particular challenge/situation that arises in the fiction; the players (and their PCs) succeed or fail based on their checks made within a "clock" framework of successes-before-failures; and the success or failure is just that: either the players (and PCs) achieve their goal within the situation, or they do not.



I'm still not seeing a rule that states that the DM must enable a player stated goal of a SC upon success.  This is what I was asked to provide for 5e.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Let me provide an example. Let's say we have the character I used as an example previously, the one who's dramatic need is to get revenge on their family's murderer.  Let's further say that the PCs have arrived in a new town.  The example PC's player declares an action to search for clues to the murderer's location in this town, because the PC believes that it's likely the murderer passed through here (all on their own).  The response from the GM can be a number of things, but here's the two big categories:
> 
> 1.  The GM checks their notes:
> 1a.  The notes indicate that the murderer did indeed come through this town, and there are clues, and so play progresses with the player trying to discover these clues.
> 1b.  The notes indicate either that the murderer when in a different direction, or say nothing about the murderer in this town, and so play on this matter stops or is thwarted because the GM narrates failure to the action (or provide some non-answer).
> 
> 2.  The GM goes with the player's action and assumes that the may be something in this town:
> 2a.  The GM wings this entirely on their own estimation of the what's here.
> 2b.  The GM uses the mechanics of the system to test the player's action, and honors the results, narrating clues on a success.
> 
> In this structure, all of 1 is no or low protagonism.  The PC's need are not centered in play, but rather the GM's notes are.  By this I mean that the GM is protagonizing the murderer, and has written down their story, which the PC then can discover if the notes indicate the are in a place to be discovered.
> 
> 2a is uncertain protagonism -- this is still very subject to the GM protagonizing other things, but may not be.
> 
> 2b is high protagonism.  Play centers on the PC's dramatic needs.
> 
> That said, I think all of 1 is a great way to run a mystery game that focuses on the player solving the mystery through play.  This can be very engaging and lots of fun, and is absolutely a fun way to play.  Protagonism isn't an absolute good, it's just a way to play.




Since you include purposeful pre-prep around the players dramatic needs in the same category as no prep around the players dramatic needs (Both being no or low protagonism) but improvisation around the dramatic need is categorized differently (high protagonism) I can only conclude that improv vs pre-prep is the main (only??) difference... is that correct?

I really don't see a practical difference in the results generated by 1a and 2a since both are being determined by the GM (either in the moment or beforehand).  While 2b seems to mostly be a principle (honor the result of testing a player's action where success equals clues) that can be applied to D&D pretty easily, especially in the method of 1a.


----------



## Imaro

FYI: Here is the passage that lays out the process for an Ability Check from the 5e PHB...

*ABILITY CHECKS*
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate
talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results...

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the
relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply
bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC.
*If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check*
*is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the
character or monster makes no progress toward the
objective or makes progress combined with a setback*
*determined by the DM.*

Emphasis mine.  It seems to pretty clearly lay out that a success = overcoming the challenge at hand (Avoiding the guards) while failure would result in failure or progress with a setback.  I don't see how this could be more clear for defining process of play and expectations.  Yes you could disregard it but that boils down to DM'ing in bad faith.


----------



## Manbearcat

ON PROTAGONISM

The best place to start to illustrate the concept is the Indie TTRPG My Life With Master.

1)  At the outset of the game, the GM and the players design "The Master" with a series of tags; Wants, Needs, Aspect, Type.  This serves two purposes:

a)  It gives the players a level of protagonism because they're defining (i) what the nature of their enemy will be and (ii) therefore what their Minions (their PCs) will be struggling against.

b)  Along with the rest of the gaming tech (PC build, action resolution mechanics, feedback loops, GMing techniques), this orients The Master as THE PROTAGONIST at the outset of the game.

2)  The point of play is for the players to advocate for their Minions, carve out their thematic portfolio during play, create relationships with the Townsfolk (or carry out The Masters brutal regime of orders and deal with the fallout depending on how any given scene plays out), *all in effort to wrest protagonism from The Master* (thereby transferring it to any given Minion, some Minions, or the Townsfolk), culminating in the realization of either The Master's Wants/Needs, or the Minion(s) and the Townsfolk.


Basically, its a crucible of protagonism where the players orient the game (by creating the NPC protagonist) and then attempt to wrest the protagonism from their creation (which the GM plays).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A game like Dungeon World (and Apocalypse World and Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark) shares kindred procedures and ethos with MLWM except in orientation:

1)  Making the map and building PCs and connecting them (through Bonds) is not a process for creating protagonism to wrest control of.  Its a process for creating antagonism and obstacles to thematically oppose the players initial and persistent state as protagonists (through the dramatic needs that they invest their PCs with and through the related antagonistic mileu that is built at the outset of play and is continuously built through play).

2)  Asking questions and using the answers throughout play ensures the continual renewal and assurance of "protaganist-centers/dependent antagonism and obstacles" throughout the course of play.  Its a means of authority distribution that is subtle but robust.

3)  Outside of scene framing (which the players have a huge role in via (1), (2), and the procedural generation of content via the action resolution mechanics), where the GM is at their most active, the GM is much more reactive in DW (and the like).  That is, until action resolution mechanics dictate Hard Moves need to be made and/or new scenes need to be framed.

4)  The GM is framing scenes and deploying consequences that don't just address the broad premise of play (where Dungeon World genre-wise differs ZERO from D&D), and this is where I think people are confused (just because you're "on premise" - eg exploring dungeons and acquiring treasure - doesn't mean the players are situated as the protagonists; through their PCs or NPCs), but they also overwhelmingly address specific thematic focus that the players have invested the game with.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All of the above are facets of protagonism.  It is a very different arrangement of all of:

* Table orientation to content generation where the players are overwhelmingly dictating what play is about.

* Authority distribution broadly (and specifically) during play (even if its authority-by-proxy like in the case of ask questions - use answers)

* The orientation of the GM as (i) much more reactive than in traditional D&D, (ii) much more constrained by the rules/resolution mechanics/principles of the game than in traditional D&D, (iii) the "player whose pieces in play orbit around PC protagonism...opposing and provoking it", (iv) and the GM gets to "play to find out (what happens)."

You are NOT THE LEAD STORYTELLER

You do NOT GET TO BREAK/CHANGE RULES

You do NOT USE YOUR PIECES TO CONVEY A THEMATICALLY NEUTRAL, PC-DISINTERESTED WORLD

You do NOT USE SECRET BACKSTORY (it doesn't exist) OR NATURALISTIC EXTRAPOLATION TO OPPOSE PC


----------



## tetrasodium

pemerton said:


> Suppose that the players do not blurt out anything about possibly being followed by guild thieves. What, then, is the effect _on play _of the GM having made notes about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?



The thieves guild & other off screen stuff are quantum when they aren't being observed or interacted with.  In games like fate mentioning it like in the example can actually cost(and potentially gain) the player a resource but it gets done anyway because they are already there if at any point in the future their presence there can improve something in an interesting way so why not spice it up by putting them there now so things are interesting today.


I think that touches on a lot of the problem I have with some of @Ovinomancer's protagonistic examples.  D&d doesn't have anything like compels & frankly unless your vin diesel most of the group probably doesn't much care about you getting revenge or whatever. Instead of asking if the guy who killed your family is in town, the players engaged in this sort of play should focus on ways to make their goal connect to an inclusive thing like "this seems a lot like the town I remember my family meeting the killer and some of the killer's loyalists back when I was a kid, maybe the veg we are fighting is related to the killer"if the gm says yes  they are the player now has all kinds of ties and maybe imperfect memories of the visit_(including maybe those "traps")_ that could prove useful or sticky so the rest of the group has reason to care.  Game systems that support thst type of play tend to assume dynamic characters that grow and include ways to change your goals as you complete them or realize they are obsolete/you irrelevant


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I'm still not seeing a rule that states that the DM must enable a player stated goal of a SC upon success.  This is what I was asked to provide for 5e.



I'll requote:

a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter (4e D&D PHB, p 179)​​Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. (4e D&D DMG, p 72)​
If the players succeed at the skill challenge, they achieve _the goal of the challenge_ and thus "claim success in the encounter".



Imaro said:


> FYI: Here is the passage that lays out the process for an Ability Check from the 5e PHB...
> 
> *ABILITY CHECKS*
> An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate
> talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.
> The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
> monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
> has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
> the dice determine the results...
> 
> To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the
> relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply
> bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC.
> *If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check*
> *is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
> at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the
> character or monster makes no progress toward the
> objective or makes progress combined with a setback*
> *determined by the DM.*
> 
> Emphasis mine.  It seems to pretty clearly lay out that a success = overcoming the challenge at hand (Avoiding the guards) while failure would result in failure or progress with a setback.  I don't see how this could be more clear for defining process of play and expectations.  Yes you could disregard it but that boils down to DM'ing in bad faith.



_The challenge_ is not defined in terms of _a goal_ nor in terms of _success in the encounter_.

So the PC can avoid the guards (that are about to come around the corner) but not successfully avoid discovery in the current situation (in virtue of climbing the wall into the line of sight of a hitherto-unnoticed guard).

That is all @Ovinomancer is saying.


----------



## Imaro

Can we please just list out what is meant by protagonism concretely?  Not what it isn't, or how games achieve it... but what it actually is, how it's defined?  Like seriously what we are talking about here still seems to be be various games around this nebulous and shifting thing that changes depending on who is posting about it and what previous posts have been made concerning it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Since you include purposeful pre-prep around the players dramatic needs in the same category as no prep around the players dramatic needs (Both being no or low protagonism) but improvisation around the dramatic need is categorized differently (high protagonism) I can only conclude that improv vs pre-prep is the main (only??) difference... is that correct?



Not quite.  The prep was establishing the story of the NPC, which the PC then discovered.  This puts the story of the NPC in the place of primacy -- ie, the thing that is true.

Prep is difficult to do for protagonism, largely because it tends to protagonize the NPCs over the PCs.  Prep, in this case, needs to be focused on having interesting complications handy, in case they become useful. "Hold on lightly" is the usual advice for prep in this case -- it's fine to think ahead, and jot down some notes, but you need to be ready to ditch that entirely on a moments notice if play moves in a different direction.  This isn't entirely improvisational play, though, as systems that implement this also have strong constraints and tools for enabling this play.  


Imaro said:


> I really don't see a practical difference in the results generated by 1a and 2a since both are being determined by the GM (either in the moment or beforehand).  While 2b seems to mostly be a principle (honor the result of testing a player's action where success equals clues) that can be applied to D&D pretty easily, especially in the method of 1a.



I don't disagree -- 2a, though, has a bit more space, which is why I put it down as uncertain and called out the same issues as likely.

And, yes, 2b does follow the 'honor the result' philosophy.  There's a difference between how you might implement this in 5e, though, and that sits within the space of who controls the fiction.  In D&D (5e included), the GM is absolutely framing the situation however they want -- there are no constraints on the GM to address the PC's dramatic needs.  Second, the GM is under no compulsion to allow a check -- they have the unilateral authority to declare the action as a failure.  This is actually good and required, because otherwise an action that conflicts with prep that hasn't yet been revealed (secret notes, if you will) cannot be negated, which is a cornerstone of the importance of prep.  So, to even get to a check, the situation is controlled by what the GM has presented and whether or not the GM decides a check is even needed.  Then you can get to the GM picking up a principled approach to always honor the result of the check with regards to the goal of the action, but this is again still moderated by checking for conflict with prep, or by the GM being able to determine the effect level (you may just move towards your goal, and the GM calls for another check, a la some climbing examples).  But, yes, clear stake setting, open DCs, and honoring results does move towards enabling protagonism.  It at least doesn't fight strongly against it.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I'll requote:
> 
> a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter (4e D&D PHB, p 179)​​Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. (4e D&D DMG, p 72)​
> If the players succeed at the skill challenge, they achieve _the goal of the challenge_ and thus "claim success in the encounter".
> 
> 
> _The challenge_ is not defined in terms of _a goal_ nor in terms of _success in the encounter_.
> 
> So the PC can avoid the guards (that are about to come around the corner) but not successfully avoid discovery in the current situation (in virtue of climbing the wall into the line of sight of a hitherto-unnoticed guard).
> 
> That is all @Ovinomancer is saying.




So from the 5e PHB...

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results.

So I define my action (avoid the guards) and the DM calls for a roll to determine it's success I roll and... 

*If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check
is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the
character or monster makes no progress toward the
objective or makes progress combined with a setback
determined by the DM.*


----------



## pemerton

tetrasodium said:


> The thieves guild & other off screen stuff are quantum when they aren't being observed or interacted with.  In games like fate mentioning it like in the example can actually cost(and potentially gain) the player a resource but it gets done anyway because they are already there if at any point in the future their presence there can improve something in an interesting way so why not spice it up by putting them there now so things are interesting today.



I'm familiar with how "think offscreen" works in AW and other PbtA games; I know how a similar approach works in Burning Wheel (based especially on the discussion of the topic in the Adventure Burner); and while I don't have experience with Fate I am familiar enough with it general terms to have a sense of how it works in this respect.

I was explicitly asking @pming what is happening in his game, which as best I can tell from long familiarity with his posts is not adjudicated in a PbtA or similar style.



tetrasodium said:


> D&d doesn't have anything like compels & frankly unless your vin diesel most of the group probably doesn't much care about you getting revenge or whatever. Instead of asking if the guy who killed your family is in town, the players engaged in this sort of play should focus on ways to make their goal connect to an inclusive thing like "this seems a lot like the town I remember my family meeting the killer and some of the killer's loyalists back when I was a kid, maybe the veg we are fighting is related to the killer"if the gm says yes  they are the player now has all kinds of ties and maybe imperfect memories of the visit



I think here you are expressing broad agreement with @Ovinomancer, namely, that D&D tends to rest on a number of assumptions, including about the role of the GM in establishing the fiction and the way that party play works, which do not easily accommodate protagonistic RPGing.


----------



## Ovinomancer

tetrasodium said:


> The thieves guild & other off screen stuff are quantum when they aren't being observed or interacted with.  In games like fate mentioning it like in the example can actually cost(and potentially gain) the player a resource but it gets done anyway because they are already there if at any point in the future their presence there can improve something in an interesting way so why not spice it up by putting them there now so things are interesting today.
> 
> 
> I think that touches on a lot of the problem I have with some of @Ovinomancer's protagonistic examples.  D&d doesn't have anything like compels & frankly unless your vin diesel most of the group probably doesn't much care about you getting revenge or whatever. Instead of asking if the guy who killed your family is in town, the players engaged in this sort of play should focus on ways to make their goal connect to an inclusive thing like "this seems a lot like the town I remember my family meeting the killer and some of the killer's loyalists back when I was a kid, maybe the veg we are fighting is related to the killer"if the gm says yes  they are the player now has all kinds of ties and maybe imperfect memories of the visit_(including maybe those "traps")_ that could prove useful or sticky so the rest of the group has reason to care.  Game systems that support thst type of play tend to assume dynamic characters that grow and include ways to change your goals as you complete them or realize they are obsolete/you irrelevant



I don't disagree, except to say that this kind of play isn't about protagonism -- and that's absolutely fine.  D&D does a great job at being the fun, entertaining game it is without any focus on protagonism.  It doesn't need to.  And your advice and approaches here are very much in line with this lack of protagonism, which, again, is a strength of D&D, not a weakness.

Again, I run 5e, and am running an AP right now.  There's very little protagonism in this game.  I've carved out a bit in my run, but this is by largely ignoring how the game is structured and inviting my players to add things to the game and then, later, determine when/if those things are important focuses of play.


----------



## el-remmen

This is what my notes look like when I have a pretty clear idea of what the PCs will do in a session. Of course, they can go in a completely unexpected direction and most of this will be delayed or wasted - but even then, it acts as a basis for thinking about what happens/consequences for doing or not doing.

I have also included a pre-drawn map of the encounter location (again, they could end up not confronting here by their choices - but this is where they will be led if nothing else changes).




P.S. Potential _Ghosts of Saltmarsh_ spoilers.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Can we please just list out what is meant by protagonism concretely?  Not what it isn't, or how games achieve it... but what it actually is, how it's defined?  Like seriously what we are talking about here still seems to be be various games around this nebulous and shifting thing that changes depending on who is posting about it and what previous posts have been made concerning it.



I've done this twice, and you haven't responded to either post.  The latest quoted you, so it should be easily found in your mentions.  It would be good if there was some feedback to these posts to determine where confusion might still lie.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Can we please just list out what is meant by protagonism concretely?  Not what it isn't, or how games achieve it... but what it actually is, how it's defined?  Like seriously what we are talking about here still seems to be be various games around this nebulous and shifting thing that changes depending on who is posting about it and what previous posts have been made concerning it.




I've tried to explain this a million times.  If a holistic breaking down of the concept doesn't work for you, I will attempt to reduce it to its most basic fundamental nature.  If this doesn't work for you because its not high enough resolution (because you asked for the reduction/distillation), then just use this reduction and look at what I posted above (and the other things I and others have posted) to then build out your understanding.

Ok, to reduce/distill (and therefore lose information):

Does your game (the setting, the obstacles, the antagonists) orbit pretty much entirely around expressed PC dramatic needs (PC dramatic needs are the sun, the obstacles/antagonists are the planets)?  Yes?  Protagonism.

* Note that general play premise or genre (this is a HEIST game, this is a DUNGEON EXPLORATION game) is not an expression of PC dramatic need.  This is not Protagonism.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I've tried to explain this a million times.  If a holistic breaking down of the concept doesn't work for you, I will attempt to reduce it to its most basic fundamental nature.  If this doesn't work for you because its not high enough resolution (because you asked for the reduction/distillation), then just use this reduction and look at what I posted above (and the other things I and others have posted) to then build out your understanding.
> 
> Ok, to reduce/distill (and therefore lose information):
> 
> Does your game (the setting, the obstacles, the antagonists) orbit pretty much entirely around expressed PC dramatic needs (PC dramatic needs are the sun, the obstacles/antagonists are the planets)?  Yes?  Protagonism.
> 
> * Note that general play premise or genre (this is a HEIST game, this is a DUNGEON EXPLORATION game) is not an expression of PC dramatic need.  This is not Protagonism.




Okay so if it's simply this... why do we keep mixing in the rules of other games, peoples preferred methodologies, and opinions into the mix?  That's the confusion.  If we are simply discussing the definition above and whether it is doable in D&D or many other traditional games (with the caveat  that it's what a particular group wants to focus their game on) then I don't get how one can argue it's bad or unsuited for it.  This has been my point from the beginning, stating that D&D is bad at this type of play rings falsely in my ears unless we assume a group doesn't desire protagonism but instead needs to be forced to play in this manner by the ruleset.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Since you include purposeful pre-prep around the players dramatic needs in the same category as no prep around the players dramatic needs (Both being no or low protagonism) but improvisation around the dramatic need is categorized differently (high protagonism) I can only conclude that improv vs pre-prep is the main (only??) difference... is that correct?





Ovinomancer said:


> Let me provide an example. Let's say we have the character I used as an example previously, the one who's dramatic need is to get revenge on their family's murderer.  Let's further say that the PCs have arrived in a new town.  The example PC's player declares an action to search for clues to the murderer's location in this town, because the PC believes that it's likely the murderer passed through here (all on their own).  The response from the GM can be a number of things, but here's the two big categories:
> 
> 1.  The GM checks their notes:
> 1a.  The notes indicate that the murderer did indeed come through this town, and there are clues, and so play progresses with the player trying to discover these clues.
> 1b.  The notes indicate either that the murderer when in a different direction, or say nothing about the murderer in this town, and so play on this matter stops or is thwarted because the GM narrates failure to the action (or provide some non-answer).
> 
> 2.  The GM goes with the player's action and assumes that the may be something in this town:
> 2a.  The GM wings this entirely on their own estimation of the what's here.
> 2b.  The GM uses the mechanics of the system to test the player's action, and honors the results, narrating clues on a success.





Ovinomancer said:


> Not quite.  The prep was establishing the story of the NPC, which the PC then discovered.  This puts the story of the NPC in the place of primacy -- ie, the thing that is true.
> 
> Prep is difficult to do for protagonism, largely because it tends to protagonize the NPCs over the PCs.  *Prep, in this case, needs to be focused on having interesting complications handy, in case they become useful. "Hold on lightly" is the usual advice for prep in this case *-- it's fine to think ahead, and jot down some notes, but you need to be ready to ditch that entirely on a moments notice if play moves in a different direction.  This isn't entirely improvisational play, though, as systems that implement this also have strong constraints and tools for enabling this play.



I've highlighted a key part of @Ovinomancer's reply. This is consistent with my description, upthread, of the possible role of "aides memoire" in skill challenge adjudication. The preparation of "fronts" by an AW or DW GM is also (in part) for this purpose: when the rules and rhythm of the game tell the GM s/he has to introduce some new, oppositional fiction the AW or DW GM looks to his/her fronts for that material.

This is obviously very different from introducing fiction by first asking _where are the PCs on the map _and then asking _what do my notes tell me is at that place on the map?_ (For a bit more about this map-and-key approach, see my discussion upthread with @jmartkdr2 and the hypothetical black marble temple of Olath with its evil high priest.)



Ovinomancer said:


> In this structure, all of 1 is no or low protagonism.  The PC's need are not centered in play, but rather the GM's notes are.  By this I mean that the GM is protagonizing the murderer, and has written down their story, which the PC then can discover if the notes indicate the are in a place to be discovered.
> 
> 2a is uncertain protagonism -- this is still very subject to the GM protagonizing other things, but may not be.
> 
> 2b is high protagonism.  Play centers on the PC's dramatic needs.





Imaro said:


> I really don't see a practical difference in the results generated by 1a and 2a since both are being determined by the GM (either in the moment or beforehand).





Ovinomancer said:


> I don't disagree -- 2a, though, has a bit more space, which is why I put it down as uncertain and called out the same issues as likely.



On this point I do disagree. I've GMed 1a, and have _played _in a lot of 1a, and I have also GMed 2a. (2a is what eg Rolemaster and to some extent Classic Traveller tends to looks like when GMed in a protagonistic-oriented fashion.)

The difference between _deciding the fiction in advance of play_ and _deciding the fiction in the moment of play, in response to player cues, and the back-and-forth at the table _(which can take place even in games that do not have the formal PbtA injunction to ask questions and build on the answers) is huge. In my own view, based on my own experience, it can hardly be exaggerated. If you've tried it and disagree, I'm very interested to hear more. If you've not tried it, then I strongly suggest doing so and seeing what happens.



Imaro said:


> While 2b seems to mostly be a principle (honor the result of testing a player's action where success equals clues) that can be applied to D&D pretty easily, especially in the method of 1a.





Ovinomancer said:


> And, yes, 2b does follow the 'honor the result' philosophy.



_Honouring the results _will only produce _protagonistic play_ if the player-authored PC's dramatic need was an _input_ into those results.

To elaborate the above point: _honouring the results_ is crucial to GMing Moldvay Basic. The GM advice section of the game is all about this. But Moldvay Basic, played in accordance with the guidelines and principles set out, won't produce protagonistic play. The notion of _dramatic needs _is nowhere to be found.

The most straightforward way to incorporate dramatic need as an input into action resolution is via (what Burning Wheel calls) Intent and Task and Let it Ride: ie if the check succeeds the PC achieves both the declared task and the player's intent, and the outcome is binding on all participants; and if the check fails then the GM establishes consequences that flow in some or other fashion from the task and that _put pressure_ on the player's intent and hence constitute further adversity for the PC. Which goes back to what @Ovinomancer posted about the role of prep: you can't do this sort of thing if the fiction is already subject to the constraints of pre-authorship.

The BW procedures aren't the only feasible ones: PbtA games use their arrays of moves instead to incorporate dramatic need into resolution. But the implications for how and when fiction is established aren't that different.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> So from the 5e PHB...
> 
> The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
> monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
> has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
> the dice determine the results.
> 
> So I define my action (avoid the guards) and the DM calls for a roll to determine it's success I roll and...
> 
> *If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check
> is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
> at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the
> character or monster makes no progress toward the
> objective or makes progress combined with a setback
> determined by the DM.*



Which guards is the GM obliged to take you to be avoiding? The ones whose presence has been announced (as coming around the corner, the shadows cast by their lanterns already visible to the PC)? Or the one the player (and PC) doesn't yet know about, who has line of sight to the top of the wall?

The 5e PHB passage that you have quoted doesn't address this. Because it refers to _actions_ and to _the challenge at hand_ but does not refer to _the situation _or _the player's goal for his/her PC in the situation_.

It is obvious from reading any number of ENworld threads that the majority of 5e D&D GMs on this board treat _the action _and _the challenge at hand_ as pertaining to _what is known to the player in the course of declaring the action _and as not pertaining to possible additional fiction stipulated by the GM in his/her notes but not yet revealed in play.

And if any given 5e D&D GM decides to interpret _the action _and _the challenge at hand _as pertaining to the whole situation, they have the obvious problem that it is often unsatisfying to resolve a dramatically significant situation via a single roll. But what process is to be used to increase the number of rolls? The obvious one is to narrow down _the action _to have the same meaning as I described in my previous paragraph. But now we have the issue of _when is the scene finished? _and _how does that relate to the GM's prep_, especially map-and-key prep.

There are protagonistically-oriented games that don't use skill challenge-style closed scene resolution: AW and DW are pre-eminent examples. But they use other techniques to deal with the issue which (among their other features) involve radical departures from map-and-key prep.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Can we please just list out what is meant by protagonism concretely?





Ovinomancer said:


> I've done this twice





Manbearcat said:


> I've tried to explain this a million times.



In addition to Ovinomancer's literally two attempts, and Manbearcats figurative millions, I also posted this upthread:


pemerton said:


> To paraphrase @Ovinomancer from post 112 upthread, what distinguishes these games is that _the player-authored dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play_.




******************************************


Imaro said:


> Okay so if it's simply this... why do we keep mixing in the rules of other games, peoples preferred methodologies, and opinions into the mix?



It's impossible to discuss protagonistic RPGing without discussing procedures or methodologies of play, because these are inherent to the notion of _player-authored_ dramatic needs being the _primary focus of play_. In the preceding sentence, the two italicised phrases are central to the notion of protagonistic RPGing, and also implicate some and exclude other procedures of play.

You can't have protagonistic RPGing if the GM has sole, unilateral authority over the content of the shared fiction. That's a statement of procedures. In the context of this thread, it is obviously related to the point of GM's notes. It bears upon who gets to tell us _what today's RPG session is going to be about_, which bears upon the role of notes in determining what the session will be about. It bears upon the role of notes in framing, and in resolution.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss GMing techniques.

******************************************



Imaro said:


> If we are simply discussing the definition above and whether it is doable in D&D or many other traditional games (with the caveat  that it's what a particular group wants to focus their game on) then I don't get how one can argue it's bad or unsuited for it.



Having done quite a bit of protagonistic play using a "traditional" RPG - namely, Rolemaster - I am pretty familiar with its limitations in this respect:

(1) It suffers from a lack of robust finality in non-combat resolution, although - in virtue of the design of many of its static action resolution tables - not quite as badly as non-skill challenge D&D resolution.

(2) It has many, many features that drag the focus of play away from the player-authored PC dramatic needs: spell durations, healing times, and the requirement that these impose to track time in a granular fashion and that make it hard to "close off" a scene.

(3) It has no clear procedures for resolving action declarations that involve large scale (in the fiction) space and time: travelling from A to B relies upon tracking movement on a map by applying movement rates and terrain modifiers; finding an armourer to sell you armour requires engaging with the fiction the GM narrates based on his/her map-and-key; etc. (It's no coincidence that in the RM games I GMed magical transport via teleport or flight became the default mode of moving from location to location and hence proceeding from event to event.)​
Another "traditional" RPG that I know fairly well - namely, RuneQuest - suffers from a worse case of (1) (because it lacks the static action tables) and has a further limitation that is not present in RM:

(4) There is no real way, in RQ, for a player to "try harder" when the stakes are high (as determined by the PC's player-authored dramatic need). Magic is perhaps an exception to this, but it doesn't flow quite as easily as it does in RM, and RM has other mechanical features beyond spell use that permit trying harder.​
There are probably other limitations I'm not thinking of right now, but those are some of the main ones.

Looking at "non-traditional" systems: Burning Wheel does not have (1), (3) or (4) and has some interesting ways of managing (2) by creating meaningful trade-offs around the passing of ingame time; Prince Valiant does not have (1), (2) or (3) and has a limited device - the Storyteller Certificate - for avoiding (4); Classic Traveller does not have (1) in its core activities of space travel, space trade, and fighting people and doesn't suffer too badly from (1) when it comes to talking to people, doesn't have much of (2) and doesn't have (3); AW and DW don't have (1), (2) or (3) and individual PCs may have individual moves that also avoid (4) at least in some contexts.

Based on my knowledge of 5e, it has (1) to about the same degree as RQ, mostly avoids (2) except in the context of resource recovery where the evidence of these boards is that that can be a huge issues, does have (3), and mostly deals with (4) via the magic system (the Inspiration subsystem often seems to be disregarded).

In any event, I don't believe that I have ever seen a single post on ENworld about 5e D&D play which provided an example of protagonistic RPGing using that system.

That's not to say that there are no black swans out there, but if you want to prove their existence can you at least point us to where they might be found?


----------



## John Dallman

Manbearcat said:


> Does your game (the setting, the obstacles, the antagonists) orbit pretty much entirely around expressed PC dramatic needs (PC dramatic needs are the sun, the obstacles/antagonists are the planets)?  Yes?  Protagonism.



Thanks, that's clearer, and it makes clear that I'm running games in a very different way. 

The dramatic needs of PCs are not something I expect GM or players to be fully aware of at the start of a campaign. They're emergent properties of the combination of the set of characters and the setting. These needs are gradually discovered in play, and change as the characters are changed by their adventures. The characters strive towards their dramatic fulfilment by means of concrete actions within the setting reality; they often have fairly complex individual agendas, and have to compromise parts of them. 

Playing this way assumes that all the players are willing to stay with a setting and group of characters for long enough to let these emergent phenomena crystalize.  Having that happen is a matter of devising an interesting setting, with some depth to it, and of the players being willing accommodate each other's quirks. 

A GM can't have full information about everything in that kind of setting. So a large part of their preparation for a session is filling out details of the things they anticipate the characters interacting with. That detail is needed to maintain verisimilitude, to keep the feeling of setting plausibility and engagement. 

Since the start of this thread, I've been starting preparation for the next session of my space navy game. The PCs are going to try to rescue a group of people who are currently stuck on a space station orbiting Io, the innermost of Jupiter's large moons. Jupiter has radiation belts (like Earth's Van Allen belts, only _much_ more dangerous) which are at their strongest around Io's orbit. The space station is a 400 yard diameter rock, which provides fully adequate radiation shielding to the rooms carved into its core, so the people are safe there, but can't leave. The ship the PCs have improvised is a 100 yard diameter rock, fitted with engines, and again with adequately shielded rooms carved into its core. The trick will be getting the ship into position, and moving the people from one shielded area to another quickly enough. 

The first piece of my prep is looking up how good the available shielded spacesuits are, and thus how much time will be available. The answer looks like "This is manageable, but it's going to have to be planned right and done smartly." That's the biggest constraint on PC actions. 

The next piece will be more conventional: names and thumbnail personalities for the people to be rescued. There's no need for combat stats: nobody involved is fool enough to start a fight under these circumstances. 

This is not a situation where dramatic posturing will get anybody anywhere. Radiation doesn't care about such things. The players are all serious SF fans, and running this like Star Trek would utterly shatter suspension of disbelief. Some of the PCs are uploaded, so their minds run on computers, and can be backed up. I'm fairly confident they'll be the ones who volunteer to take risks if those are necessary.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> On this point I do disagree. I've GMed 1a, and have _played _in a lot of 1a, and I have also GMed 2a. (2a is what eg Rolemaster and to some extent Classic Traveller tends to looks like when GMed in a protagonistic-oriented fashion.)
> 
> The difference between _deciding the fiction in advance of play_ and _deciding the fiction in the moment of play, in response to player cues, and the back-and-forth at the table _(which can take place even in games that do not have the formal PbtA injunction to ask questions and build on the answers) is huge. In my own view, based on my own experience, it can hardly be exaggerated. If you've tried it and disagree, I'm very interested to hear more. If you've not tried it, then I strongly suggest doing so and seeing what happens.



The daylight I see here is that the GM, in many games, is not required to honor the PC cues, but is instead allowed to do whatever they want.  I'll be the first to agree that this is something I'd find deeply unrewarding, but it's also what most people unfamiliar with games that center protagonism immediately think of when considering 2a play.  That view is colored by the GM's role in 1a/b play as the sole author of the fiction (outside of action declarations), that is then drug through into the idea that the GM reacts to the PC's action, but remains the sole author of the fiction.  It's literally the point of view that is the source of many of the arguments against Story Now style techniques.  So, when I was accounting for the play, I left that as uncertain because it's entirely up to the GM without constraint by system or mechanics (except those constraints accepted by the GM in the moment of choosing which mechanics to use), which is how the vast majority of players with primary experience in D&D or GM centered games imagine improv games must work.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> You are NOT THE LEAD STORYTELLER
> 
> You do NOT GET TO BREAK/CHANGE RULES
> 
> You do NOT USE YOUR PIECES TO CONVEY A THEMATICALLY NEUTRAL, PC-DISINTERESTED WORLD
> 
> You do NOT USE SECRET BACKSTORY (it doesn't exist) OR NATURALISTIC EXTRAPOLATION TO OPPOSE PC



Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game?  Seriously.

By reading this you can't do anything such as change or kitbash rules or define setting so as to make the game your own (yet the players, it seems, can to some extent do the latter), you can't present any sort of mystery for solving or later reveal, you can't present the players a living setting that has things happen - both now and in the past - independent of the PCs and-or their actions meaning said PCs and their players are largely operating in a vacuum beyond the here-and-now, and if by "naturalistic extrapolation" you mean "if the PCs do x, then y happens; if they do not, z happens" then their actions (or lack of) have no future consequences.  What's the point?

Also, from the player side, no secrets = no mystery = no reason to pay attention.

People complain that some DMs would be better off as novel writers and in fairness, all too often those people have a point.  However, I think it might be time to turn that same statement around and point it at the cadre of players whose primary interest is delving into the angst and emotions and troubles of their own PC: those players would be better off just writing a novel.


----------



## tetrasodium

Lanefan said:


> Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game?  Seriously.
> 
> By reading this you can't do anything such as change or kitbash rules or define setting so as to make the game your own (yet the players, it seems, can to some extent do the latter), you can't present any sort of mystery for solving or later reveal, you can't present the players a living setting that has things happen - both now and in the past - independent of the PCs and-or their actions meaning said PCs and their players are largely operating in a vacuum beyond the here-and-now, and if by "naturalistic extrapolation" you mean "if the PCs do x, then y happens; if they do not, z happens" then their actions (or lack of) have no future consequences.  What's the point?
> 
> Also, from the player side, no secrets = no mystery = no reason to pay attention.
> 
> People complain that some DMs would be better off as novel writers and in fairness, all too often those people have a point.  However, I think it might be time to turn that same statement around and point it at the cadre of players whose primary interest is delving into the angst and emotions and troubles of their own PC: those players would be better off just writing a novel.



Those systems usually allow the GM to be final arbiter of what the players can introduce & massage the thing into something that fits things the players aren't aware of.  The GM can still define whatever is behind that door or around that corner(to varying degrees) when players/npcs do something to make it relevant.  The GM also usually has the same _(incredibly powerful)_tools available to the players & typically those tools extend to all of the NPCs giving them even more power in a way.  You can see a great example of that kind of play  with Whil Wheaton Felecia Day Jon Rogers & Ryan Macklin playing fate in this video


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game?  Seriously.
> 
> By reading this you can't do anything such as change or kitbash rules or define setting so as to make the game your own (yet the players, it seems, can to some extent do the latter), you can't present any sort of mystery for solving or later reveal, you can't present the players a living setting that has things happen - both now and in the past - independent of the PCs and-or their actions meaning said PCs and their players are largely operating in a vacuum beyond the here-and-now, and if by "naturalistic extrapolation" you mean "if the PCs do x, then y happens; if they do not, z happens" then their actions (or lack of) have no future consequences.  What's the point?
> 
> Also, from the player side, no secrets = no mystery = no reason to pay attention.
> 
> People complain that some DMs would be better off as novel writers and in fairness, all too often those people have a point.  However, I think it might be time to turn that same statement around and point it at the cadre of players whose primary interest is delving into the angst and emotions and troubles of their own PC: those players would be better off just writing a novel.



You play the game to find out what happens.  Not "how do the players navigate my setting/notes/adventure/sandbox/plans," but really to find out what happens.

And, there are plenty of places for the GM to add things, they're just not only only ones and are constrained in ways a D&D GM aren't.  In return, they're also not under the mental overhead of having to come up with everything all the time -- play is pretty clearly focused and the players have the work of driving it.  

There's plenty of opportunity for secrets and mysteries, they're just not ones written by the GM for the express purpose of the players figuring it out, but instead are actual secrets and mysteries to everyone at the table, and everyone discovers their answers/secrets at the same time.

This play looks nothing at all like novel writing, and while it can be focuses on angst and emotions, it's as required to be so as a D&D game is -- which is to say not.  It is required to be about the PCs, though, which isn't a terribly odd statement once you've dispensed with the GM being expected to provide a fiction for the players to explore.

Nor is any of this saying this is the best/only/most awesome way to play.  It's A way to play.  Clearly, while I enjoy it very much, it's not everything because I'm still running 5e.


----------



## jmartkdr2

I'm only sort-of following this, but I'm getting the impression pure protagonistic play (literally everything comes form the player's stated goals) is something I've only rarely experienced and did not enjoy. If everything in the setting exists only to serve a particular plotline, the world will feel flat and empty. A setting that's only answers to direct, plot-related questions isn't an engaging setting.

Of course, the other extreme, where the setting exists without player input even after the game happens (ie what the pc's do has no influence) is a game with no stakes, because you can't lose if you can't win. 

So the goal, obviously, is to find a balance between the pc's being the focus of the narrative and the world feeling real. It's really that simple.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> There's plenty of opportunity for secrets and mysteries, they're just not ones written by the GM for the express purpose of the players figuring it out, but instead are actual secrets and mysteries to everyone at the table, and everyone discovers their answers/secrets at the same time.



Someone has to put the mystery or secret in place, be it the GM or a player, for there to be a mystery to solve; and whoever that person is must by default know the solution or what the secret is.  Ditto puzzles, riddles, or anything else where there's a clear but not-immediately-obvious answer: someone's got to put it there, and that someone already knows the answer.


----------



## tetrasodium

Ovinomancer said:


> You play the game to find out what happens.  Not "how do the players navigate my setting/notes/adventure/sandbox/plans," but really to find out what happens.
> 
> And, there are plenty of places for the GM to add things, they're just not only only ones and are constrained in ways a D&D GM aren't.  In return, they're also not under the mental overhead of having to come up with everything all the time -- play is pretty clearly focused and the players have the work of driving it.
> 
> There's plenty of opportunity for secrets and mysteries, they're just not ones written by the GM for the express purpose of the players figuring it out, but instead are actual secrets and mysteries to everyone at the table, and everyone discovers their answers/secrets at the same time.
> *
> This play looks nothing at all like novel writing, and while it can be focuses on angst and emotions, it's as required to be so as a D&D game is -- which is to say not. * It is required to be about the PCs, though, which isn't a terribly odd statement once you've dispensed with the GM being expected to provide a fiction for the players to explore.
> 
> Nor is any of this saying this is the best/only/most awesome way to play.  It's A way to play.  Clearly, while I enjoy it very much, it's not everything because I'm still running 5e.



Fate core actually has a section about that in the book 


Spoiler








Taken a step further, if Bob wants to play some mopey edgelord with a bad case of main character syndrome in fate I as the gm can just agree with him and declare that his character wanders off to go wander around black out drunk in the red light disrict while the rest of the party does cool stuff together as the main character*s*. If bob wants to do otherwise he needs to buy off the compel _and_ come up with a reason why his character wants to stay.  If Alice wants to call in bob later I can even offer her a fate point and say something like "wait a minute, do you really want to get stuck playing therapist about bob's life choices until he finishes the bottle_ and_ sobers up enough to stand like ast time?" & alice might say "yea I don't wanna repeat of last time..."  If I as the gm an feeling particularly annoyed with bob's negative antics I can even end that statement to alice with words like "what about that guy Rob who works with Bob , he seemed like someone who might be able to help in this situation going by that one time you met" or whatever.


----------



## el-remmen

Lanefan said:


> Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game?  Seriously.




It is just a different kind of game that is not very D&Dish, but can nevertheless be a lot of fun (though in my own experience, I prefer such games to be one-offs or very limited run games and prefer traditional D&D style games of a long-running campaign). But  I see the experiences of them as scratching different itches for me.


----------



## Maxperson

Going back to the OP.  There is no "the point" of DM notes.  The point varies depending on the kind of game you run.

If you run a detailed sandbox, the point is to set down all the details of the world to be discovered.  The DM cannot remember them all, so it's all written down.

If you run a loose sandbox, the notes are a framework to build upon, noting important sites, cities and a few NPCs, but leaving the rest open to either be detailed when the party gets closer, improv'd, or both.  

If you run an improv style game, the point is to put down what has been established through play.

And so on.  There are lots of ways to play and lots of "the point" of notes.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> The daylight I see here is that the GM, in many games, is not required to honor the PC cues, but is instead allowed to do whatever they want.  I'll be the first to agree that this is something I'd find deeply unrewarding, but it's also what most people unfamiliar with games that center protagonism immediately think of when considering 2a play.  That view is colored by the GM's role in 1a/b play as the sole author of the fiction (outside of action declarations), that is then drug through into the idea that the GM reacts to the PC's action, but remains the sole author of the fiction.  It's literally the point of view that is the source of many of the arguments against Story Now style techniques.  So, when I was accounting for the play, I left that as uncertain because it's entirely up to the GM without constraint by system or mechanics (except those constraints accepted by the GM in the moment of choosing which mechanics to use), which is how the vast majority of players with primary experience in D&D or GM centered games imagine improv games must work.



OK, I can see that. What you're describing here reminds of the sort of GM-as-tale-spinner that Lewis Pulsipher was critical of way back in the late 70s/early 80s White Dwarfs. Part of his criticism was that it renders the players passive recipients of the tale the GM is spinning.

Whereas the sort of approach I have in mind rests on the players being active and interactive.


----------



## pemerton

John Dallman said:


> Thanks, that's clearer, and it makes clear that I'm running games in a very different way.



Based on your posts upthread, and the rest of this post I'm quoting, I very much get that impression.



John Dallman said:


> <snip initial aspects of setup>
> 
> The first piece of my prep is looking up how good the available shielded spacesuits are, and thus how much time will be available. The answer looks like "This is manageable, but it's going to have to be planned right and done smartly." That's the biggest constraint on PC actions.



That would be an example of what I tried to get at upthread referring to your notes as establishing the "solution space". Not to say that they dictate the solution, but they establish very meaningful parameters around what would count as a viable solution.



jmartkdr2 said:


> I'm getting the impression pure protagonistic play (literally everything comes form the player's stated goals) is something I've only rarely experienced and did not enjoy. If everything in the setting exists only to serve a particular plotline, the world will feel flat and empty. A setting that's only answers to direct, plot-related questions isn't an engaging setting.



Again, from your posts in this thread I did not get the impression that you are running a protagonistic sort of game, so what you say here does not come as a surprise.


----------



## Ovinomancer

jmartkdr2 said:


> I'm only sort-of following this, but I'm getting the impression pure protagonistic play (literally everything comes form the player's stated goals) is something I've only rarely experienced and did not enjoy. If everything in the setting exists only to serve a particular plotline, the world will feel flat and empty. A setting that's only answers to direct, plot-related questions isn't an engaging setting.
> 
> Of course, the other extreme, where the setting exists without player input even after the game happens (ie what the pc's do has no influence) is a game with no stakes, because you can't lose if you can't win.
> 
> So the goal, obviously, is to find a balance between the pc's being the focus of the narrative and the world feeling real. It's really that simple.



May I ask where you experienced this, and what system is was in?

I mean, I've run a game or two of Blades in the Dark, which is strongly protagonistically centered, and the world was absolutely not flat or empty, but dangerous, haunted, and deadly.  This is why I'm asking, because system very much matters when it comes to this kind of play, and some systems do a very good job of providing the toolset needed to have a vibrant world.

And, to push back, the world isn't entirely about the characters, but the game is.  This may seem a narrow distinction, but only if you're used to equating the two.  In a protagonist centered game, the world shows up all the time in ways  the PC doesn't want, because the game is only about their dramatic need, it's not all supporting it.  Dramatic needs are only dramatic if there is opposition to them, and protaganism should have opposition in spades.


----------



## TwoSix

el-remmen said:


> It is just a different kind of game that is not very D&Dish, but can nevertheless be a lot of fun (though in my own experience, I prefer such games to be one-offs or very limited run games and prefer tradition D&D style games of a long-running campaign). But  I see the experiences of them as scratching different itches for me.



Yea, I love them both, but I definitely prefer protagonistic games as a palate cleanser, rather than the main course.  Although I think that's because my main group is pretty large (8 people); I've noticed that smaller groups (4-5 people) feel as though they facilitate protagonistic play better.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Ovinomancer said:


> May I ask where you experienced this, and what system is was in?
> 
> I mean, I've run a game or two of Blades in the Dark, which is strongly protagonistically centered, and the world was absolutely not flat or empty, but dangerous, haunted, and deadly.  This is why I'm asking, because system very much matters when it comes to this kind of play, and some systems do a very good job of providing the toolset needed to have a vibrant world.
> 
> And, to push back, the world isn't entirely about the characters, but the game is.  This may seem a narrow distinction, but only if you're used to equating the two.  In a protagonist centered game, the world shows up all the time in ways  the PC doesn't want, because the game is only about their dramatic need, it's not all supporting it.  Dramatic needs are only dramatic if there is opposition to them, and protaganism should have opposition in spades.



Masks: A New Generation, although running it by the book this shouldn't be an issue this was a convention game so explaining the setting for more than a sentence or two would be too long. And I've had the issue crop up in games like DnD and Werewolf: the Apocalypse a couple times.

As to your second point: that's broadly true, but sometimes things need to happen because it makes sense for the setting even if it doesn't have anything to do with the characters' motivations. Many episodes will be about people other than the main cast in most long running shows, for example, and the shows/games that do focus purely on character motivations often feel overly dramatic or narrowly focused. If it isn't handled with finesse - that is:, if you don't balance the needs of verisimilitude with the desire to keep the characters in focus.

Assuming, of course, your desired balance is anywhere near pc-centric.


----------



## Ovinomancer

jmartkdr2 said:


> Masks: A New Generation, although running it by the book this shouldn't be an issue this was a convention game so explaining the setting for more than a sentence or two would be too long. And I've had the issue crop up in games like DnD and Werewolf: the Apocalypse a couple times.



The issue being a Con game?  Those aren't usually great introductions to a game, for the reason you note.  Masks isn't my cup of tea, either, nor is it representative of what protagonist play is in general.  It's absolutely a protagonism game, no doubt, but not all of them have the same focuses as Masks.  Look at Dungeon World or Ironsworn, these have the largely the same trope set as D&D, but center on protagonism.


jmartkdr2 said:


> As to your second point: that's broadly true, but sometimes things need to happen because it makes sense for the setting even if it doesn't have anything to do with the characters' motivations. Many episodes will be about people other than the main cast in most long running shows, for example, and the shows/games that do focus purely on character motivations often feel overly dramatic or narrowly focused. If it isn't handled with finesse - that is:, if you don't balance the needs of verisimilitude with the desire to keep the characters in focus.



I'm not sure about the "many" part, but TV isn't an RPG, and the structures of play are very different.  I mean, how many sessions do you have where the PCs aren't involved?  This seems like a misdirection to me.  You don't have to like protagonist play -- I'm certainly not going to insist that you do -- but I'm not sure this criticism actually lands.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game?  Seriously.



@Ovinomancer has answered for his part; I can only answer for mine.

Finding out what happens in RPGing is fun for me. There is the action and colour; in more dramatic games, there is that too; sometimes there is comedy; there is mystery and revelation.

There is an obvious resemblance between these pleasurable parts of the activity, and watching a film or (less so, I think) reading a book. Compared to a film it is slower-paced and (related but not identical) less well edited. But compared to _watching _a film it is creative. And compared to writing a story on one's own it has all the fun and surprise and sociality of doing something with one's friends.

The preceding few sentences aren't any sort of attempt to explain everything about what is fun for me in RPGing, but try to point to some of it.

(When I play rather than GM the creative aspect is a bit less evident, but the intimate inhabitation of my character, and the emotional experiences that flow from that, are present in the way that they are not when GMing.)



Lanefan said:


> you can't present any sort of mystery for solving or later reveal, you can't present the players a living setting that has things happen - both now and in the past - independent of the PCs and-or their actions meaning said PCs and their players are largely operating in a vacuum beyond the here-and-now, and if by "naturalistic extrapolation" you mean "if the PCs do x, then y happens; if they do not, z happens" then their actions (or lack of) have no future consequences.  What's the point?





Lanefan said:


> Someone has to put the mystery or secret in place, be it the GM or a player, for there to be a mystery to solve; and whoever that person is must by default know the solution or what the secret is.  Ditto puzzles, riddles, or anything else where there's a clear but not-immediately-obvious answer: someone's got to put it there, and that someone already knows the answer.



These claims are not true. What I mean by that is that they are claims about what is possible when adopting a certain approach to RPGing, and I know from my own experience of RPGing using that approach that the things you say can't be done, can be done; and that the things you say are necessary, are not.

*Presenting mysteries, secrets, puzzles*
The way that I do this, when I GM, is to introduce a situation - an event, a NPC, an object, etc - which does not yet have an explanation (in the fiction) known to anyone at the table. (This is just what @Ovinomancer said upthread.)

For instance, in a reasonably recent session of my Classic Traveller game the PCs found an ancient alien pyramid complex with a pendulum apparatus in it. _What is the pendulum for?_, they wondered. Good question!

In the Burning Wheel game I GM, the players learned that the sorcerer Jabal - the nemesis of at least one PC, the employer of two others - was going to marry the Gynarch of Hardby, heself a powerfl mage. What is the reason for this wedding? Good question!

*Presenting a living setting that has things happen independent of the PCs or their actions*
The wedding above would be an example of this. Another example would be our Classic Traveller game, where the PCs encounter various vessels that are travelling for reasons that are not caused by the PCs: eg an Imperial armada attacking the world the PCs were on.

It's true that _the GM is not doing much imagining of events in the fiction that are not narrated, in some fashion, at the table_ but that sort of imagining is not_ presenting a living setting_.

*Presenting naturalistic consequences*
In my Burning Wheel game, the players failed some sort of check as their PCs were fleeing a tower carrying the blood and head of a decapitated sorcerer. I narrated an encounter with some guards. The PCs failed to persuade the guards that they were just innocently out for a night-time stroll. The guards took them into custody.

That sequence of events is completely naturalistic. And is established via the narration of consequences of failed checks: had the players' checks succeeded, they would have naturalistically escaped observation (first check succeeds), or duped the guards (second check succeeds) and then events would have headed into a different direction instead of the imprisonment that the PCs suffered.

In my Classic Traveller game, the a PC used psionic power in front of a NPC who had the conventional Imperial hostility to psionics. The reaction roll indicated that she was hostile; then a player succeeded on a check made to see if his PC was able to calm her down for the moment, and so she was calmed. Then the psionic PC ended up being placed in charge of the overall situation (as Imperial Overseer), which the NPC reluctantly accepted (I can't remember if there was a check made for this or not). Then when that same PC ended up temporarily incapacitated due to an attack by an alien creature, the hostile NPC (being a noble of the same rank as the PC) asserted her authority over the situation (this was a GM decision to establish a complication that followed from the incapacitation).

That sequence of events is also completely naturalistic.

The GM approach of _first make a soft move that signals a risk, threat or danger_ and _then make a hard move that follows through with some irrevocable consequence_ is formalised in PbtA games but is easy to use even without that formalisation. The PCs are out at night doing unlawful things: on the first failure signal the risk (they meet guards) then on the second failure follow through (they are taken into custody). A PC uses psionics in circumstances where this might cause ire, and the reaction roll indicates as much: that's the threat. A series of events ameliorate the threat for the moment (the NPC is calmed down; the PC is put into a position of authority over her). But then when the PC (and thus his player) comes unstuck, I as GM follow through: the hostile NPC takes charge of the situation.

The upshot (as I've posted in another recent thread) was an attempt by some PCs to break into the NPC's base, which failed; and a consequent trial, which was brought to an end by the PC blowing everyone and everything up, and the PCs then abandoning their position.

*The bottom line*
Presenting mysteries, presenting a living world, and establishing consequences _do not _depend upon treating things written in the GM's notes prior to play, and not yet revealed in play, as constraints on framing and on action resolution. I've just posted a few hundred words of examples that prove the point.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> @Ovinomancer has answered for his part; I can only answer for mine.
> 
> Finding out what happens in RPGing is fun for me. There is the action and colour; in more dramatic games, there is that too; sometimes there is comedy; there is mystery and revelation.
> 
> There is an obvious resemblance between these pleasurable parts of the activity, and watching a film or (less so, I think) reading a book. Compared to a film it is slower-paced and (related but not identical) less well edited. But compared to _watching _a film it is creative. And compared to writing a story on one's own it has all the fun and surprise and sociality of doing something with one's friends.
> 
> The preceding few sentences aren't any sort of attempt to explain everything about what is fun for me in RPGing, but try to point to some of it.
> 
> (When I play rather than GM the creative aspect is a bit less evident, but the intimate inhabitation of my character, and the emotional experiences that flow from that, are present in the way that they are not when GMing.)
> 
> 
> 
> These claims are not true. What I mean by that is that they are claims about what is possible when adopting a certain approach to RPGing, and I know from my own experience of RPGing using that approach that the things you say can't be done, can be done; and that the things you say are necessary, are not.
> 
> *Presenting mysteries, secrets, puzzles*
> The way that I do this, when I GM, is to introduce a situation - an event, a NPC, an object, etc - which does not yet have an explanation (in the fiction) known to anyone at the table. (This is just what @Ovinomancer said upthread.)
> 
> For instance, in a reasonably recent session of my Classic Traveller game the PCs found an ancient alien pyramid complex with a pendulum apparatus in it. _What is the pendulum for?_, they wondered. Good question!
> 
> In the Burning Wheel game I GM, the players learned that the sorcerer Jabal - the nemesis of at least one PC, the employer of two others - was going to marry the Gynarch of Hardby, heself a powerfl mage. What is the reason for this wedding? Good question!



The problem with those is that since mysteries, secrets and puzzles have set answers, what you are describing do not qualify.  They are unknowns which you will discovery through game play, but they are not mysteries, secrets or puzzles.  The answers to the above questions could be any of thousands(or more) of things.


pemerton said:


> *Presenting a living setting that has things happen independent of the PCs or their actions*
> The wedding above would be an example of this. Another example would be our Classic Traveller game, where the PCs encounter various vessels that are travelling for reasons that are not caused by the PCs: eg an Imperial armada attacking the world the PCs were on.
> 
> It's true that _the GM is not doing much imagining of events in the fiction that are not narrated, in some fashion, at the table_ but that sort of imagining is not_ presenting a living setting_.



It takes more than things happening independent of the PCs to be a living world.  In a living world politics, events and such are linked together in a very tight knit way.  The world works like a complex gear system.

Would that Armada have attacked that same world at the same time had the PCs in mid flight there decided to go to a different world? If the attack did happen would you know what the repercussions and results of the attack would be? If the answer is yes to both of those, it sounds like it could be a living world to me.  If either one is no, then it's not a living world.


pemerton said:


> *Presenting naturalistic consequences*
> In my Burning Wheel game, the players failed some sort of check as their PCs were fleeing a tower carrying the blood and head of a decapitated sorcerer. I narrated an encounter with some guards. The PCs failed to persuade the guards that they were just innocently out for a night-time stroll. The guards took them into custody.
> 
> That sequence of events is completely naturalistic. And is established via the narration of consequences of failed checks: had the players' checks succeeded, they would have naturalistically escaped observation (first check succeeds), or duped the guards (second check succeeds) and then events would have headed into a different direction instead of the imprisonment that the PCs suffered.
> 
> In my Classic Traveller game, the a PC used psionic power in front of a NPC who had the conventional Imperial hostility to psionics. The reaction roll indicated that she was hostile; then a player succeeded on a check made to see if his PC was able to calm her down for the moment, and so she was calmed. Then the psionic PC ended up being placed in charge of the overall situation (as Imperial Overseer), which the NPC reluctantly accepted (I can't remember if there was a check made for this or not). Then when that same PC ended up temporarily incapacitated due to an attack by an alien creature, the hostile NPC (being a noble of the same rank as the PC) asserted her authority over the situation (this was a GM decision to establish a complication that followed from the incapacitation).
> 
> That sequence of events is also completely naturalistic.



That seems like naturalistic consequences to me.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The problem with those is that since mysteries, secrets and puzzles have set answers, what you are describing do not qualify.



My mystery has answers. I just don't know them yet! (Well, in fact, in the case of the pendulum an answer emerged in play. The reasons for the wedding, though, are still a bit obscure to me.)

And it's certainly not true that every mystery, secret or puzzle has a _known_ answer. The world we live in is full of unsolved mysteries and unrevealed secrets.



Maxperson said:


> It takes more than things happening independent of the PCs to be a living world.  In a living world politics, events and such are linked together in a very tight knit way.  The world works like a complex gear system.



Just to be clear: you're now telling me that my world is not a living one.

Please review my actual play posts - they're easy to find - and then tell me where the absence of living-ness of the world presents itself.

Perhaps you'll also make some actual play posts of your own so I can see how your living world flows out of your pre-authored notes onto the gaming table.



Maxperson said:


> Would that Armada have attacked that same world at the same time had the PCs in mid flight there decided to go to a different world? If the attack did happen would you know what the repercussions and results of the attack would be? If the answer is yes to both of those, it sounds like it could be a living world to me.  If either one is no, then it's not a living world.



I don't even understand what this question has to do with anything. Are you asking _do I write fan fiction about the setting of my RPGs?_ Then the answer is no.

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs have visited 9 worlds (Ardour-3, Lyto-7, Byron, Enlil, Olyx, Ashar, Ruskin, Novus and Zinion). Their backstories have directly implicated two more (Hallucida, Shelley). A couple of sessions played with my daughters but set in the same universe saw some play on 3 further worlds (Hobson, Roto and Kuros). My starmaps to date have 34 worlds indicated on them (ie those 14 and 20 others). Across those worlds are many millions of people; Scout and Navy Bases; at least one branch of the Psionics Institute; all sorts of commercial starships carrying on their trade; etc. Beyond my starmaps, by implication, lie the further worlds of the Imperium (no doubt many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them).

I can and sometimes do imagine all sorts of things taking place on those many many worlds. I'm sure my players do sometimes also. But why would I write fiction about that? What is it's purpose? How does it make a difference to the narration that takes place at the table?

As I said in the post you responded to, in our most recent session the PCs abandoned their position on Zinion unexpectedly, the upshot of blowing nearly everyone else up. No doubt had they stayed on Zinion I would have narrated more stuff happening on that world. That would have been part of play. But now that the PCs are not there, I am not going to write private fan fiction about what is happening on Zinion. Why would I waste my time doing that?

The NPCs who also departed Zinion around the time the PCs did may no doubt cross their paths soon. There are constraints on how easily that can happen, which follow from the (known) capacities of their vessels' jump drives and the time it takes to jump, refuel, etc. So I would take that into account in future narration. But if and when those future encounters occur, I certainly won't be worrying about whether the NPCs were playing chess, bridge or yahtzee to while away their time in jump space - at least, not unless gaming is made salient by the actual course of actual play.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> My mystery has answers. I just don't know them yet! (Well, in fact, in the case of the pendulum an answer emerged in play. The reasons for the wedding, though, are still a bit obscure to me.)
> 
> And it's certainly not true that every mystery, secret or puzzle has a _known_ answer. The world we live in is full of unsolved mysteries and unrevealed secrets.



I didn't say it has a known answer.  I said it has a specific answer, which is true of unsolved mysteries of the world we live in.  Your unknowns do not have specific answers.  They can be answered by a myriad of things that come up during your game play and fit the bill.


pemerton said:


> Just to be clear: you're now telling me that my world is not a living one.
> 
> Please review my actual play posts - they're easy to find - and then tell me where the absence of living-ness of the world presents itself.



They are not as I understand a living world.  That doesn't mean I think they are bad worlds.  Fantastic things are different. Diamonds and Emeralds are two very wondrous gems, but one is not the other.


pemerton said:


> Perhaps you'll also make some actual play posts of your own so I can see how your living world flows out of your pre-authored notes onto the gaming table.



I don't run a fully living world, either.  I don't have the time to prepare that much in advance of the game.  


pemerton said:


> I don't even understand what this question has to do with anything. Are you asking _do I write fan fiction about the setting of my RPGs?_ Then the answer is no.



I'm asking if your world is a living one and you had those events planned and that they would have happened anyway, even if the PCs were not there and never went there.  If the answer is no, the world is not a living one where such events happen.  And I know from your posts that the answer is no.  You don't play that style of game.  

I'm not knocking your playstyle.  It seems like a good one, even if it's not my cup of tea(actually, I hate tea.  Let's go with hot chocolate). It just doesn't produce the same style of games as ones where lots of prep happens.


pemerton said:


> In my Classic Traveller game the PCs have visited 9 worlds (Ardour-3, Lyto-7, Byron, Enlil, Olyx, Ashar, Ruskin, Novus and Zinion). Their backstories have directly implicated two more (Hallucida, Shelley). A couple of sessions played with my daughters but set in the same universe saw some play on 3 further worlds (Hobson, Roto and Kuros). My starmaps to date have 34 worlds indicated on them (ie those 14 and 20 others). Across those worlds are many millions of people; Scout and Navy Bases; at least one branch of the Psionics Institute; all sorts of commercial starships carrying on their trade; etc. Beyond my starmaps, by implication, lie the further worlds of the Imperium (no doubt many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them).
> 
> I can and sometimes do imagine all sorts of things taking place on those many many worlds. I'm sure my players do sometimes also*. But why would I write fiction about that? What is it's purpose? How does it make a difference to the narration that takes place at the table?*



The purpose is so that you know what is happening in the galaxy.  Such an attack would have serious implications across many worlds.  Trade would suffer in some areas, and perhaps increase in others(arms).  News would spread.  Mercenaries would likely flock that way, which the PCs could encounter.  And on and on and on.  Just because the PCs are not there, doesn't mean that the pre-planned fiction you wrote won't have a significant impact on the narration of their story.  But again, pre-planning and this sort of impact is a different style of play.  It does have a purpose, though.  A very significant one.


----------



## kenada

*“what is the point of GM's notes?”*

The point of my prep is to give me things to say. They’re a tool to help me improvise. I can wing it for everything, but if I do, there’s a good chance things will turn out too silly or inconsistent or just kind of flat. I spend time outside of sessions fleshing things out a little bit to improve the experience during the session. The prep has an amplifying effect.

For example, my players told me last session they wanted to recruit retainers. I generated several (7), and I included a few statements (with details) on appearance and behavior and a few bullets of key info*. I had no idea how the PCs would go about recruiting, but this gave me tools to make the scenes interesting when they did meet some of the candidates.

After the session, I was talking to one of my players about it, and he commented: “It felt like we ran into characters, as opposed to hired help or NPC templates.” This is one of the NPCs from the retainer recruitment scene. I randomly picked three of the retainers from my list, framed the scene with the help of my notes, and established the stakes: how many (if any) of these people do the PCs hire?



> *Marie
> AC* 7 [12], *HD* 1d4 (3 hp), *Att* 1 × longbow (1d6), *THAC0* 17 [+2], *MV* 120′ (30′), *SV* D13 W14 P13 B16 S15 (A) [+1 vs. magic], *LR* 9, *AL* Chaotic
> *Paranoid* (keeps tracks of all the exits). *Light blue hair* (short and cropped). *Lanky* (6′7″ tall).
> 
> *Wants treasure:* to pay off her debt.
> Came to Orctown to escape creditors.
> Knows how to enter the secret dungeon in the <E3 ruins>.




It turns out the answer was two. They hired the fighter and the acrobat but not the illusionist (probably because the barbarian is weird about magic). At the end of the scene, after the bard gave Marie some money to buy better gear, she climbed out the window to leave. Nothing in my notes said that would happen, but it did because Marie is *paranoid*. My notes helped make the scene interesting.

The whole session went like that. I had notes on the town, a map, the list of candidates, and a timeline of goings on in the town (to provide color mostly). Nothing else was planned. The first thing the PCs did was have a planning meeting to decide how they’re going to stage an attack on some ghouls using lots of flaming oil. That was something they just started doing without any prompt.


* My notes were already trending towards this style, but they’ve been heavily influenced lately by the style Necrotic Gnome uses to key dungeons. For NPCs, I combine that with some ideas from the Alexandrian’s Universal NPC Roleplaying template to get a nice and dense block of tools to help me run my NPCs.


----------



## Arilyn

The "protagonist" style play is really hard to explain on paper, which I think is what is triggering a lot of posters dismissing it, or not fully grasping it, or assuming it won't work for them. While I think it's true that this style won't appeal to all players, it does have to be tried to be fully understood. A common complaint is that protagonist play will break immersion and can't create the sense of a living breathing world. 

This was a concern I had as well, but the opposite occured. This style makes the world come sharply into focus. The GM not having notes or a created world somehow brings a heightened sense of reality. I'm really not sure why this occurs, as it seems counter-intuitive. Because of the collaborative approach, no one can coast and all participants must stay alert and fully engaged. This is also the downside. Creative juices have to keep flowing.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I didn't say it has a known answer.  I said it has a specific answer, which is true of unsolved mysteries of the world we live in.  Your unknowns do not have specific answers.  They can be answered by a myriad of things that come up during your game play and fit the bill.



That is the nature of _writing fiction_.

Serial fiction is replete with mysteries that are presented to the audience without an answer having been written. An example in super-hero comics is Wolverine - we as readers gradually learn that his claws are part of him (not his suit), that he is named Logan, that he is old, etc.

But when it is first introduced that Wolverine speaks Japanese, and someone (Kitty? I can't remember) expresses surprise, does Chris Claremont or anyone else know the answer? No! It is a mystery, though: in the fiction there is a specific explanation.

In Star Wars, Ben Kenobi obviously has a mysterious past. How did he end up on Tatooine? In possession of Luke's father's lightsabre? We the audience don't know. I'm pretty sure that at that point George Lucas hadn't written an answer yet.

In HPL's mythos fiction, various beings travelled at various times in the distant past to earth. When, exactly? For what reasons, exactly? The stories don't answer all these questions. These mysteries are not resolved within the scope of the stories that present them.

This is part of how fiction, especially but not only serial fiction, works: it points to elements of the imagined people, places and events that have not yet been authored or presented to the audience.

Now if one thinks of solving a mystery in a RPG as more like solving a crossword puzzle, or unravelling an Agatha Christie-style whodunnit, then the existence of a specific answer matters. But as the examples I have given in the preceding paragraphs show, these are not the only sorts of mystery that can exist.



Maxperson said:


> They are not as I understand a living world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm asking if your world is a living one and you had those events planned and that they would have happened anyway, even if the PCs were not there and never went there.  If the answer is no, the world is not a living one where such events happen.  And I know from your posts that the answer is no.  You don't play that style of game.



If a _living world_ means _a setting where the GM writes more fiction about it then is ever used in play_, then I don't run a living world. To me that seems an odd definition.

I understand a _living world_ to mean one in which there is understood - in terms of framing, consequence narration, flavour and colour, and other ways in which the fiction is presented and experienced in play - that there is more to the world than the immediate situation.

Moldvay Basic and Tunnels & Trolls do not advocate living world gaming in this sense (or at least in the case of T&T, presents it as an optional extra): in these RPGs the world, for play purposes, is _the dungeon_. Thus, for instance, one will not encounter NPCs whose reason for being in the dungeon, as that emerges in play, is connected to something that matters to them beyond the dungeon.

Modules like S2 White Plume Mountain and C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness and C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and X2 Castle Amber are all examples of this style. The events and setting are essentially self-contained and self-referential. Any allusions to anything beyond the dungeon has no bearing on how the dungeon is engaged with and beaten. (Eg in S2 the stolen weapons have owners in the City of Greyhawk; but nothing in the module depends upon, or is changed by, those facts of ownership. It's just set-dressing and backstory.)

A published scenario that contrasts with this, which I have run, is OA7 Test of the Samurai. In this scenario the motivations of the principal NPCs _only make sense _relative to a larger world that is implicated by, but not fully set out in, the module. The PCs' interaction with that world is understood to generate downstream consequences - eg if the PCs upset a certain NPC in place 1, day 1 then at place X, day Y the PCs might encounter agents of that NPC trying to seek revenge for the slight.

That is what I understand to be the meaning of a _living world_.



Maxperson said:


> The purpose is so that you know what is happening in the galaxy.  Such an attack would have serious implications across many worlds.  Trade would suffer in some areas, and perhaps increase in others(arms).  News would spread.



My first question is, how do you know all these things?

Why would the attack have serious implications? And why would news spread? Perhaps the attack is kept secret.

As for economics: Would the increased demand for munitions manufacture, coupled with the blockading of exports from the world under attack, boost or subdue other economic activity? Would the affect on trade by any more or less than the affect on trade of the depression on Tara (just to pick an arbitrary possible occurrence on an arbitrarily-chosen industrial world)? What about droughts on important agricultural worlds?

You have chosen one arbitrary event that might be happening in the galaxy - an attack that figured in actual play at my table - without asking about the myriad other events that might be just as significant but that you haven't asked about because they never became foregrounded in play. If our game hadn't featured the armada it would have featured something else that you and I haven't thought of yet. And then in this thread you'd be asking me about _that_ event as part of the "living world".



Maxperson said:


> Mercenaries would likely flock that way, which the PCs could encounter.



Would they? Australia was at war from 1939 to 1945, and much of that war was a naval war and involved the armadas of various nations. I don't think mercenaries flocked to Australia in that time.

The way, in Classic Traveller, it is determined who the PCs encounter is via a combination of GM decision-making and random rolls. While on the planet under attack, the PCs encountered (by dint of random rolls) some refugees fleeing one country on the world for another. The full backstory to that has never been established, but it seems pretty clear that the country from which they were refugees was allied to the Imperium against the country to which they were fleeing, and that their flight was connected to the reasons for the conflict - ie the politics of psionics.

I don't see that hypothetical encounters with mercenaries are markers of a "living world" in a way that actual encounters with refugees are not.



Maxperson said:


> Just because the PCs are not there, doesn't mean that the pre-planned fiction you wrote won't have a significant impact on the narration of their story.



I'm sure it would. I didn't doubt that it would. I asked _why would I do it?_

I can narrate the PCs' story, including in a fashion which brings to light the effects that other events are having on their circumstances (eg their are refugees fleeing from one country to another), without preauthoring fiction that arbitrarily highlights one out of the myriad events taking place in the galaxy that might have such effects.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> Going back to the OP.  There is no "the point" of DM notes.  The point varies depending on the kind of game you run.
> 
> If you run a detailed sandbox, the point is to set down all the details of the world to be discovered.  The DM cannot remember them all, so it's all written down.
> 
> If you run a loose sandbox, the notes are a framework to build upon, noting important sites, cities and a few NPCs, but leaving the rest open to either be detailed when the party gets closer, improv'd, or both.
> 
> If you run an improv style game, the point is to put down what has been established through play.
> 
> And so on.  There are lots of ways to play and lots of "the point" of notes.



Well, yeah, but a response like that doesn't help me fill out my Buzzword Bingo card.


----------



## pemerton

Arilyn said:


> A common complaint is that protagonist play will break immersion and can't create the sense of a living breathing world.
> 
> This was a concern I had as well, but the opposite occured. This style makes the world come sharply into focus. The GM not having notes or a created world somehow brings a heightened sense of reality. I'm really not sure why this occurs, as it seems counter-intuitive. Because of the collaborative approach, no one can coast and all participants must stay alert and fully engaged. This is also the downside. Creative juices have to keep flowing.



Suppose a player in my Traveller game tells me that their PC is listening to the morning news on the radio, and wants me to fill them in.

There are two ways I can do this:

* I can read off my pre-authored lists of events.

* I can make some stuff up that fits with the established fiction. Eg I might say that there is a report explaining that the ongoing depression on Tara continues to keep prices for industrial goods down at present, whilst driving migration away from that world, leading to speculation that prices for goods might soon increase. If a subsequent random roll (for a ship encounter, or on the trade table whether for purchase or for resale) produces a result that seems to fit with that prior narration, I can establish the connection in my narration to the players.​
In neither case is the fiction _more real_. In both cases it is part of the shared fiction, and in both cases it is pure imagination. The world of Tara and the intergalactic trade routes that it lies on do not exist.

It seems, though, that one function of GM notes is to generate _in some RPG participants _a sense that the fiction is "real" rather than authored. I suspect this works by occluding the fact of authorship, which occurred in the past with the players not present.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:


> GM's notes can be pretty varied in their content - descriptions of imaginary places; mechanical labels and categories applied to imaginary people or imaginary phenomena; descriptions or lists of imaginary events, some of which are imagined to have already happened relative to the fiction of play and some of which are imagined as yet to happen relative that fiction.
> 
> So there may be more than one answer to this question.





Maxperson said:


> Going back to the OP.  There is no "the point" of DM notes.  The point varies depending on the kind of game you run.
> 
> If you run a detailed sandbox, the point is to set down all the details of the world to be discovered.  The DM cannot remember them all, so it's all written down.
> 
> If you run a loose sandbox, the notes are a framework to build upon, noting important sites, cities and a few NPCs, but leaving the rest open to either be detailed when the party gets closer, improv'd, or both.
> 
> If you run an improv style game, the point is to put down what has been established through play.
> 
> And so on.  There are lots of ways to play and lots of "the point" of notes.





billd91 said:


> Well, yeah, but a response like that doesn't help me fill out my Buzzword Bingo card.



Gee, if only the OP had noticed that _there might be more than one answer to this question!

Oh, wait . . ._


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Gee, if only the OP had noticed that _there might be more than one answer to this question!
> 
> Oh, wait . . ._



There is no "may" or "might."  It's pretty factual that there are different answers.  I've provided multiples.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> There is no "may" or "might."  It's pretty factual that there are different answers.  I've provided multiples.



In another recent thread I had occasion to express puzzlement about how you read others' words. Now I'm doing it again.

I Googled "use of might or may to moderate tone" and the first thing that came up for me was Modals – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

And on that page the fourth sentence reads "Modals can also serve a social function to show uncertainty or politeness." In writing an OP about a potentially contentious topic, which might lead to some posters who think there is only one function for notes (eg @Lanefan might be an example) having to confront the possibility of multiple purposes, including purposes they have not previously considered, I chose to use the modal _may _to show uncertainty or politeness. (I didn't need to reference a style guide in order to write like this. I refer to the style guide because in my experience you tend not to accept claims made about standard English usage without being pointed to some sort of textual authority.)

As even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread will reveal, I'm not in any _actual_ doubt that (just to pick two examples) @Manbearcat uses his notes in a different fashion from how you use yours.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> In another recent thread I had occasion to express puzzlement about how you read others' words. Now I'm doing it again.
> 
> I Googled "use of might or may to moderate tone" and the first thing that came up for me was Modals – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> 
> And on that page the fourth sentence reads "Modals can also serve a social function to show uncertainty or politeness." In writing an OP about a potentially contentious topic, which might lead to some posters who think there is only one function for notes (eg @Lanefan might be an example) having to confront the possibility of multiple purposes, including purposes they have not previously considered, I chose to use the modal _may _to show uncertainty or politeness. (I didn't need to reference a style guide in order to write like this. I refer to the style guide because in my experience you tend not to accept claims made about standard English usage without being pointed to some sort of textual authority.)
> 
> As even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread will reveal, I'm not in any _actual_ doubt that (just to pick two examples) @Manbearcat uses his notes in a different fashion from how you use yours.



Might = uncertain.  Even your link there uses it in that context.  If you aren't in actual doubt, then "might" was the wrong word to use in the context that you used it in.  Using it the way that you did indicated that it was possible that there were multiple points to DM notes, but that there could be just one.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Might = uncertain.  Even your link there uses it in that context.  If you aren't in actual doubt, then "might" was the wrong word to use in the context that you used it in.  Using it the way that you did indicated that it was possible that there were multiple points to DM notes, but that there could be just one.



Are you a teacher of a literary discipline? A published author? A frequent public speaker?

I am all these things. I will very confidently put myself in the top 1% of the population for both spoken and written English. I know how to use modal verbs. I have written a doctoral thesis that engages with the pragmatic and semantic workings of modal verbs.

Consider a referee's report that says "The author may wish to reconsider whether the argument presented fully supports the conclusion that is drawn." If you read that, as the author, you know the referee thinks your argument is weak! Similarly if I write a comment like that on a student's paper. _Just as the style guide that I linked to states, _the modal verbs _may _and _might _can serve a social function to show uncertainty or politeness. I used the verbs to show politeness, as I explained not far upthread - to blunt the force of a proposition that some readers will find controversial. As I also said, I was not in actual doubt.

If you want to suggest that polite usage can lack maximum sincerity, that is probably true. If you then want to quote REH's Conan on the point, by all means do so. But don't try and correct my impeccable usage.


----------



## kenada

Arilyn said:


> The "protagonist" style play is really hard to explain on paper, which I think is what is triggering a lot of posters dismissing it, or not fully grasping it, or assuming it won't work for them. While I think it's true that this style won't appeal to all players, it does have to be tried to be fully understood. A common complaint is that protagonist play will break immersion and can't create the sense of a living breathing world.
> 
> This was a concern I had as well, but the opposite occured. This style makes the world come sharply into focus. The GM not having notes or a created world somehow brings a heightened sense of reality. I'm really not sure why this occurs, as it seems counter-intuitive. Because of the collaborative approach, no one can coast and all participants must stay alert and fully engaged. This is also the downside. Creative juices have to keep flowing.



I think a concrete example would be helpful. I’m going to take a shot at that using my game and our Scum and Villainy game.

In my OSE game, the PCs started the session by having a planning meeting. Because they know that picking fights imprudently is a surefire way to get killed, they don’t want to engage the ghouls directly. Instead, they’ve decided to do two things: procure a lot of oil that they can use to light and burn the ghouls after luring them into their trap, and hire retainers to beef up their numbers.

After deciding on that course of action, the PCs headed to town to see who they could hire. Knowing they were planning to do this, I had prepared some potential candidates. If they had just sprung it on me, I could have improvised it, but the effect would have been the same (the referee authored the NPCs). I narrated the travel montage, and they found themselves at the market square.

Some of the PCs decided to go shopping for supplies while others went over to check the notice board to see what had been posted. They found a couple of notices that looked interesting. One was for a ranger, and another was a fighter. I improvised that the ranger notice said that the ranger would contact you if you took the note, and he did, stepping out behind someone. The ranger is a particular, foxlike person who stood about two feet tall. That scene played out, and we moved on to the scene with the fighter.

The scene with the fighter is the one I mentioned in my previous post. I rolled randomly and picked out a couple of NPCs to join him. In addition to Jean (the fighter), there was Marie (the acrobat) and Sin Sū Ten Bren (the illusionist). Here, I used my prep to set the scene. Jean is Lawful while the others are Chaotic. Sin is straightforward and friendly while Jean is stern. Marie had just showed up for a drink and sat there because it was the only place she could sit and see the exits while keeping her back to the wall.

The PCs decided to join them, and they chatted with the NPCs. Sin proffered their services, and noted (much to the consternation of the barbarian) that she was an illusionist. The PCs and the NPCs chatted about various things. The bard was quite surprised that Marie was even taller than he is, and he’s pretty tall. Eventually, after chatting a while (I’d say real time this played out between 30–60 minutes), the party decided to hire Jean and Marie but not Sin. We stopped there, just after the bard gave Marie some money to buy better gear, and she left through the window.

In our Scum and Villainy game, we had a mission to retrieve a crystal. I (as a player in this game) proposed we infiltrate a party. I would seduce the person who owned the crystal while the rest of the crew would sneak inside and steal it. I would be responsible for sabotaging the network and getting any intel we needed. And that’s what happened. The GM hadn’t planned this. The players said this is what happens, and then it happened.

At the party, I bailed on the plan and ended up with someone else instead. While I was having fun, I got a call from my crew: they need the passcode to the vault. I’m supposed to have gotten it. Whoops. We’re in trouble, right? Nope. Scum and Villainy (being Forged in the Dark) has a mechanic that lets me (the player) say how things are — the flashback. It turns out I had met with a disgruntled guard prior to the party and paid him off to get the codes. I gave the code to the crew, who could continue their part of the job.

Some more stuff happens, and we have another situation. They got the crystal, but they’re worried about making too much noise getting it out. It’s pretty bulky, and it’s occasionally clanging off the sides of the ducts as they crawl through them. Doing my best Han Solo impersonation, I go over to the intercom and send out a compound-wide request for sexy maids to come up to the roof. Also, psht psht, there’s some interference (_shoots intercom_).

It’s not long after the guards come up to see what is happening on the roof. I’m there in just my coat with my companion. How do I escape? That’s right, during my meeting with the guard (in the flashback), I gave him a bundle and asked him to stash it on the roof. I ran over to that, but I was taking fire and accidentally knocked it off the roof (due to rolling badly). Whoops. So I jump off the roof anyway.

That drew a perplexed response from the GM. I explained that we had set up a tent, and I would be using it to break my fall. We took care of that in a flashback, and I landed successfully. I had some stun from getting shot, but I made my resist roll to avoid breaking anything in the landing. After that, I just had to concoct a scheme to get off the planet (which I did thanks to my disguise and fake papers). Fortunately, the crew was able to get the crystal out, and we got paid.

What I am doing in OSE is providing the players with a sandbox. They can make decisions about what to do, but the framework is oriented towards creating a particular style of immersive play. Even though I’m not invested in an outcome and reacting to the PCs’ decisions, I’m still the one framing the scenes and deciding who is there. Their authorial voices are limited to what the PCs do. The players have little to no say on the framework itself (beyond taking actions as their PCs to effect certain situations).

This is in contrast with Scum and Villainy where the system gives players tools to say that this is what’s there. If my plan needs a tent for a safe landing, then it’s going to be there. I don’t have to plan that out, we of course did it (i.e., flashback). You pay some stress, so there is a limit, but the idea is to remove the need to spend time planning and jump straight to the action.

You can’t really jump straight to the action in OSE because the PCs will die. I think that’s the skillful play in the context of a sandbox that was discussed earlier in this thread. In a sense, jumping straight to the action is a failure state. What happens is a consequence of how well you planned or took steps to rig things in your favor (you never want a fair fight in OSE). And in my campaign, it’s something I use to effect an immersive style.

If it’s not clear, I would not consider what I am doing in OSE to a protagonistic style of play. That’s neither good nor bad. It’s just different. I do pull in some ideas from Apocalypse World and Dungeon World. I don’t use fronts or threat maps (I find them too clunky in practice), but I love the principles and the way AW handles NPCs and relationships. It’s the primary reason I disclaim running a West Marches campaign even though there is some influence: town is not safe. I may look through crosshairs: the kobold mafia shows up in Orctown for business, and Marie is no where to be found. Whether the PCs care will depend on their relationship with her (and if I’m doing it right, I’ve got some PC-NPC-PC triangles going). But I digress.

Hopefully that makes some kind of sense and that I’ve understood protagonism correctly.


----------



## pemerton

@kenada, that's a really good post. And contrasts your two games nicely.

Do you have a sense of how the Scum and Villainy GM is using their notes?


----------



## Lanefan

First off, thanks for the detailed answer, even if I'm about to debate some of it. 


pemerton said:


> Finding out what happens in RPGing is fun for me.



Me too, which is why I play.

But note that I specifically say "play" here; as a distinct and separate activity from GMing.  IMO the GM is there in part to facilitate the players being able to find out what happens - or, in many cases, through the actions of their PCs cause what happens.


pemerton said:


> There is the action and colour; in more dramatic games, there is that too; sometimes there is comedy; there is mystery and revelation.
> 
> There is an obvious resemblance between these pleasurable parts of the activity, and watching a film or (less so, I think) reading a book. Compared to a film it is slower-paced and (related but not identical) less well edited. But compared to _watching _a film it is creative. And compared to writing a story on one's own it has all the fun and surprise and sociality of doing something with one's friends.
> 
> The preceding few sentences aren't any sort of attempt to explain everything about what is fun for me in RPGing, but try to point to some of it.
> 
> (When I play rather than GM the creative aspect is a bit less evident, but the intimate inhabitation of my character, and the emotional experiences that flow from that, are present in the way that they are not when GMing.)



I think there can be the same general amount of creativity for both player and GM, just on different scales (setting-scale vs character-scale, for example) and often with different intentions (a GM sometimes has to create with a view to the long-term future of the game she's running while a player generally can stay more in the moment).


pemerton said:


> These claims are not true. What I mean by that is that they are claims about what is possible when adopting a certain approach to RPGing, and I know from my own experience of RPGing using that approach that the things you say can't be done, can be done; and that the things you say are necessary, are not.
> 
> *Presenting mysteries, secrets, puzzles*
> The way that I do this, when I GM, is to introduce a situation - an event, a NPC, an object, etc - which does not yet have an explanation (in the fiction) known to anyone at the table. (This is just what @Ovinomancer said upthread.)
> 
> For instance, in a reasonably recent session of my Classic Traveller game the PCs found an ancient alien pyramid complex with a pendulum apparatus in it. _What is the pendulum for?_, they wondered. Good question!
> 
> In the Burning Wheel game I GM, the players learned that the sorcerer Jabal - the nemesis of at least one PC, the employer of two others - was going to marry the Gynarch of Hardby, heself a powerfl mage. What is the reason for this wedding? Good question!



Good questions perhaps, but without pre-set answers for the players to work toward they're also IMO not as satisfying to solve.  Were I the GM introducing the pendulum I'd already know what it was for.  Were I a player finding that pendulum I'd be wanting to find out more about it, what it's for, and what it does; all in full awareness in-character that while it might be of vital importance it might also be nothing more than a distraction or delay element to slow us down, make us think, and-or keep us from looking elsewhere until it's too late.

From what I remember of this Jabal guy, I think as a player I'd have long ago had my PC do the setting a favour and just shoot him.   I run a few high-placed less-than-nice NPCs like him in my game - sooner or later I rather hope one of them will annoy one or more PCs to the point where said PCs try to take drastic action.  And who knows, they might even succeed. 


pemerton said:


> *Presenting a living setting that has things happen independent of the PCs or their actions*
> The wedding above would be an example of this. Another example would be our Classic Traveller game, where the PCs encounter various vessels that are travelling for reasons that are not caused by the PCs: eg an Imperial armada attacking the world the PCs were on.
> 
> It's true that _the GM is not doing much imagining of events in the fiction that are not narrated, in some fashion, at the table_ but that sort of imagining is not_ presenting a living setting_.



This is good.  It's also something that the post I was replying to seemed to suggest was somehow undesirable.

And for this sort of thing, GM notes are invaluable; the sort of notes that say "Barring changes brought on by the PCs, event x will happen on date y".  In the Traveller example, it might go "Barring PC changes or interruptions, an Imperial armada will attack the world of Quohiry on Stardate 1103.65".  This sort of note is ideally made before play even starts, in order to be agnostic regarding the PCs' actual location at the time.  If they happen to be on or near Quohiry on that date then maybe they get caught up in the action.  If not, they'll certainly hear about it later as news spreads through the galaxy.

But if the PCs somehow manage to mess up that armada before it leaves spaceport, or pre-learn of the impending attack and warn Quohiry and-or get the Quohirians to launch a pre-emptive attack of their own, then maybe those notes become redundant.  Doesn't bother me in the least.  I'd far rather have notes made redundant than no notes at all and via winging it end up finding I've put the same armada in three places at once. (which is just the sort of screw-up I'm more than capable of!)


pemerton said:


> *Presenting naturalistic consequences*
> In my Burning Wheel game, the players failed some sort of check as their PCs were fleeing a tower carrying the blood and head of a decapitated sorcerer. I narrated an encounter with some guards. The PCs failed to persuade the guards that they were just innocently out for a night-time stroll. The guards took them into custody.
> 
> That sequence of events is completely naturalistic. And is established via the narration of consequences of failed checks: had the players' checks succeeded, they would have naturalistically escaped observation (first check succeeds), or duped the guards (second check succeeds) and then events would have headed into a different direction instead of the imprisonment that the PCs suffered.



Yet naturalistic [consequences*] are something else that was strongly frowned on upthread.

* - a different word was used but I'm too lazy right now to look for it. 


pemerton said:


> In my Classic Traveller game, the a PC used psionic power in front of a NPC who had the conventional Imperial hostility to psionics. The reaction roll indicated that she was hostile; then a player succeeded on a check made to see if his PC was able to calm her down for the moment, and so she was calmed. Then the psionic PC ended up being placed in charge of the overall situation (as Imperial Overseer), which the NPC reluctantly accepted (I can't remember if there was a check made for this or not). Then when that same PC ended up temporarily incapacitated due to an attack by an alien creature, the hostile NPC (being a noble of the same rank as the PC) asserted her authority over the situation (this was a GM decision to establish a complication that followed from the incapacitation).
> 
> That sequence of events is also completely naturalistic.
> 
> The GM approach of _first make a soft move that signals a risk, threat or danger_ and _then make a hard move that follows through with some irrevocable consequence_ is formalised in PbtA games but is easy to use even without that formalisation. The PCs are out at night doing unlawful things: on the first failure signal the risk (they meet guards) then on the second failure follow through (they are taken into custody). A PC uses psionics in circumstances where this might cause ire, and the reaction roll indicates as much: that's the threat. A series of events ameliorate the threat for the moment (the NPC is calmed down; the PC is put into a position of authority over her). But then when the PC (and thus his player) comes unstuck, I as GM follow through: the hostile NPC takes charge of the situation.
> 
> The upshot (as I've posted in another recent thread) was an attempt by some PCs to break into the NPC's base, which failed; and a consequent trial, which was brought to an end by the PC blowing everyone and everything up, and the PCs then abandoning their position.



This all sounds good.  I'm not as formal about the soft-move hard-move sequence, in that there'll be times when danger hits without warning and other times there'll be what looks and acts like a warning but it's unfounded.  An example of the latter might be Indiana Jones noticing a skeleton impaled on a spike in a passage; he takes it as a warning there's traps here and behaves accordingly, not realizing until much later the trap was a one-shot thing and the passage is in fact now quite safe.

Thing is, all of the consequences in your examples could just as easily have been based on pre-made notes as on on-the-fly adjudication.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't even understand what this question has to do with anything. Are you asking _do I write fan fiction about the setting of my RPGs?_ Then the answer is no.



Interesting point. 

To me the key question is not "*do *_you write fan fiction about and-or based in your RPG setting?_" but "_*could* you use the setting for such an endeavour if you wanted?_" Put another way, this asks whether you-as-its-designer feel the setting is robust enough and complete enough to support such writing; which really might not be a bad benchmark to use when designing a setting, as a signal that you've probably done enough and can get on with the game.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Modules like S2 White Plume Mountain and C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness and C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and X2 Castle Amber are all examples of this style. The events and setting are essentially self-contained and self-referential. Any allusions to anything beyond the dungeon has no bearing on how the dungeon is engaged with and beaten.



Both C2 and X2 are modules designed such that once you get into them you can't escape without beating them.  That said, the Averoigne part of X2 is the exact opposite: once they've passed the various tests (and in the process possibly become minor local heroes) it's not inconceivable that the PCs might end up wanting to just stay there and never go back to their home world.

With S2, though, while it's written as self-referential and self-contained there's nothing at all stopping a DM from connecting it to her world and-or somehow breaking the self-containment.  (I can't speak to C1 as I've yet to either play or DM it...one day...)


pemerton said:


> (Eg in S2 the stolen weapons have owners in the City of Greyhawk; but nothing in the module depends upon, or is changed by, those facts of ownership. It's just set-dressing and backstory.)



The living-world piece here happens before and-or after the adventure itself (and this is generally true in many cases beyond just this; most engagement with the greater world comes during downtime).  If the PCs take too long retrieving the weapons, or if the PCs decide to just walk off with the weapons rather than returning them to their owners, or if one of the owners has died while the PCs were in the dungeon, then there's going to be consequences.  Or perhaps the owner of Black Razor "forgot" to mention to the PCs that the mere act of bringing that weapon into town carries a death sentence.


pemerton said:


> My first question is, how do you know all these things?
> 
> Why would the attack have serious implications? And why would news spread? Perhaps the attack is kept secret.



In a galaxy with hyper-lightspeed communications, keeping something major like that a secret would be nigh impossible unless the armada one-shotted the planet (see: Death Star vs Alderaan) before any of the residents knew what hit them.


----------



## John Dallman

pemerton said:


> That would be an example of what I tried to get at upthread referring to your notes as establishing the "solution space". Not to say that they dictate the solution, but they establish very meaningful parameters around what would count as a viable solution.



OK, now I have a clearer idea of what you mean by "solution space." To me, for the scenario I'm preparing for, the premise and setting of the game impose the limitations on PC actions, and my notes about them are about being able to respond to the players rapidly and consistently during play. The PC's only opponents in this scenario are the laws of nature within the setting, and the limits of the available resources and equipment. If they have thinking, planning opponents, then preparation is a bit different. 

Some examples: It's a somewhat realistic space game. The PCs can't just stop participating, get out of the ship and walk home. That's part of the premise. 

The PCs need to go into an area of very high radiation to do the mission. They set themselves that mission - it was a surprise to me when they decided to take it on - but since they are competent astronauts, I need to let them know what the risks are and how to minimise them. That's setting. 

I can imagine all sorts of sequences of events that might happen, in terms of who might do what, and what might go wrong. But doing detailed planning for those would be mistaken, in my view. I'd be tempted to steer the PCs down one of those routes, infringing the players' freedom of action. Instead, I need to understand the situation as well as I can, so that I can "play the world" in response to whatever the players do.


----------



## John Dallman

Lanefan said:


> To me the key question is not "*do *_you write fan fiction about and-or based in your RPG setting?_" but "_*could* you use the setting for such an endeavour if you wanted?_"



That's not really an answerable question. Writing fiction in a setting inevitably involves fleshing it out in different ways from running a game in it. One notable example of that is the "voices" of characters, the individual ways they express themselves in language. That's really important in prose fiction, but not usually in a game.


----------



## pemerton

John Dallman said:


> OK, now I have a clearer idea of what you mean by "solution space." To me, for the scenario I'm preparing for, the premise and setting of the game impose the limitations on PC actions, and my notes about them are about being able to respond to the players rapidly and consistently during play. The PC's only opponents in this scenario are the laws of nature within the setting, and the limits of the available resources and equipment.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's a somewhat realistic space game. The PCs can't just stop participating, get out of the ship and walk home. That's part of the premise.
> 
> The PCs need to go into an area of very high radiation to do the mission. They set themselves that mission - it was a surprise to me when they decided to take it on - but since they are competent astronauts, I need to let them know what the risks are and how to minimise them. That's setting.



What you say here reminds me of a session in my group's Traveller game where the PCs wanted to blast and drill through a thick layer of ice to get to a buried alien pyramid complex:



pemerton said:


> With the (fictional) context now fully clear, it was time to start the excavation. We did some Googling (of ice-melting with lasers) and decided that it would take 4 days to cut through 3 km of ice with a triple beam laser.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> After blasting to 3 km depth, it took another two weeks (calculated after doing some more Googling, this time ice-drilling) to carefully drill and blast through the last 1 km using more conventional methods (led by the NPC Zef, a former Belter with Prospecting-1, Mechanical-1 and Demolitions-1, as well as the PC Tony with his Mechanical-1 and Jack-o-T-4). I called for a check to make sure nothing went wrong with the drilling, which was successful. As the drilling approached the much-anticipated 4 km depth, the PCs established an armed watch (Xander in his powered armour) to make sure nothing unexpected came out of the alien structure to attack them.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> In a galaxy with hyper-lightspeed communications, keeping something major like that a secret would be nigh impossible unless the armada one-shotted the planet (see: Death Star vs Alderaan) before any of the residents knew what hit them.



Classic Traveller does not have any hyper-lightspeed communications beyond the travel of starships. If a world is under interdiction, and the interdiction is successful, news will not travel.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Were I a player finding that pendulum I'd be wanting to find out more about it, what it's for, and what it does; all in full awareness in-character that while it might be of vital importance it might also be nothing more than a distraction or delay element to slow us down, make us think, and-or keep us from looking elsewhere until it's too late.



OK.

The players in my game, as their PCs, were curious to learn more about the pendulum. It was clearly part of the apparatus of a technically complex establishment. There was no sense in which it would be a "distraction" - when the goal is to find out what the establishment is for and how it works, learning what a part of it is for and how it works is not a distraction. It's the point.



Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Presenting a living setting that has things happen independent of the PCs or their actions*
> The wedding above would be an example of this. Another example would be our Classic Traveller game, where the PCs encounter various vessels that are travelling for reasons that are not caused by the PCs: eg an Imperial armada attacking the world the PCs were on.
> 
> It's true that _the GM is not doing much imagining of events in the fiction that are not narrated, in some fashion, at the table_ but that sort of imagining is not_ presenting a living setting_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is good. It's also something that the post I was replying to seemed to suggest was somehow undesirable.
> 
> And for this sort of thing, GM notes are invaluable; the sort of notes that say "Barring changes brought on by the PCs, event x will happen on date y".  In the Traveller example, it might go "Barring PC changes or interruptions, an Imperial armada will attack the world of Quohiry on Stardate 1103.65".  This sort of note is ideally made before play even starts, in order to be agnostic regarding the PCs' actual location at the time.  If they happen to be on or near Quohiry on that date then maybe they get caught up in the action.  If not, they'll certainly hear about it later as news spreads through the galaxy.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yet naturalistic [consequences*] are something else that was strongly frowned on upthread.
> 
> * - a different word was used but I'm too lazy right now to look for it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> all of the consequences in your examples could just as easily have been based on pre-made notes as on on-the-fly adjudication.
Click to expand...


Here is what @Manbearcat _actually_ posted upthread, that you (@Lanefan) quoted:


Manbearcat said:


> You are NOT THE LEAD STORYTELLER
> 
> You do NOT GET TO BREAK/CHANGE RULES
> 
> You do NOT USE YOUR PIECES TO CONVEY A THEMATICALLY NEUTRAL, PC-DISINTERESTED WORLD
> 
> You do NOT USE SECRET BACKSTORY (it doesn't exist) OR NATURALISTIC EXTRAPOLATION TO OPPOSE PC



There is nothing at all there about _consequences_, naturalistic or otherwise. There _is _something about not using secret backstory to oppose PCs. Which is something that I do not do (with one prominent exception in our Traveller game: the game calls for a secret roll to determine if a branch of the Psionics Institute exists on a world, and I have used that mechanic).

Saying _all of the consequences could as easily have been based on pre-made notes_ is like saying _instead of rolling the dice in a D&D combat, the GM might have just narrated all the outcomes of all the declared attacks_. That's true, but it doesn't entail that there is no difference between using the combat mechanics to find out what happens in combat, and having the GM just tell you.

There is also nothing in @Manbearcat's post hostile to "thinking offscreen", which is one of the principles of Apocalypse World, the original PbtA game. What he does say is _you do not use your pieces to convey a thematically neutral, PC-disinterested world_. The wedding I described was not thematically neutral. Nor was it PC-disinterested. It involved a powerful wizard who leads a cabal to which the main PC wizard belongs. The attack of the Imperial armada I described was not thematically neutral. Nor was it PC-disinterested. The PCs were on the world in pursuit of religious and psionic secrets; and the armada was there - it seemed - to enforce the Imperium's anti-psionic policies.

There are a million possible things I could tell my players about what is happening in the galaxy, and what they encounter. I choose to tell them about things that engage the dramatic needs of their PCs. That's why I have no use for the technique of setting up "agnostic" rosters of events. These do not enhance the game I want to play. Somewhat similarly, in REH's Conan we don't hear random news of things that don't matter to Conan; in Raiders of the Lost Ark we don't hear about random German military operations, but only the ones that implicate the ruins that Indiana Jones wants to explore; in an X-Man film or comic we don't hear about changes in interest rates, and the only hearing of the "World Court" we ever learn about is the one where Magneto is on trial for crimes against humanity.


----------



## kenada

pemerton said:


> @kenada, that's a really good post. And contrasts your two games nicely.
> 
> Do you have a sense of how the Scum and Villainy GM is using their notes?



I don’t, but I’ve reached out to him to find out. I do know that he tracks progress clocks publicly. For example, I can log in and see on roll20 that “Stellar Flame needs Snarf back now” has one segment and that it’s a thing even though it hasn’t manifested yet in the fiction (but we [the players] know it’s coming).


----------



## pming

Hiya!


pemerton said:


> Suppose that the players do not blurt out anything about possibly being followed by guild thieves. What, then, is the effect _on play _of the GM having made notes about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?



On play? Well, most likely, more notes getting written down about what's going on "behind the scenes" and/or "right under the PC's noses".

I did have a group of PC's be so oblivious, so utterly obtuse, that they let an ENTIRE TOWN get 'stolen' from them. It was an Oriental Adventures campaign, everyone was around 5th or 6th level after about a year of playing. Short version, some "dignitaries" were sent by the Shogun to 'deal with the current Daimyo's ineffectual leadership' due to several natural disasters (one including a Gargantuan Preying Mantis named "Shidora"). They arrived, had a week of getting to know the town, local samurai, shukenja, etc., and attempting to determine if the Daimyo needed removing (lots of political intrigue). At the two week'ish mark, iirc, the head dignitary told the town he would be taking over and the last Daimyo's house. In celebration of this, a HUGE, mandatory, town-wide celebration was to take place outside the town walls so as to not cause more destruction or harm people (remember Shidora?...  ) as parts were still under construction. The party started at noon and ramped up towards evening, when the gates were closed and samurai/bushi patrolled the streets arresting any stragglers. ... ... Come morning, most folks passed out in the tents and just in the fields and peasant mina's. But the gates didn't open. People gathered and yelled. No opening. No nothing. The PC's finally make the decision to scale the 25' high walls....they get to the top of the wall, look out over the town and the harbour of Tu'pe, and see the entire fleet, plus more, that had arrived two weeks ago, slowly sailing off into the rising sun.

Turns out the dignitaries were all wave-men (pirates/brigands/etc) and had scammed EVERYONE! During the night they had gathered up all the valuable they could carry, stuffed them onto their ships...and ships they just stole...and took off. They stole an entire town. Literally. 
Best. Campaign storyline. Ever! 

How does this relate? Simply put, I had notes for all the stuff that was going on 'behind the scenes', and the PC's had actually stumbled upon or saw thing that SHOULD have tipped them off.... but they said nothing due to RP'ing the whole social-cast-structure thing or just COMPLETLEY missing the boat.  ... ... Without my "notes" of what was going on, it would have been much more difficult to pull it off because I might have stumbled over names, or incidents that happened that, in hind sight, the Players remembered and said "Oh....man! So THAT'S why there were all those fights in that Tea House! They needed it out of commission because it got to much traffic so close to the only area where they could sneak people in/out of the dock area without being seen for the last two weeks!", for example. 

So that's how it affects "play"; by giving me a continuing "behind the scenes" story of what's going on, logically, due to player action or inaction.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> "I will get revenge on the man who killed my father."
> 
> "I will reclaim my lost one true love."
> 
> "I will be tge most famed explorer of my age."
> 
> Simply put, a dramatic need is something you can hang a complete story on.  If it's driven by the character and not about someone or something else, this protagonizes the character.  If the character is just responding to the GM, it's not protagonism.  Ie, if I'm exploring because the GM dropped a dungeon, that's not protagonism.  If I can drive play such that I can explore and discover world changing things without having to ask the GM, that's protagonism.  Yes, D&D doesn't do this well because it's not structured to, and that's fine -- it's not aimimg for this.
> 
> And, this isn't binary.  You can have a little or a lot.  This is why I was pondering on protagonism as picking up things the GM put down as part of a character.  I think this can be weak protagonism.



These examples helped I think as I was a bit in the dark what you meant myself in a few of those places.  And with you an Umbran arguing, it's kind of like the Patriots and the Bengals playing each other.  I'm probably just rooting for injuries.  (kidding kidding).  I enjoy our debates.

Now to get serious.  I feel my PC's often seek to satisfy a dramatic need but they choose one based upon the world I've presented.  I very much think having goals as a PC are what drives the dungeon crawling in sandbox games.  It's why domain management is often a chapter in the Old School books like ACKS.   

The difference I think is that achieving that dramatic end is a test of player skill.  Can he overcome the obstacles that the world will inevitable present and achieve his goal?   When you achieve the goal it can be very satisfying as a player.  In fact, that is part of the appeal of my campaigns I think.  It is also possible to not achieve the goal.  So as GM, my job is not to make sure the goal happens.  My job is to present a world that provides challenges in a reasonable way that the PC can overcome or not.   At least in my approach to the game that is my job of course.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> These examples helped I think as I was a bit in the dark what you meant myself in a few of those places.  And with you an Umbran arguing, it's kind of like the Patriots and the Bengals playing each other.  I'm probably just rooting for injuries.  (kidding kidding).  I enjoy our debates.
> 
> Now to get serious.  I feel my PC's often seek to satisfy a dramatic need but they choose one based upon the world I've presented.  I very much think having goals as a PC are what drives the dungeon crawling in sandbox games.  It's why domain management is often a chapter in the Old School books like ACKS.
> 
> The difference I think is that achieving that dramatic end is a test of player skill.  Can he overcome the obstacles that the world will inevitable present and achieve his goal?   When you achieve the goal it can be very satisfying as a player.  In fact, that is part of the appeal of my campaigns I think.  It is also possible to not achieve the goal.  So as GM, my job is not to make sure the goal happens.  My job is to present a world that provides challenges in a reasonable way that the PC can overcome or not.   At least in my approach to the game that is my job of course.



Right.  Choosing a dramatic need is just a necessary step -- it's not sufficient for protagonism.  The also necessary step is that play must center on that dramatic goal.  The play you're describing doesn't do this (which is cool) but instead puts the setting/notes first and the player can then navigate them as they wish, which may or may not be in pursuit of their dramatic goal.  Meanwhile, the GM will be adding things to play that don't concern the dramatic goal(s) of any PCs at all.

This is a great way to play, it's just not protagonism.  Which is, as I've said repeatedly, perfectly fine. No one would be upset if I said their way of playing wasn't like Monopoly, and this is a similar kind of observation -- play is not aligned to the play goal of protagonism just like it's not aligned to the play goal of seizing all of the capital to bankrupt your fellow players.


----------



## tetrasodium

Emerikol said:


> These examples helped I think as I was a bit in the dark what you meant myself in a few of those places.  And with you an Umbran arguing, it's kind of like the Patriots and the Bengals playing each other.  I'm probably just rooting for injuries.  (kidding kidding).  I enjoy our debates.
> 
> Now to get serious.  I feel my PC's often seek to satisfy a dramatic need but they choose one based upon the world I've presented.  I very much think having goals as a PC are what drives the dungeon crawling in sandbox games.  It's why domain management is often a chapter in the Old School books like ACKS.
> 
> The difference I think is that achieving that dramatic end is a test of player skill.  Can he overcome the obstacles that the world will inevitable present and achieve his goal?   When you achieve the goal it can be very satisfying as a player.  In fact, that is part of the appeal of my campaigns I think.  It is also possible to not achieve the goal.  So as GM, my job is not to make sure the goal happens.  My job is to present a world that provides challenges in a reasonable way that the PC can overcome or not.   At least in my approach to the game that is my job of course.



Its definitely a matter of player skill to achieve them but there are some system differences between 5e and older editions*. In the past there was extremely little room to hang any of that kind of stuff on a character so accomplishing it meant going out of your way to fit it into the GM's world and (if present) campaign story.  Even the old phb used words like "ask your gm" "talk with your GM about" & similar.  

5e largely carves out a space for that sort of thing where it very much does not belong in ideals bonds &flaws examples and in player facing material largely avoids talking about working with the gm setting up a vicious cycle of badly set expectations often trying to back the gm into a cornered role of providing life support for the story of 4-6 2d Mary & Gary sues.

On the other side of things the GM facing stuff is now largely void of any discussion about insight into or even design space to tweak the rules for the game/campaign they want to run or the advice & tools for working with their players to that end.

At the end of the day both players and GM need to pick up the skills for all of that from years of older editions or some other system entirely and hope to build the missing bits whole cloth to fit the needs of using the ideals bonds and flaws  in the way it's presented as but not designed for and given no guidance or tools to work across the table on it other thsn "yea, no."

* systems with a more shared narrative framework are a different ball of wax


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game?  Seriously.




I'll answer that in a way that engages with some of the thoughts (and misconceptions) below as well.

1)  Impromptu problem-and-puzzle-solving as GM due to responsibility of fitting the puzzle pieces of player action declaration + results of action resolution + prior fiction together in a way that addresses thematic interests, follows from the preceding fiction, follows from genre, is sufficiently provocative/interesting. 

This is both a cortisol and adrenaline dump because there is a lot of stuff happening that you have to keep together and stitch together in the moment. 

Bottom line, its exciting.

2)  I get to encompass the duality of (a) common elements of GMing (framing, consequence handling, playing the "bad guys"/obstacles, interacting with interesting system elements) and (b) audience member in that I get to "find out what happens."

And interesting byproduct of (b) above is that I get to "find out about myself from myself."  When _I_ come up with something on the fly, there is a sensory experience of inhabiting multiple cognitive spaces.  "Wow, I didn't think of that...that is cool/sucks...well actually you did, because it came from you/me!"

Its a unique cognitive experience, its nice to be able to be an audience member, and its an interesting test of self (and cognitive exercise that strengthens the brain for subsequent play and puzzle-solving on the fly).

 

Two examples from prior session play that are fresh in my mind:

*EXAMPLE 1 -  Dungeon World game with @darkbard and his wife*

They (along with a 5 hirelings/followers) are on a multi-tiered (5 camps = 5 journey moves, then ascent to the top) journey akin to the hike and climb of K2 in the Himalayas.  The first leg (we did the first 2 last session) entails a relatively simple but long switchback effort up a steep red clay cliff face to get to the frozen permafrost of the highlands.  Their journey moves (the hired Sherpa = auto 10/success on Navigate move) were all successful; Scout/Navigate/Manage Provisions.  

Darkbard's Paladin (Alastor) was the Scout.  When he gets a 10+ on his Scout move, he gets to pick from a menu of results.  Those results intersect with the Navigate results (which are resolved after Scout).  Because he knows that Marwat is the most accomplished guide in the territory (he's guaranteed a 10+ on Navigate), this affords Alastor the player to do 1 of 2 things; (i) flash-cut to Camp 1 as the initial part of the journey is over or (ii) request the GM to introduce a Discovery (_an interesting site that is not an immediate threat but could be beneficial or a threat given exploration of it_).  

He chose Discovery.  

So that is my cue to generate some fiction with the above constraints (and that hews to the rest of GM's constraints/directives).  Darkbard has placed many irons in the fire for Alastor in terms of proselytizing at this point (he has a pair of Clocks with separate Hirelings/Followers).  His real life wife has a soft spot for the downtrodden and young females without parents (akin to her own beginnings).  Further, this journey is EXTREMELY Gear and Ration sensitive.  Things will go very pear-shaped as these things ablate in the course of the journey.  They're _precious_.

So my brain goes something like this:

* Uh...shrine to deities for prayer and respite for the pilgrims making the journey...yeah, that's good...what else, self?

* Young, completely unequipped to make the journey (in all ways, but particularly gear), sisters.  They're desperate...but from what?

* They lost their parents at a young age and have been drifters ever since, the eldest sister taking care of the youngest...living Cinderella-in-the-cellar servant lives just to survive at all.  The last segment of their lives was getting taken advantage above by a brutal book-keeper.  This is it for them.  They're at a crisis of faith and all other things.  They're praying for a "miracle from the mountain" (this is why pilgrims make this journey).

* Their worn boots/outfits won't hold much more than a day.  Maraqli (the Wizard) gives them an extra pair of boots she's stowed for the journey, spending 1 of their precious Adventuring Gear to do so.  This says something about Maraqli (and will trigger a Bond to be constructed that is a mechanical carrot).

* Alastor has to make his "Observe Memna's Pieties" move.  He courts the girls with the strength of a believer and prays with them.  He gets a 10+ so he gets his Quest Boons and another boon.  In this case, I subbed his normal boon for something thematically appropriate here.  When they finish their prayer, he sees a cache of Rations behind the altar.  No one is certain if they were there before...maybe they were, maybe they weren't.  He, of course, interprets this as an act of mercy from his Goddess.  He gives the cache of Rations (which would certainly help bulwark their journey) to the starving girls.  

This triggers a host of mechanical effects and attendant fiction (I'm not going to get into each of them).  Suffice to say, his targets of proselytization move onward in their track toward inspired disciples and he's gained two more.  And (like Maraqli, xp triggers will be ticked or new ones are in play).

And now we've got a potential Bookkeeper-as-villain for later (which is thematically tied to Maraqli).

All because of the intersection of snowballing aspects of play:  a 10+ result of a Scout move + player-decision-point + GM framing + subsequent decision-points + subsequent action resolution.

None of this stuff existed before this journey (the shrine, the desperate sisters, the proselytization, the bookeeper villain, the extreme act of charity by Maraqli...and this was all perpetuated by the game engine with its PC advancement mechanics).

*EXAMPLE 2 - Blades in the Dark game with @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 (this one should be more familiar to you)*

Their last Score saw the Gang dealing with a Demon to pilfer some forged portraits of various members of nobility that were to be deployed in an extortion racket (in that they were alleging to depict true, scandalous scenes of various members of nobility in profound debauchery) before that extortion racket could unfold (which would thereby allow the nobility to have the "out" of buying off the manifestation of the scandals).  This was for a combination of the typical Payoff in Blades (Coin) but also a vial of Demon's Blood (which will aid hawkeye's PC in his Crafting of a prototype item - he's a Leech, which is an alchemist/inventor type) and the ability to remove an annoying Clock with a Faction called the Dockers (as they framed the two guys from that Faction that they had a problem with) in the stead of gaining Rep (which you need to advance Tier).

So they did it.  They gave the portaits to the Demon.  

So what now?  Why did this Demon want the portraits and how did the Demon manifest in the first place.  We settled on:

* The Demon wants the nobility to suffer the consequences of these portraits (so remove their outs - eg remove the extortion racket component of this).

* The Demon was summoned by many sacrifices in Barrowcleft (where the Demon resides...tethered to its bridge).

Now the fallout of this could be significant for many different reasons, as follows:

1)  Death is a big deal in the haunted, post-supernatural apocalypse city of Duskvol.  If the Spirit Wardens can't track down (there is a localized "gong" when someone dies and a deathseeker crow flies from the belfry to the ward where the death occured) a corpse in time to secure it and have it cremated in their special crematorium, a spirit becomes loose upon Duskvol (the afterlife has been obliterated, so no spirits pass over anymore).

...we've got a lot of corpses here.

2)  The nobility (really, in this case the City Council Faction is impacted by this.

3)  Who killed all of these people?  

So now...I have to go to the mechanics to resolve what emerges within the setting from the aggregation and intersection of all of this stuff.

In Blades, when something happens that involves the offscreen/forces that aren't the PCs specifically or their Gang/membership, this means Fortune roll formulated by the intersecting Factions and Magnitude/Scale/Potency.

When I did the maths, I settled on 1d6 Fortune Roll:

+ Spirit Wardens are Tier 4 (4 dice) + 1d6 * 3 due to assists from (The Ministry of Preservation, The Imperial Military, The Sparkwrights) for 7d6.

- The most important thing opposing them is the Scale of this event (a city block = 6 dice).

= 1d6 Fortune Roll.

They players rolled it.  They got a 1-3.  Which is a failure.  In this case, a Bad Result.  Given all that is in play, I have to move the situation in Duskvol forward appropriately.  Now THIS is going look familiar to you.  Not everything in Blades is centered around the thematic portfolio of the characters.  This game does an incredibly good job of marrying Proper Sandbox play (mechanically hefty sandbox play) to Protagonist Play.  Here, I have to extrapolate naturalistic consequence.  The PCs are likely to have zero to do with the resolution of this emerging issue in Barrowcleft.  They have an ever-developing menu of Scores to undertake.  This is a 0 Tier gang that is much more likely to Grift (they're Grifters) or Steal (etc) than "Ghost-bust."  If they don't involve themselves, we'll just handle "The Barrowcleft Disaster" as a Tug-of-War clock (with that 1d6 Fortune Roll) every Downtime to see if the city's concerted efforts can resolve it or if it fundamentally changes the setting.

But this is how the game works mechanically, and so we tally up the fallout of (a) portraits of members of high society strategically placed throughout Duskvol for maximum exposure and (b) a disturbing body count (with more still unaccounted for) in Barrowcleft.

1) Within 2 days time, word on the street and sensationalist headlines in the paper have crushed key members of the nobility. Some are in outright hiding. The City Council drops from Tier V to Tier IV.

2) The situation in Barrowcleft is an absolute disaster. Think Chernobyl meets NYC in Ghostbusters. The Spirit Wardens are overwhelmed with the poltergeist count. In a positive feedback loop, more are dying due to the haunts. This the breadbasket of the entire city with the Radiant Energy Farms. The Ministry of Preservation is desperate (and under imminent threat of losing Tier) as the looming specter of food shortages and famine have moved from hushed conversations in their offices to the street. A refugee crisis is underway as folks are being moved out in stages. The Imperial Military has set up makeshift barracks for troops to contain the crisis and triage for the harmed. The Sparkwrights are setting up emergency containment barriers but the process is slow. The Military, the Sparkwrights, and the Spirit Wardens are deputizing brave members of Duskvol (equipping them with Warden Masks - mitigate ghost manifestation effect, electromplasm pulse rifles, and electroplasm containment units..."I ain't afraid of no ghost"), paying them large sums to capture the spirits. But even that isn't working because not enough are coming forward and those that are losing at a bad "make more spirits : trap the spirits" ratio.

3) There is background noise of worry about a serial killer on the loose (those missing are overwhelmingly laborers and "Ladies of the Night" from Silkshore...but there are waaaaay bigger fish to fry right now.



> By reading this you can't do anything such as change or kitbash rules or define setting so as to make the game your own (yet the players, it seems, can to some extent do the latter), you can't present any sort of mystery for solving or later reveal, you can't present the players a living setting that has things happen - both now and in the past - independent of the PCs and-or their actions meaning said PCs and their players are largely operating in a vacuum beyond the here-and-now, and if by "naturalistic extrapolation" you mean "if the PCs do x, then y happens; if they do not, z happens" then their actions (or lack of) have no future consequences.  What's the point?
> 
> Also, from the player side, no secrets = no mystery = no reason to pay attention.
> 
> People complain that some DMs would be better off as novel writers and in fairness, all too often those people have a point.  However, I think it might be time to turn that same statement around and point it at the cadre of players whose primary interest is delving into the angst and emotions and troubles of their own PC: those players would be better off just writing a novel.




On this:

I'm certain that the Blades approach is INFINITELY more palatable for you.

However, I'm also wondering about how you feel about the systemitized resolution of these Offscreen/Non-PC setting issues are resolved.  Instead of just doing some abstract, qualitative pondering in the GM's head and then they just move the pieces at their discretion, there is an actual formula for resolution, replete with constraints for "reading the tea leaves" when you interpret the results of the Fortune Roll.  

Then, the subsequent effort is handled via more Fortune Rolls and a Tug-of-War Clock during Downtime (and if the PCs involve themselves, they'll tick the clock positively toward averting the disaster).  In your game, again, I'm sure this is just abstract, qualitative pondering and extrapolation by the GM (rather than encoded and constrained resolution).

How do you feel about this?  Do you think encoded and constrained resolution for this kind of stuff is something you could enjoy or do you think its no bueno.


----------



## darkbard

Great post, @Manbearcat, and one that, again, does excellent service in distinguishing the processes and mechanics of these two PbtA games.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Are you a teacher of a literary discipline? A published author? A frequent public speaker?
> 
> I am all these things. I will very confidently put myself in the top 1% of the population for both spoken and written English. I know how to use modal verbs. I have written a doctoral thesis that engages with the pragmatic and semantic workings of modal verbs.
> 
> Consider a referee's report that says "The author may wish to reconsider whether the argument presented fully supports the conclusion that is drawn." If you read that, as the author, you know the referee thinks your argument is weak! Similarly if I write a comment like that on a student's paper. _Just as the style guide that I linked to states, _the modal verbs _may _and _might _can serve a social function to show uncertainty or politeness. I used the verbs to show politeness, as I explained not far upthread - to blunt the force of a proposition that some readers will find controversial. As I also said, I was not in actual doubt.
> 
> If you want to suggest that polite usage can lack maximum sincerity, that is probably true. If you then want to quote REH's Conan on the point, by all means do so. But don't try and correct my impeccable usage.



Your appeal to your own authority aside, the way to use politeness is in a different context.  "Might you bring the bowl over here?" is the polite way to say, "Bring the bowl over here."  Saying, "So there may be more than one answer to this question." is using it in the context of possibilities.  You're saying that it's possible that there is more than once answer to the question. The same with the referee in your example above.  He's saying he thinks it's a weak argument and it's possible that the author will want to reconsider it.  It's uncertain.

You presented your statement in an uncertain light and then expected me to glean from your other posts that you were actually certain.  If you were certain, you should have said so in your OP.


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Maxperson said:


> Your appeal to your own authority aside, the way to use politeness is in a different context.  "Might you bring the bowl over here?" is the polite way to say, "Bring the bowl over here."  Saying, "So there may be more than one answer to this question." is using it in the context of possibilities.  You're saying that it's possible that there is more than once answer to the question. The same with the referee in your example above.  He's saying he thinks it's a weak argument and it's possible that the author will want to reconsider it.  It's uncertain.
> 
> You presented your statement in an uncertain light and then expected me to glean from your other posts that you were actually certain.  If you were certain, you should have said so in your OP.



Dunning-Kruger effect on display here folks


----------



## Maxperson

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Dunning-Kruger effect on display here folks


----------



## kenada

pemerton said:


> @kenada, that's a really good post. And contrasts your two games nicely.
> 
> Do you have a sense of how the Scum and Villainy GM is using their notes?



Got a response. He said is prep is very light. He has an outline of a job with the main NPCs involved (target, employer), and some details about obstacles the PCs are likely to encounter. He compared it to a dungeon room network and added that most of it is improvised based on the world, the factions, and people the PCs know. He also said there is some overall story arc prep based on what you want the factions to be doing in the guideline, but the guidelines tell you to do light prep and be very flexible based on the narrative.

And (which he went on to note) we didn’t even interact with the target NPC at all in our last job (the one I described in my example). _whistles innocently_


----------



## Lanefan

John Dallman said:


> That's not really an answerable question. Writing fiction in a setting inevitably involves fleshing it out in different ways from running a game in it. One notable example of that is the "voices" of characters, the individual ways they express themselves in language. That's really important in prose fiction, but not usually in a game.



As someone who at least tries (not always that successfully, but hey) to give different voices and expressions to his NPCs, I have to disagree.  In this particular example the two things are closer than you might realize. 

That said, I'm thinking more in terms of the depths of imagination the setting you've built provides you.  If it's deep enough to use for writing then your challenge moves from designing it to somehow imparting that same space for imagination to your players.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Classic Traveller does not have any hyper-lightspeed communications beyond the travel of starships. If a world is under interdiction, and the interdiction is successful, news will not travel.



OK.  I'm thinking more of a Star Wars or Star Trek scenario where ships travelling at warp speed (or the SW equivalent) can still receive comm, meanign the comm signal can travel faster than the ship.


----------



## pemerton

pming said:


> On play? Well, most likely, more notes getting written down about what's going on "behind the scenes" and/or "right under the PC's noses".



So if you as GM are making these notes about things that are going on 'behind the scenes", but the players are not engaging with it via their PCs, are you able to say what they are for?



pming said:


> I did have a group of PC's be so oblivious, so utterly obtuse, that they let an ENTIRE TOWN get 'stolen' from them. It was an Oriental Adventures campaign, everyone was around 5th or 6th level after about a year of playing. Short version, some "dignitaries" were sent by the Shogun to 'deal with the current Daimyo's ineffectual leadership' due to several natural disasters (one including a Gargantuan Preying Mantis named "Shidora"). They arrived, had a week of getting to know the town, local samurai, shukenja, etc., and attempting to determine if the Daimyo needed removing (lots of political intrigue). At the two week'ish mark, iirc, the head dignitary told the town he would be taking over and the last Daimyo's house. In celebration of this, a HUGE, mandatory, town-wide celebration was to take place outside the town walls so as to not cause more destruction or harm people (remember Shidora?...  ) as parts were still under construction. The party started at noon and ramped up towards evening, when the gates were closed and samurai/bushi patrolled the streets arresting any stragglers. ... ... Come morning, most folks passed out in the tents and just in the fields and peasant mina's. But the gates didn't open. People gathered and yelled. No opening. No nothing. The PC's finally make the decision to scale the 25' high walls....they get to the top of the wall, look out over the town and the harbour of Tu'pe, and see the entire fleet, plus more, that had arrived two weeks ago, slowly sailing off into the rising sun.
> 
> Turns out the dignitaries were all wave-men (pirates/brigands/etc) and had scammed EVERYONE! During the night they had gathered up all the valuable they could carry, stuffed them onto their ships...and ships they just stole...and took off. They stole an entire town. Literally.
> Best. Campaign storyline. Ever!
> 
> How does this relate? Simply put, I had notes for all the stuff that was going on 'behind the scenes', and the PC's had actually stumbled upon or saw thing that SHOULD have tipped them off.... but they said nothing due to RP'ing the whole social-cast-structure thing or just COMPLETLEY missing the boat.  ... ... Without my "notes" of what was going on, it would have been much more difficult to pull it off because I might have stumbled over names, or incidents that happened that, in hind sight, the Players remembered and said "Oh....man! So THAT'S why there were all those fights in that Tea House! They needed it out of commission because it got to much traffic so close to the only area where they could sneak people in/out of the dock area without being seen for the last two weeks!", for example.



I think this is an illustration of the sort of thing that @Manbearcat identified upthread as alternatives to "protagonistic" play.


----------



## Scott Christian

Emerikol said:


> I see the AP approach as something popular with beginners. It takes very little DM work and the players can learn the basics of skilled play. It's just best if they can eventually go on to a sandbox as they'll enjoy it even more I think. I probably did the equivalent of an AP when I was really you. I'd do B2, then the Slavers A1-A4 and then the G1-3 Giants/D1-3 Drow/Q1 Demonweb series. Somewhere in there I might squeeze in White Plume mountain or at the end Tomb of Horrors. It's not what I like now but for beginners it's not a terrible way to learn the game.



I agree, it is not a terrible way to learn to play. In fact, it helps a lot. 

I would take it one step further though. Those experienced DMs should g back to basics and try running an AP every now and then. In my experience watching open concept/improv/sandbox DMs, these refreshers could hone their skill (or remind them of something they may have stopped using and forgotten about). 

I am lucky. Every DM I have had for years and years has been great. But all of them could have benefitted from running an AP as is.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> I agree, it is not a terrible way to learn to play. In fact, it helps a lot.
> 
> I would take it one step further though. Those experienced DMs should g back to basics and try running an AP every now and then. In my experience watching open concept/improv/sandbox DMs, these refreshers could hone their skill (or remind them of something they may have stopped using and forgotten about).
> 
> I am lucky. Every DM I have had for years and years has been great. But all of them could have benefitted from running an AP as is.



Blink.  I... could not disagree more, and I'm currently running an AP.  I have to fix so many things, from bad pacing, to poor encounter design, to blatant applications of Force.  I get reminded why I don't usually run APs every time I run one.  I mean, sure, if you've no experience, they're a place to start, but a refresher course on how to GM?  I cannot agree at all.

Of course, it takes all types, so if you're finding the best GM practices to be exemplified by APs, then I'm glad you have an easy way to find fun in the hobby.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> The players in my game, as their PCs, were curious to learn more about the pendulum. It was clearly part of the apparatus of a technically complex establishment. There was no sense in which it would be a "distraction" - when the goal is to find out what the establishment is for and how it works, learning what a part of it is for and how it works is not a distraction. It's the point.



Given this context, yes.  Absent context, a big pendulum swinging in a bigger chamber could be highly relevant, tangentially relevant, or not relevant at all to what the PCs are doing; and they won't know until-unless they investigate further.


pemerton said:


> Here is what @Manbearcat _actually_ posted upthread, that you (@Lanefan) quoted:
> 
> There is nothing at all there about _consequences_, naturalistic or otherwise.



Then what is naturalistic extrapolation, if not a fancy term for consequences (or cause-and-effect, same thing)?


pemerton said:


> There _is _something about not using secret backstory to oppose PCs. Which is something that I do not do (with one prominent exception in our Traveller game: the game calls for a secret roll to determine if a branch of the Psionics Institute exists on a world, and I have used that mechanic).
> 
> Saying _all of the consequences could as easily have been based on pre-made notes_ is like saying _instead of rolling the dice in a D&D combat, the GM might have just narrated all the outcomes of all the declared attacks_. That's true, but it doesn't entail that there is no difference between using the combat mechanics to find out what happens in combat, and having the GM just tell you.



You're comparing apples and rabbits here...and at the same time, not.  Both things really break down to being glorified if-then-else loops nested within others; only in the psionics-use case the if-then-else is written down in the notes and the branch taken each time is determined by the PCs' actions where in combat the if-then-else is coded into the game rules and the dice determine which path is taken each time.

The apples-and-rabbits bit is that one is reliant on rules coding and the other not; also greatly different degrees of granularity.  IMO a better comparison at the scale/granularity level might be a step up, at the point of the PCs' decision whether or not to engage in combat.


pemerton said:


> There are a million possible things I could tell my players about what is happening in the galaxy, and what they encounter. I choose to tell them about things that engage the dramatic needs of their PCs. That's why I have no use for the technique of setting up "agnostic" rosters of events. These do not enhance the game I want to play. Somewhat similarly, in REH's Conan we don't hear random news of things that don't matter to Conan; in *Raiders of the Lost Ark we don't hear about random German military operations, but only the ones that implicate the ruins that Indiana Jones wants to explore;* in an X-Man film or comic we don't hear about changes in interest rates, and the only hearing of the "World Court" we ever learn about is the one where Magneto is on trial for crimes against humanity.



It's a question of scope and available time.  A movie has a limited run-time and thus has to harshly limit* the scope of what it covers in terms of both in-setting time and in-setting story.  An RPG, on the other hand, has no such limits; the scope and period of what it covers can be immense if so desired, and things that happen elsewhere in the setting now *could* have knock-on effects later that impact the PCs.  Which perforce means that even if the focus of at-the-table play is on the here-and-now PCs, someone (usually the GM) has to keep an eye on the bigger picture with a view to what events are happening elsewhere and how said events might (or might not) impact the PCs depending what they do and-or where they go in the future.

So in Indy's case, in the movie we don't hear about random German military operations elsewhere but in an RPG - where Indy's going to do many more things (i.e. have many more adventures) than just recover the Lost Ark; and where his movements are controlled by his player and thus unpredictable, knowing what the Germans - and other armies - are doing elsewhere could come in really handy in terms of determining what he's liable to bump into on his travels and when.   (personally for this I'd likely just quietly haul out a history of WWII-era military movements and keep it behind the screen for reference)

* - sometimes much too harshly, IMO: the LotR movies should have each been about three hours longer in order to do full justice to the tale.


----------



## pming

Hiya!


pemerton said:


> So if you as GM are making these notes about things that are going on 'behind the scenes", but the players are not engaging with it via their PCs, are you able to say what they are for?



I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, to be honest. But I'll try...

If I write something down and the PC's don't engage with it, they are still there (the notes). The stuff that is 'happening' is still happening...the world doesn't stop when the PC's aren't there, for example.

Lets say I make a note that "The bakers 14 year old daughter is being extra rebellious and has been smitten by a rather 'bad guy' older teen who is a freelance thief who refuses to join the guild...he is CN. The baker and his wife are both stressed over her behaviour and the 'boy'".

So that's a note. That is something that is going on. IT's also something that has nothing to do with the PC's or any of the storyline. If the Players never have their PC's "engage" with the baker (for example, they never ever go to buy bread and never encounter him or his daughter, or the 'bad boy')...that doesn't mean it isn't still happening.

Lets say the campaign progresses and the next time the PC's are in this town it's been 6 years. I can look at my notes about this town and see this note about the baker, his family and his daughter. I can then extrapolate; I can use that as a 'seed'...maybe the girl got into all that 'bad stuff' too and she and her bad-boy-lover are the towns current guildmasters, having removed the other guildmasters...or maybe she had a bad experience that woke her up and she is now an Acolyte of Yondalla and her ex-bad-boy-boyfriend is now a mortal enemy...or maybe he want's her back and they have an understanding that they are from two different 'worlds' and can never be together....or...or...or...

I guess that's the "point" of me having these notes. If the PC's get involved, I have something to use as inspiration. If they don't...I still have them as inspiration. Given time, these notes can be read and traced for weeks, months or years (of real time), that may even span decades or centuries in game-time. If Players then, say 90 years later, find themselves using Contact Higher Plane or some other divination spell, they might learn of the "Trials of the Star-Struck Lovers"...which is a sad tale of two people, deeply in love, but one turned to religion and founded the now major religion in the town (that of the worship of Yondalla ; halfling deity of, well, a lot of stuff...protection, halflings, diplomacy, family, etc, if you are wondering  ), and her true love, the Guildmaster of the Dark Hands thieves guild. The church was built by her, the now-mayors-mansion was the former Dark Hands guild-hall, and the big statue of the woman and man facing away from each other but each reaching out behind them to hold the other's hand are the bakers daughter and the bad-boy.

In short...these "notes" can, and do, become part of my campaigns history. Even if parts are never realized or discovered by the Players. It's for me, and for them if they happen to find interest.

Does that help?

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> I'll answer that in a way that engages with some of the thoughts (and misconceptions) below as well.
> 
> 1)  Impromptu problem-and-puzzle-solving as GM due to responsibility of fitting the puzzle pieces of player action declaration + results of action resolution + prior fiction together in a way that addresses thematic interests, follows from the preceding fiction, follows from genre, is sufficiently provocative/interesting.
> 
> This is both a cortisol and adrenaline dump because there is a lot of stuff happening that you have to keep together and stitch together in the moment.
> 
> Bottom line, its exciting.
> 
> 2)  I get to encompass the duality of (a) common elements of GMing (framing, consequence handling, playing the "bad guys"/obstacles, interacting with interesting system elements) and (b) audience member in that I get to "find out what happens."
> 
> And interesting byproduct of (b) above is that I get to "find out about myself from myself."  When _I_ come up with something on the fly, there is a sensory experience of inhabiting multiple cognitive spaces.  "Wow, I didn't think of that...that is cool/sucks...well actually you did, because it came from you/me!"
> 
> Its a unique cognitive experience, its nice to be able to be an audience member, and its an interesting test of self (and cognitive exercise that strengthens the brain for subsequent play and puzzle-solving on the fly).



Different motivations for GMing, I suppose - I'm in it for the laughs and entertainment both given and received, and any brain-strengthening that happens is purely an accidental side effect. 


Manbearcat said:


> Two examples from prior session play that are fresh in my mind:
> 
> *EXAMPLE 1 -  Dungeon World game with @darkbard and his wife*
> 
> They (along with a 5 hirelings/followers) are on a multi-tiered (5 camps = 5 journey moves, then ascent to the top) journey akin to the hike and climb of K2 in the Himalayas.  The first leg (we did the first 2 last session) entails a relatively simple but long switchback effort up a steep red clay cliff face to get to the frozen permafrost of the highlands.  Their journey moves (the hired Sherpa = auto 10/success on Navigate move) were all successful; Scout/Navigate/Manage Provisions.
> 
> Darkbard's Paladin (Alastor) was the Scout.  When he gets a 10+ on his Scout move, he gets to pick from a menu of results.  Those results intersect with the Navigate results (which are resolved after Scout).  Because he knows that Marwat is the most accomplished guide in the territory (he's guaranteed a 10+ on Navigate), this affords Alastor the player to do 1 of 2 things; (i) flash-cut to Camp 1 as the initial part of the journey is over or (ii) request the GM to introduce a Discovery (_an interesting site that is not an immediate threat but could be beneficial or a threat given exploration of it_).
> 
> He chose Discovery.
> 
> So that is my cue to generate some fiction with the above constraints (and that hews to the rest of GM's constraints/directives).  Darkbard has placed many irons in the fire for Alastor in terms of proselytizing at this point (he has a pair of Clocks with separate Hirelings/Followers).  His real life wife has a soft spot for the downtrodden and young females without parents (akin to her own beginnings).  Further, this journey is EXTREMELY Gear and Ration sensitive.  Things will go very pear-shaped as these things ablate in the course of the journey.  They're _precious_.
> 
> So my brain goes something like this:
> 
> * Uh...shrine to deities for prayer and respite for the pilgrims making the journey...yeah, that's good...what else, self?
> 
> * Young, completely unequipped to make the journey (in all ways, but particularly gear), sisters.  They're desperate...but from what?
> 
> * They lost their parents at a young age and have been drifters ever since, the eldest sister taking care of the youngest...living Cinderella-in-the-cellar servant lives just to survive at all.  The last segment of their lives was getting taken advantage above by a brutal book-keeper.  This is it for them.  They're at a crisis of faith and all other things.  They're praying for a "miracle from the mountain" (this is why pilgrims make this journey).
> 
> * Their worn boots/outfits won't hold much more than a day.  Maraqli (the Wizard) gives them an extra pair of boots she's stowed for the journey, spending 1 of their precious Adventuring Gear to do so.  This says something about Maraqli (and will trigger a Bond to be constructed that is a mechanical carrot).
> 
> * Alastor has to make his "Observe Memna's Pieties" move.  He courts the girls with the strength of a believer and prays with them.  He gets a 10+ so he gets his Quest Boons and another boon.  In this case, I subbed his normal boon for something thematically appropriate here.  When they finish their prayer, he sees a cache of Rations behind the altar.  No one is certain if they were there before...maybe they were, maybe they weren't.  He, of course, interprets this as an act of mercy from his Goddess.  He gives the cache of Rations (which would certainly help bulwark their journey) to the starving girls.
> 
> This triggers a host of mechanical effects and attendant fiction (I'm not going to get into each of them).  Suffice to say, his targets of proselytization move onward in their track toward inspired disciples and he's gained two more.  And (like Maraqli, xp triggers will be ticked or new ones are in play).
> 
> And now we've got a potential Bookkeeper-as-villain for later (which is thematically tied to Maraqli).
> 
> All because of the intersection of snowballing aspects of play:  a 10+ result of a Scout move + player-decision-point + GM framing + subsequent decision-points + subsequent action resolution.
> 
> None of this stuff existed before this journey (the shrine, the desperate sisters, the proselytization, the bookeeper villain, the extreme act of charity by Maraqli...and this was all perpetuated by the game engine with its PC advancement mechanics).



This is really, really cool.  I like it.

That said, there's no way in hell I'd be able to make it work without having some notes ahead of time e.g. "shrine near camp 1, two runaway sisters, will starve or freeze if not found/rescued by PCs but no fault if PCs miss entirely", stuff like that.

Why?  Because notes ahead of time serve also as notes after the fact, so when I'm trying to remember a few days later what happened in the game I've at least got that framework to start from.  If I stop to take notes during the run of play my train of thought gets derailed (which doesn't help anyone), and after a few beers I'm not going to remember all the details of anything that complicated or even get them all straight without some sort of notes to go by - unless I'm willing to risk creating in-setting inconsistencies and-or impossibilities through my winging-it getting carried away (e.g. putting the same space armada in three places at once, or in this example saying they could see the shrine from far below as I forget it's supposed to be somewhat discreet or hidden).

Put another way, after 35+ years of it I more or less know my GMing limits and am willing to play within them. 


Manbearcat said:


> *EXAMPLE 2 - Blades in the Dark game with @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 (this one should be more familiar to you)*
> 
> Their last Score saw the Gang dealing with a Demon to pilfer some forged portraits of various members of nobility that were to be deployed in an extortion racket (in that they were alleging to depict true, scandalous scenes of various members of nobility in profound debauchery) before that extortion racket could unfold (which would thereby allow the nobility to have the "out" of buying off the manifestation of the scandals).  This was for a combination of the typical Payoff in Blades (Coin) but also a vial of Demon's Blood (which will aid hawkeye's PC in his Crafting of a prototype item - he's a Leech, which is an alchemist/inventor type) and the ability to remove an annoying Clock with a Faction called the Dockers (as they framed the two guys from that Faction that they had a problem with) in the stead of gaining Rep (which you need to advance Tier).
> 
> So they did it.  They gave the portaits to the Demon.
> 
> So what now?  Why did this Demon want the portraits and how did the Demon manifest in the first place.



I'm a bit confused here - they gave the portraits to a Demon, fine, but before this the Demon didn't exist in the fiction and you collectively had to retcon it in?


Manbearcat said:


> We settled on:
> 
> * The Demon wants the nobility to suffer the consequences of these portraits (so remove their outs - eg remove the extortion racket component of this).
> 
> * The Demon was summoned by many sacrifices in Barrowcleft (where the Demon resides...tethered to its bridge).
> 
> Now the fallout of this could be significant for many different reasons, as follows:
> 
> 1)  Death is a big deal in the haunted, post-supernatural apocalypse city of Duskvol.  If the Spirit Wardens can't track down (there is a localized "gong" when someone dies and a deathseeker crow flies from the belfry to the ward where the death occured) a corpse in time to secure it and have it cremated in their special crematorium, a spirit becomes loose upon Duskvol (the afterlife has been obliterated, so no spirits pass over anymore).
> 
> ...we've got a lot of corpses here.
> 
> 2)  The nobility (really, in this case the City Council Faction is impacted by this.
> 
> 3)  Who killed all of these people?
> 
> So now...I have to go to the mechanics to resolve what emerges within the setting from the aggregation and intersection of all of this stuff.
> 
> In Blades, when something happens that involves the offscreen/forces that aren't the PCs specifically or their Gang/membership, this means Fortune roll formulated by the intersecting Factions and Magnitude/Scale/Potency.
> 
> When I did the maths, I settled on 1d6 Fortune Roll:
> 
> + Spirit Wardens are Tier 4 (4 dice) + 1d6 * 3 due to assists from (The Ministry of Preservation, The Imperial Military, The Sparkwrights) for 7d6.
> 
> - The most important thing opposing them is the Scale of this event (a city block = 6 dice).
> 
> = 1d6 Fortune Roll.
> 
> They players rolled it.  They got a 1-3.  Which is a failure.  In this case, a Bad Result.  Given all that is in play, I have to move the situation in Duskvol forward appropriately.  Now THIS is going look familiar to you.  Not everything in Blades is centered around the thematic portfolio of the characters.  This game does an incredibly good job of marrying Proper Sandbox play (mechanically hefty sandbox play) to Protagonist Play.  Here, I have to extrapolate naturalistic consequence.  The PCs are likely to have zero to do with the resolution of this emerging issue in Barrowcleft.  They have an ever-developing menu of Scores to undertake.  This is a 0 Tier gang that is much more likely to Grift (they're Grifters) or Steal (etc) than "Ghost-bust."  If they don't involve themselves, we'll just handle "The Barrowcleft Disaster" as a Tug-of-War clock (with that 1d6 Fortune Roll) every Downtime to see if the city's concerted efforts can resolve it or if it fundamentally changes the setting.
> 
> But this is how the game works mechanically, and so we tally up the fallout of (a) portraits of members of high society strategically placed throughout Duskvol for maximum exposure and (b) a disturbing body count (with more still unaccounted for) in Barrowcleft.
> 
> 1) Within 2 days time, word on the street and sensationalist headlines in the paper have crushed key members of the nobility. Some are in outright hiding. The City Council drops from Tier V to Tier IV.
> 
> 2) The situation in Barrowcleft is an absolute disaster. Think Chernobyl meets NYC in Ghostbusters. The Spirit Wardens are overwhelmed with the poltergeist count. In a positive feedback loop, more are dying due to the haunts. This the breadbasket of the entire city with the Radiant Energy Farms. The Ministry of Preservation is desperate (and under imminent threat of losing Tier) as the looming specter of food shortages and famine have moved from hushed conversations in their offices to the street. A refugee crisis is underway as folks are being moved out in stages. The Imperial Military has set up makeshift barracks for troops to contain the crisis and triage for the harmed. The Sparkwrights are setting up emergency containment barriers but the process is slow. The Military, the Sparkwrights, and the Spirit Wardens are deputizing brave members of Duskvol (equipping them with Warden Masks - mitigate ghost manifestation effect, electromplasm pulse rifles, and electroplasm containment units..."I ain't afraid of no ghost"), paying them large sums to capture the spirits. But even that isn't working because not enough are coming forward and those that are losing at a bad "make more spirits : trap the spirits" ratio.
> 
> 3) There is background noise of worry about a serial killer on the loose (those missing are overwhelmingly laborers and "Ladies of the Night" from Silkshore...but there are waaaaay bigger fish to fry right now.
> 
> 
> 
> On this:
> 
> I'm certain that the Blades approach is INFINITELY more palatable for you.



Surprisingly, perhaps, given the way you wrote them up I think I like the first one better.  It seems more fluid somehow, for lack of a better term; or maybe it's just that the first one deals with smaller-scale events.  I do like how the consequences play out in the Blades example and the possibility of future impact on the PCs and-or what's around them; were it me I'd be making notes right now on what happens next and when (barring PC intervention) so as to codify events and as an aid to memory.


Manbearcat said:


> However, I'm also wondering about how you feel about the systemitized resolution of these Offscreen/Non-PC setting issues are resolved.  Instead of just doing some abstract, qualitative pondering in the GM's head and then they just move the pieces at their discretion, there is an actual formula for resolution, replete with constraints for "reading the tea leaves" when you interpret the results of the Fortune Roll.



I'm of two minds here.  One of those minds says it works well.  The other says that if the GM is grounded enough in the setting the same or similar results could and likely would be achieved without mechanics.  A combination, where the mechanics are "soft" and there to support and-or suggest in cases where the GM is indecisive and-or just can't come up with good ideas, is probably where I'd lean.


Manbearcat said:


> Then, the subsequent effort is handled via more Fortune Rolls and a Tug-of-War Clock during Downtime (and if the PCs involve themselves, they'll tick the clock positively toward averting the disaster).  In your game, again, I'm sure this is just abstract, qualitative pondering and extrapolation by the GM (rather than encoded and constrained resolution).
> 
> How do you feel about this?  Do you think encoded and constrained resolution for this kind of stuff is something you could enjoy or do you think its no bueno.



I wouldn't want it to be hard-coded, in that I-as-GM would want to retain the freedom to either overrule or eschew the mechanics if the results didn't make sense in the fiction and-or I thought I had a better idea.  For example, if it made sense in the established Blades setting that the "Bad Result" consequences would be what happened next I might want to skip the mechanics and jump straight there.  Or, if some other series of consequences made more sense I mught want to go straight there; and in any case I'd probably do some informal rolling to fine-tune the details (e.g. instead of "within 2 days time" it might be "within 1d4 days time" to add some variability; and I'd probably also roll to see what had become of each known member of the nobility by that point e.g. dead, in hiding, aware but no change, unaware, etc.)

That said, the whole thing would likely be much more granularly resolved in my game such that things would progress on a day by day or even hour by hour basis depending on what the players/PCs got up to.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> Blink.  I... could not disagree more, and I'm currently running an AP. * I have to fix so many things, from bad pacing, to poor encounter design, to blatant applications of Force.*  I get reminded why I don't usually run APs every time I run one.  I mean, sure, if you've no experience, they're a place to start, but a refresher course on how to GM?  I cannot agree at all.
> 
> Of course, it takes all types, so if you're finding the best GM practices to be exemplified by APs, then I'm glad you have an easy way to find fun in the hobby.



This is kind of my point. The bold exemplifies the fact that you change it. Why? You see, even with well laid encounters, solid plot hooks, character led encounters or plots, etc., it still boils down to DM execution. It all boils down to DM execution. And if a DM can execute well, even with errors in the AP, then they can do well pretty much anywhere.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Scott Christian said:


> This is kind of my point. The bold exemplifies the fact that you change it. Why? You see, even with well laid encounters, solid plot hooks, character led encounters or plots, etc., it still boils down to DM execution. It all boils down to DM execution. And if a DM can execute well, even with errors in the AP, then they can do well pretty much anywhere.




I’ve run two of the 5E adventures in their entirety (also a few in bits and pieces), and I actually agree that the experiences have helped me. 

The first was Curse of Strahd. I’m familiar with the previous incarnations of the adventure, and so I found the mew one to be very easy to run, and to make my own. I modifoed it as I needed and injected all kinds of ongoing threads and character bits from our play prior to beginning the adventure. It went well and we all had fun.

Then I ran Tomb of Annihilation. The first half, with the haxcrawl through Chult, we had a good time. Largely similar to our experience with CoS. But once we reached the Tomb of Annihilation, things quickly went sour. The shift in playstyle to a procedural dungeon crawl was just too heavy a change for our group. The players became very tentative and indecisive, and I became frustrated. Because it was a dungeon crawl, I felt the need to be very “by the book”, and that didn’t suit our style at all. 

After a couple of frustrating sessions, I addressed it with the group, and we adjusted going forward. Things got much better after that. 

But it was a good learning experience. Or a good reminder, maybe is more accurate.


----------



## Scott Christian

hawkeyefan said:


> Then I ran Tomb of Annihilation. The first half, with the haxcrawl through Chult, we had a good time. Largely similar to our experience with CoS. But once we reached the Tomb of Annihilation, things quickly went sour.



Your experience, imho, is shared by many when playing ToA. It can be applied to Ovinomancer's list of things that need to be changed. For example, the hexcrawl can lead to pacing issues. But, the AP can remind any good DM that pacing is really just reading the table. 



hawkeyefan said:


> But it was a good learning experience. Or a good reminder, maybe is more accurate.



Thank you for finding the words I was trying to express. APs can remind DMs how to control variables. Because, I will be honest, most DMs I know (including me), when they write something (an encounter or adventure or AP), they have a tendency to not change it as much as they would a store bought AP. In other words, we feel we know are table better (and for good reason), and thus believe we are not as afllable as those other adventure writers.    Working within the confines of an AP teaches (or reminds) that truth might not be as real as what we think it is.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> This is kind of my point. The bold exemplifies the fact that you change it. Why? You see, even with well laid encounters, solid plot hooks, character led encounters or plots, etc., it still boils down to DM execution. It all boils down to DM execution. And if a DM can execute well, even with errors in the AP, then they can do well pretty much anywhere.



Yeah, no.  The AP doesn't teach these things in any way that makes it easier to diagnose than any other game.  If you're going to notice problems, APs aren't better for that than your own stuff, or even playing in other people's games.  I can't get behind the argument that you'll learn execution any better from an AP than any other source.  Your argument is more suited to "you'll learn to do better by doing," which is a bit cliche.


----------



## pemerton

pming said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, to be honest. But I'll try...
> 
> If I write something down and the PC's don't engage with it, they are still there (the notes). The stuff that is 'happening' is still happening...the world doesn't stop when the PC's aren't there, for example.
> 
> <snip stuff about drawing upon notes, some time later, for ideas>
> 
> In short...these "notes" can, and do, become part of my campaigns history. Even if parts are never realized or discovered by the Players. It's for me, and for them if they happen to find interest.
> 
> Does that help?



Thanks, it gives a clearer picture, yes.


----------



## pemerton

For what it's worth, I've never run an AP and I don't think that has hurt me as a GM.

The only scenarios I've run whole cloth, at least in the past 20 years, are some Prince Valiant ones. These tend to be very short (a page or two) with a single situation and some notes suggesting a small number of ways that situation might evolve or yield complications.

Because I got my copy of Prince Valiant via the Kickstarter a few years ago, it also came with an Episode Book. Some of these scenarios are more elaborate than Greg Stafford's original ones. It's interesting to see which ones work and which ones don't.

When I initiated Jerry Grayson's _The Crimson Bull _I was a bit anxious, because the scenario sets out a series of about 5 scenes, and I wasn't sure that it would work without heavy-handed/railroad-y GMing. But it turned out that the design was really well done. Like many Prince Valiant scenarios, the whole things rests on the premise that the PCs are knights-errant and hence will provide aid to people who request it from them. Once that happened, the subsequent scenes really served as further framing of the initial situation rather than genuine decision points - in this respect the scenario takes full advantage of the fact that, in Prince Valiant, travel from A to B is typically just an exercise in free narration rather than something involving action declaration and resolution. It turned out that there was really only one moment prior to the climax which pushed things beyond framing and a bit of player response to the associated events, and while that could have turned into the climax instead, at our table it served as part of the rising action in what I think was the fashion intended by the author. I don't think I have anything else by Jerry Grayson, but on the strength of this scenario I would say he's a pretty good RPG designer.

Mark Rein*Hagen also has a relatively intricate scenario in the Episode Book, and its contrast with Grayson's is pretty marked. Just reading it through was enough to trigger alarm bells: its scene descriptions begin with phrases like "The Adventurers must now scour the forest to find Quink" and "As soon as they enter the duchy" and "Bryce’s sister . . . receives the conquerors in the great hall . . . One way or another, the Adventurers should be in attendance of this meeting". When I used this scenario I took up most of its key ideas, and the NPCs, but used a different framing and just ignored Rein*Hagen's railroaded sequence of events.

My general sense of APs is that they are closer to the Rein*Hagen scenario only longer and hence with even more railroaded sequences of events.


----------



## prabe

I don't have any argument with your thinking about AP-type adventures, but I wanted to see how closely we agreed about this:


pemerton said:


> When I initiated Jerry Grayson's _The Crimson Bull _I was a bit anxious, because the scenario sets out a series of about 5 scenes, and I wasn't sure that it would work without heavy-handed/railroad-y GMing. But it turned out that the design was really well done. Like many Prince Valiant scenarios, the whole things rests on the premise that the PCs are knights-errant and hence will provide aid to people who request it from them. Once that happened, the subsequent scenes really served as further framing of the initial situation rather than genuine decision points - in this respect the scenario takes full advantage of the fact that, in Prince Valiant, travel from A to B is typically just an exercise in free narration rather than something involving action declaration and resolution. It turned out that there was really only one moment prior to the climax which pushed things beyond framing and a bit of player response to the associated events, and while that could have turned into the climax instead, at our table it served as part of the rising action in what I think was the fashion intended by the author. I don't think I have anything else by Jerry Grayson, but on the strength of this scenario I would say he's a pretty good RPG designer.



So, what you're talking about here, where the scenario designer is making good use of the premise of the game--it seems as though a GM who knows how the players are playing their characters might be able to manage something similar. I don't think doing so is railroading or bad design, provided the GM isn't going to insist on a sequence of events.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Then what is naturalistic extrapolation, if not a fancy term for consequences (or cause-and-effect, same thing)?



The cause-and-effect that leads to the creation of fiction is not the imaginary causation that is taking place in the imagined world, but the actual causation that is taking place in human brains. When it comes to mainstream RPGing, we can put those brains into two broad categories: _GM_ and _player_. In other words, we can identify _which participant did the authoring, using what sort of process_.

This is a special case, for RPGs, of a general phenomenon in the playing of games: people participate in games not _just _to learn how the state of the game unfolded over time, but to _be part of the causal process of driving those changes in the state of the game_. When I watch two other people play chess, that is not the same experience as when _I_ play chess. And when I say that _I_ play chess I don't mean that I move the pieces in accordance with someone else's directions - I mean that _I _make the decisions about what moves are made.

When @Manbearcat says that _protagonistic RPGing _requires that the GM _not_ engage in naturalistic extrapolation to oppose the PCs, he means just what he says: when the players declare actions for their PCs, the GM does not engage in naturalistic extrapolation - which is to say, _authorship in accordance with certain principles_ - in order to specify what happens _unless_ that is done so as not to oppose the PCs ie unless the GM says "yes" to what the players want for their PCs.

If the GM does not wish to say "yes" to what the players want, then the system mechanics are to be invoked. One upshot of this may be that the players fail their checks, in which case the GM has to narrate consequences. That is a point at which naturalistic extrapolation has a role to play, though it is not the be-all and end-all (eg sometimes an enemy force suddenly appearing over the horizon will be a more exciting consequence than having one's tools break before the job can be completed, even though the latter consequence might seem more naturalistic and less contrived).

For example: a player wants her PC to acquire a new sword. The current situation has the PC in a town where there are apt to be blacksmiths, sword-shops etc. And so the player says, "I buy a new sword." Now in my Prince Valiant game we've already spent too much time on this mundanity at this point, and so I just say "yes" and ask them to change their PC sheet appropriately. (The one mechanical wonkiness in Prince Valiant, for which Greg Stafford apologises in the rulebook, is that it requires the players to keep track of money on their PC sheets just like in D&D, even though that is completely irrelevant to the game play.)

But in Burning Wheel it's fair game to lean hard on this as GM rather than just say "yes", especially if the issue of access to armaments has been a recurring concern in play. (In my actual BW game access to _arms _hasn't been an issue, but access to _enchanter's tools_ has.) BW is a game that typically does care about the nitty-gritty of gear load-outs. So the GM can say, _OK, you want a sword? Make a resources check!_ And the GM is even free to say _And as you know there's a war on here, so swords are in high demand - add +1 Ob to that check_. The player, in turn, has stuff she can do on her side to buff her dice pool. Eg she might respond _In that case, I'm going to go down to the local watering hole and ask the off-duty soldiers there for the name of a quartermaster whose loose with his supplies - _and thus make a Soldier-wise check to get a bonus die on the Resources check. Or the player can spend Fate or Persona points to boost her dice pool or get re-rolls. Etc.

If the check ends up failing, the GM is free to narrate _You call in all your favours and contacts, but there's not a sword to be found for love or money_. That's a naturalistic consequence. She could even transition into the next scene: _But you do get a visit from an aide to the local captain. They've heard you've been trying to procure military goods illegally, and want you to come down to their headquarters for a little chat_. That's a naturalistic consequence too. The key feature is that the consequences are not only consequences in the fiction; they're consequences _in the game play_, consequent upon the resolutions of declared actions. They are not used to block or dictate the outcomes of declared actions.



Lanefan said:


> You're comparing apples and rabbits here...and at the same time, not.  Both things really break down to being glorified if-then-else loops nested within others; only in the psionics-use case the if-then-else is written down in the notes and the branch taken each time is determined by the PCs' actions where in combat the if-then-else is coded into the game rules and the dice determine which path is taken each time.
> 
> The apples-and-rabbits bit is that one is reliant on rules coding and the other not; also greatly different degrees of granularity.  IMO a better comparison at the scale/granularity level might be a step up, at the point of the PCs' decision whether or not to engage in combat.



I don't understand this.

Gameplay is typically not algorithmic, in the following sense: the algorithm is punctuated periodically by external inputs (ie participant decisions).

There are some exceptions, such as snakes and ladders and similar children's board games. And there are games that do call for decisions but are so easily solved that for anyone but a child they do not _really_ require decision-making: noughts-and-crosses is one example, and Monopoly tends to be another.

But RPGs are highly non-algorithmic because decisions about the content of the fiction have to be made _all the time_. And making those decisions is very different from being told what is happening in the fiction. This is further intensified in a RPG by a deliberate design feature that equates player decisions at the table with choices made by a protagonist in the fiction (ie the whole conceit of the _player character_). And some RPGs have systems that often float somewhat above the fiction - I'm thinking especially traditional D&D combat - but still involve participant decision-making that will shape the future state of the game.

The fact that there is (1) a hypothetical episode of GM stipulation of the fiction that yields the same fictional content as (2) an actual episode of game play that involved decision-making by multiple participants, action declarations and the resolution of those, does not remotely show that the game play of (2) didn't matter or is valueless.



Lanefan said:


> It's a question of scope and available time.  A movie has a limited run-time and thus has to harshly limit* the scope of what it covers in terms of both in-setting time and in-setting story.  An RPG, on the other hand, has no such limits; the scope and period of what it covers can be immense if so desired
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So in Indy's case, in the movie we don't hear about random German military operations elsewhere but in an RPG - where Indy's going to do many more things (i.e. have many more adventures) than just recover the Lost Ark; and where his movements are controlled by his player and thus unpredictable, knowing what the Germans - and other armies - are doing elsewhere could come in really handy in terms of determining what he's liable to bump into on his travels and when.



There's another way to work out that stuff - using checks, much as I described in my example above of the purchasing of a sword. Classic Traveller also relies heavily on random content generation (eg encounter tables).

And the key word is _desired_. The reason that no one watches Warhol's _Sleep_ isn't just because they don't have a spare five hours. Even people with lots of time on their hands want to engage with something more interesting. All the same considerations that inform writing, and film-making, as far as what makes for interesting stories is concerned, can inform RPGing. As its very label suggests, _protagonistic RPGing _is not indifferent to these things. It is about _the focus of play being player-authored PC dramatic needs_. Unless one of the PCs is a banker, fluctuations in interest rates, however important to events in the imagined world, are simply not going to figure as something engaged with in play.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> what you're talking about here, where the scenario designer is making good use of the premise of the game--it seems as though a GM who knows how the players are playing their characters might be able to manage something similar. I don't think doing so is railroading or bad design, provided the GM isn't going to insist on a sequence of events.



What is very clever in the design of the Crimson Bull is that the initial setup is straightforward - an old man who is leading a bull to a wise woman asks the PCs for help - and that the downstream scenes are really just elaborations on the set-up, with one exception that I mentioned.

As they lead the bull, the PCs are attacked by falling branches, by wild dogs, by wild men, and by fire sprites from their camp fire. But none of these require any protagonistic decision-making. They just serve as elaborations on the basic premise - this old man needs help taking this bull from A to B. And they allow the backstory to the bull (ie it has had a demon bound in it, and hence is a locus for misfortune and supernatural occurrences) to emerge gradually (I would say, at our table, probably over an hour or so) rather than in a single plot-dump. It's very nicely done. The only D&D module I can think of with anything like this sort of design is the early part of Night's Dark Terror.

The exception that arises prior to the climax of the journey with the bull is when "In the voice of a small boy, the bull whispers to the hero with the lowest Presence (if there is a tie, the hero with the lowest Fame). It says that it is the victim and that the old man is the evil one and begs for release of his corded thrall. The bull says that is why the old man cannot speak about his true intent." There is more advice about how to  handle this, including that "During this encounter, it is recommended the Storyteller play up the uncertainty and make the Bull sound as sincere as possible." This obviously does require protagonistic decision-making, and has the potential to be the climax of the scenario. At my table it wasn't, though - it served as rising action which then supported the pay-off at the climax.

One element of the scenario that was prominent at our table but isn't really addressed by Grayson as he presents it was Christianity vs paganism. The PCs in my Prince Valiant game incline to religiosity, and at the climax one of them used his silver dagger blessed by the waters of St Sigobert to dispel the demon - and then followed up on this miracle with an insistence that the Wise Woman convert. Which she did. (The resolution for these checks was Brawn and Presence respectively.)

I don't regard it as railroading to frame a scene. A well-framed scene will speak to the premise of the game and the dramatic needs of the PCs: part of the design of Prince Valiant is to make this relatively easy, by having the game foreground at every point the non-gritty aspects of romantic fantasy, Arthurian legend, Robin Hood, etc.

That's not what I regard as clever in Grayson's scenario design. What I think is clever is leaning into the system features (eg that travel is just free narration, and hence can be built into framing rather than demanding resolution) and using the conflicts I described to build colour and allow backstory to emerge in the course of that framing, so that when the climax comes (either the pre-climax or the assumed climax) there is some heft to it. I don't know if Grayson has ever written Cthulhu Scenarios, but I think he shows how this can be done in a way that (with the right system) can avoid railroading, build the atmosphere, and rest on one big pay-off.


----------



## innerdude

I've been following this thread with great interest, but haven't really had a strong point to interject.

Our group just recently switched systems (at my prodding) from Savage Worlds to Ironsworn, in large part because something was just . . . off . . . with the way the Savage Worlds campaign was going (I was running Weird Wars Rome, and as the GM, I fully accept that if the campaign wasn't working, the fault was squarely with me).

Some of the problem was I wasn't sure if I was prepping _enough_. With the pandemic, and the switch to VTT, my desire to do a lot of prep work was very, very low. Besides which, I trust my players to find interesting things to pursue with their characters without a lot of prodding on my part. But for some reason, it just wasn't working in this instance.

With Savage Worlds I was caught in this weird middle ground, where the system doesn't really lend itself protagonistic play, but I wasn't doing much legwork to flesh out all of the tidbits that could have given the players more things to hook into / care about. And the problem was, if the system doesn't push towards PCs-as-protagonists, it was my job as GM to fill in the gaps.

With Ironsworn, the exact opposite has been true. I took the basic premise of the Ironsworn setting, modified it slightly, and then ran with it. The whole prep of the campaign was a nearly blank map (exactly 2 points of interest were identified), a basic premise (party are members of a frontier settlement of Norse-like people), and threw out an inciting incident---in a drunken stupor, one of the village warriors (not a member of the party) returns to the village carrying the unconscious body of a woman of a frontier tribe with which the village has had almost no contact.

So the inciting incident really established only a couple of things about the fiction.


_There's tribe of people out there that are not culturally related to the village._
_The drunken warrior has probably set off a chain of events that will likely end badly for your village if not resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved tribe. _

Since then, I've done almost zero prep/notes, other than maybe 2 bullet points.


_There's probably another (culturally similar) Cyngael tribe settlement on this rugged frontier, but the party doesn't know where it is. _
_There's probably a settlement of Ancient Ones (elves) somewhere in the deep woods to the south. _

And it's been interesting, because unlike Savage Worlds, Ironsworn has a myriad of scaffolds and pillars on which the players can address their PCs' dramatic needs, the biggest one being the game system's namesake---the players "swear an Iron Vow" that they must then attempt to complete or suffer grave consequences of failure or abandonment of the quest.

Here's an example of play that happened with absolutely zero pre-prep / notes before hand.

The PCs had just returned the aforementioned tribeswoman back to her home. They'd already endured a somewhat perilous journey to get there, and were hoping to return back to their village quickly and without incident.

But since one of PbtA's core principles is to _throw adversity at the players_, I figured I should at least make a roll on the "Oracles" table in the book. I set a reasonably low probability of trouble (like less than 20%), but of course promptly rolled a 12 on my percentile roll.

This is all done openly in front of the players, who agreed that while they'd like to avoid trouble on the return journey, that it made complete sense that fate might have different ideas for them.

At this point, we had an open group discussion---"So what kind of trouble do you think would happen?" I suggested weather---it's late October in a cold, rugged, northern frontier (think Iceland/Norway/Labrador coast). A sudden snowstorm seemed to be appropriate. And the players immediately agreed that in context, this totally made sense.

And suddenly what was going to be a handwave "arrive back at the village" for the players turned into a Grade 2 (dangerous) journey. Now they had to make rolls to successfully navigate the weather, manage supplies, etc. They barely made it back to the village with 1 supply left (if their supply level hit 0, it causes a number of deleterious effects).

However, on the very last leg of their journey, they rolled a "weak hit", which indicates that though they succeed at their intent, an unforeseen complication arises.

Without hesitation, one of the players immediately suggested, "Well obviously we run into someone from the rival Cyngael tribe that you mentioned earlier!"

At which point, the players run a combat scene to subdue a rival scout---but at the end, completely without any intervention from me, the player of the PC who subdued the captive suggests that in this world, being captured in this manner means the captive would become the player's manservant.

And because I was trying to _play to see what happens_, of course this was true!

It became very apparent, very early on with Ironsworn, that having copious/detailed notes of the setting, inhabitants, is not the intended mode of play. Everything about the system pushes towards collaboration on the fiction.

Interestingly, though, having read through this thread, I've become more convinced that in the absence of a player-facing / PC protagonistic style, that as a GM I need to change my approach to include more prep. And part of that prep needs to include significant drilling down into the PCs' dramatic needs. Since those dramatic needs aren't really expressed on the character sheet directly, it takes more diligence and care on my part to suss out just what, exactly, "the game is going to be about" by discussing it with my players.

In retrospect, it feels like one of the key "points" of having GM's notes, is that in the absence of player-facing cues---because the system isn't providing them---the GM's notes largely establish the premise of play.


----------



## AnotherGuy

nvm


----------



## jasper

pemerton said:


> Like the thread title asks: what is the point of GM's notes?
> 
> GM's notes can be pretty varied in their content - descriptions of imaginary places; mechanical labels and categories applied to imaginary people or imaginary phenomena; descriptions or lists of imaginary events, some of which are imagined to have already happened relative to the fiction of play and some of which are imagined as yet to happen relative that fiction.
> 
> So there may be more than one answer to this question.
> 
> Also, it's obvious that GM's notes are not essential to play a RPG. So any answer has to be more precise than just _to facilitate RPG play_.
> 
> (This thread was provoked by some of what I read here: D&D 5E - Do You Prefer Sandbox or Party Level Areas In Your Game World?. But I thought a new thread seemed warranted.)



Because my Jim Beam soaked brain can't remember all the details, I dream up.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, no.  The AP doesn't teach these things in any way that makes it easier to diagnose than any other game.  If you're going to notice problems, APs aren't better for that than your own stuff, or even playing in other people's games.  I can't get behind the argument that you'll learn execution any better from an AP than any other source.  Your argument is more suited to "you'll learn to do better by doing," which is a bit cliche.



So if you hadn't changed the AP, but instead ran into the problem of pacing, which you said you did. Let's run through a hypothetical example of what I am describing:

You have a problem with the pacing during play. You notice this. Then, as GM, you decide to try a cut scene, something you don't use or haven't used in a long time. The cut scene works well. Your players like it. That AP just helped you learn or, probably in any of our cases, relearn a little skill we haven't used in a while. 

Another hypothetical:

You are having a problem with an encounter mid session. Maybe it is too flat, nothing environmentally interesting. a few frozen trees, some snowy ground, and a rock. It's combat, kinda fun, but needs livening up. You notice the lag time on your players and decide to throw in a family of squirrels in the tree that the opponent is hacking around. Now your druid is climbing the tree and having the little furballs climb in his sack. This impromptu thinking just developed two skills, reading the table (which you probably already do well). But maybe you haven't thrown in an innocent bystander or cute munchkin in years. This is a reminder that, that tool was on your toolbelt, maybe just forgotten about.

What I am not saying is that APs are the ultimate teacher. But what I am saying is that for those that always create their own stuff, they can be very good teachers. Much like watching a teacher follow a published lesson plan versus their own, they have a tendency to learn a lot when having to teach a published lesson. I see the AP as no different.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> So if you hadn't changed the AP, but instead ran into the problem of pacing, which you said you did. Let's run through a hypothetical example of what I am describing:
> 
> You have a problem with the pacing during play. You notice this. Then, as GM, you decide to try a cut scene, something you don't use or haven't used in a long time. The cut scene works well. Your players like it. That AP just helped you learn or, probably in any of our cases, relearn a little skill we haven't used in a while.
> 
> Another hypothetical:
> 
> You are having a problem with an encounter mid session. Maybe it is too flat, nothing environmentally interesting. a few frozen trees, some snowy ground, and a rock. It's combat, kinda fun, but needs livening up. You notice the lag time on your players and decide to throw in a family of squirrels in the tree that the opponent is hacking around. Now your druid is climbing the tree and having the little furballs climb in his sack. This impromptu thinking just developed two skills, reading the table (which you probably already do well). But maybe you haven't thrown in an innocent bystander or cute munchkin in years. This is a reminder that, that tool was on your toolbelt, maybe just forgotten about.
> 
> What I am not saying is that APs are the ultimate teacher. But what I am saying is that for those that always create their own stuff, they can be very good teachers. Much like watching a teacher follow a published lesson plan versus their own, they have a tendency to learn a lot when having to teach a published lesson. I see the AP as no different.



And what I'm saying is that there's nothing about an AP that particularly enables this over anything else.  Your point is nearing a tautology -- APs teach good play because either it's well written and you like it or it isn't and you have to fix it.  The part missing here, the actual skill necessary for a good GM, is _the ability to recognize which is which_.  This isn't something APs help with.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> So if you as GM are making these notes about things that are going on 'behind the scenes", but the players are not engaging with it via their PCs, are you able to say what they are for?
> 
> I think this is an illustration of the sort of thing that @Manbearcat identified upthread as alternatives to "protagonistic" play.



Let's imagine that what the players see is the land above the sea.  The parts they don't see are underwater.  The underwater part though is connected to and supports what is above the water.  So, in some styles what is above water has no underlying basis other than off the cuff imagination.  They try to backfill the undersea parts to fit some new idea they have.  For us, the well established landscape, enables us to provide things new to the group but having a strong basis in the environment.  

The example given about the young girl and the bad boy thief is a good example.  If for some reason the PCs cross paths with those NPCs, having them already existing for me is far better than just making them up at the moment.  I don't doubt "in theory" you can have the same result either way but my "practical" experience is they are not nearly the same.  A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs.   That is my practical experience.  I just don't think DMs can pull it off.  I doubt for me you could do it.  I would find a lot of peoples games on here "trite".   

Now having said that, if those groups are having fun they don't need me.  They should keep on having fun.  There is no absolute good in gaming.  There are no absolute rules of game design.  There might be some shorthand ideas that work with large numbers of people.  That is the absolute best it gets.  For me, having a DM with a deep world makes that world more real to me because those who don't quickly reveal themselves.   So when choosing to play a game, reality trumps theory.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> Let's imagine that what the players see is the land above the sea.  The parts they don't see are underwater.  The underwater part though is connected to and supports what is above the water.  So, in some styles what is above water has no underlying basis other than off the cuff imagination.  They try to backfill the undersea parts to fit some new idea they have.  *For us, the well established landscape, enables us to provide things new to the group but having a strong basis in the environment.*




Like the walls in a dungeon are there to support Secret Doors, Trapped Doors, Doors-to-be-Unlocked, Doors-to-be-Listened-at, etc.

Of course. 

But this isn't Protagonist Play.  That is the point that @pemerton was making.  Landscapes and vistas upon which to hang new geographical content (be it to journey through or to find a ruin to delve in or to encounter a mysterious travelling peddler of magical/cursed wares) or dungeon corridors to hang trapped floors and locked doors are awesome. 

But its not Protagonist Play...and that might be desirable (like when Skilled Play is an apex priority and the Protagonist Play, when not designed to integrate with Skilled Play, actually contravenes the Skilled Play priority)!



> The example given about the young girl and the bad boy thief is a good example.  If for some reason the PCs cross paths with those NPCs, having them already existing for me is far better than just making them up at the moment.  I don't doubt "in theory" you can have the same result either way but my "practical" experience is they are not nearly the same.  A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs.   That is my practical experience.  I just don't think DMs can pull it off.  I doubt for me you could do it.  I would find a lot of peoples games on here "trite".
> 
> Now having said that, if those groups are having fun they don't need me.  They should keep on having fun.  There is no absolute good in gaming.  There are no absolute rules of game design.  There might be some shorthand ideas that work with large numbers of people.  That is the absolute best it gets.  For me, having a DM with a deep world makes that world more real to me because those who don't quickly reveal themselves.   So when choosing to play a game, reality trumps theory.




When you and Lanefan and others post this exact thing, its not helpful.  It doesn't help anyone understand what you're trying to get across and it doesn't help delineate Sandbox Play from Protagonist Play.

All it does is create a scenario where people who have literally thousands of hours of highly successful improv play, doing exactly what you say isn't possible (creating deep, thematically coherent, provocative, continuity-consistent settings), roll their eyes or shake their heads.  That is all it does.  I have a hundred such players that I've GMed for in Dogs or Mouse Guard or My Life With Master or Sorcerer or Apocalypse World or 4e or Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark or Scum and Villainy or Torchbearer that have experiential evidence that what you're saying is empirically not correct.  They would say "yup, with capable GMs and systems that enable it, its absolutely possible for deep, provocative setting to emerge."  And I would say "yup, with capable players and systems that enable it, its absolutely possible for deep, provocative setting to emerge."

It would be a million times better to just humbly cede the ground and say "I don't like these games, I won't play them, but I'm not possessed of the experience to substantiate my inferences/hypothesis."  If you played in the DW game that I'm running for @darkbard and his wife or the Blades game I'm running for @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 you may very well come away from the experience feeling that our play is trite and lacking of depth.  I don't remotely possess the hubris to deny that possibility.  But I'm also not certain that would be the case (that you would come away feeling the play is trite or lacking in depth).  What I am certain of, however, is that if you (Emerikol the person) left the game feeling that way, yet the other 3 participants disagreed entirely, that would be more an autobiographical fact about you than a statement of fact about the depth or triteness of the conflicts, the characters, or the setting that emerged from play.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Like the walls in a dungeon are there to support Secret Doors, Trapped Doors, Doors-to-be-Unlocked, Doors-to-be-Listened-at, etc.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> But this isn't Protagonist Play.  That is the point that @pemerton was making.  Landscapes and vistas upon which to hang new geographical content (be it to journey through or to find a ruin to delve in or to encounter a mysterious travelling peddler of magical/cursed wares) or dungeon corridors to hang trapped floors and locked doors are awesome.
> 
> But its not Protagonist Play...and that might be desirable (like when Skilled Play is an apex priority and the Protagonist Play, when not designed to integrate with Skilled Play, actually contravenes the Skilled Play priority)!



Last I checked this thread was about GM notes.  I wasn't judging protagonist play.  I was explaining why it did not appeal to me and why GM notes are important to me.   I was explaining how it affect my experience of the game.



Manbearcat said:


> When you and Lanefan and others post this exact thing, its not helpful.  It doesn't help anyone understand what you're trying to get across and it doesn't help delineate Sandbox Play from Protagonist Play.
> 
> All it does is create a scenario where people who have literally thousands of hours of highly successful improv play, doing exactly what you say isn't possible (creating deep, thematically coherent, provocative, continuity-consistent settings), roll their eyes or shake their heads.  That is all it does.  I have a hundred such players that I've GMed for in Dogs or Mouse Guard or My Life With Master or Sorcerer or Apocalypse World or 4e or Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark or Scum and Villainy or Torchbearer that have experiential evidence that what you're saying is empirically not correct.  They would say "yup, with capable GMs and systems that enable it, its absolutely possible for deep, provocative setting to emerge."  And I would say "yup, with capable players and systems that enable it, its absolutely possible for deep, provocative setting to emerge."



I'm assuming you read my entire post.  I explained afterwards that my own judgment of these things was not determinative for everyone.  I find playing league play at a game shop to be entirely not to my liking for entirely different reasons.  Nowhere have I said that my own views apply to everyone.   If I told you I didn't like a movie because I thought the plot was trite and yet others were totally moved by the movie, what does that say?  People interpret things differently.



Manbearcat said:


> It would be a million times better to just humbly cede the ground and say "I don't like these games, I won't play them, but I'm not possessed of the experience to substantiate my inferences/hypothesis."  If you played in the DW game that I'm running for @darkbard and his wife or the Blades game I'm running for @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 you may very well come away from the experience feeling that our play is trite and lacking of depth.  I don't remotely possess the hubris to deny that possibility.  But I'm also not certain that would be the case (that you would come away feeling the play is trite or lacking in depth).  What I am certain of, however, is that if you (Emerikol the person) left the game feeling that way, yet the other 3 participants disagreed entirely, that would be more an autobiographical fact about you than a statement of fact about the depth or triteness of the conflicts, the characters, or the setting that emerged from play.



So sure I don't like those style of games.  I am giving my reasons that apply to me.  I have not said "most people" and definitely not "all people".   I am not though going to say my reason is just some random flavor preference to avoid getting to the real issue for me.  The worlds seem shallow and trite TO ME.  Making it up as you go just doesn't produce deep and immersive in MY EXPERIENCE.   I have made no absolute proclamations here.

I think many like me will agree with the reasons.  So there is some group of people that are affected as I am affected.  I do not claim it represents everyone.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> Last I checked this thread was about GM notes.  I wasn't judging protagonist play.  I was explaining why it did not appeal to me and why GM notes are important to me.   I was explaining how it affect my experience of the game.




I didn't say you were "judging" Protagonist Play.  My response to you doesn't imply that.  You were responding to a statement about Protagonist Play by pivoting entirely to something else.  So it wasn't clear to me that you understood that you were pivoting.  Therefore I attempted to highlight the pivot to clarify that you're talking about something else.

If your point was just to pivot and talk about something else...then I guess...fair enough.



> I'm assuming you read my entire post.  I explained afterwards that my own judgment of these things was not determinative for everyone.  I find playing league play at a game shop to be entirely not to my liking for entirely different reasons.  Nowhere have I said that my own views apply to everyone.   If I told you I didn't like a movie because I thought the plot was trite and yet others were totally moved by the movie, what does that say?  People interpret things differently.
> 
> 
> So sure I don't like those style of games.  I am giving my reasons that apply to me.  I have not said "most people" and definitely not "all people".   I am not though going to say my reason is just some random flavor preference to avoid getting to the real issue for me.  The worlds seem shallow and trite TO ME.  Making it up as you go just doesn't produce deep and immersive in MY EXPERIENCE.   I have made no absolute proclamations here.
> 
> I think many like me will agree with the reasons.  So there is some group of people that are affected as I am affected.  I do not claim it represents everyone.




I read your whole post.  

This is an empirical claim (which I've seen many times before):

"A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs."

This is a conjecture:

"I just don't think DMs can pull it off (a deep, consistent world that isn't trite)."

My response to this is the same as it always is:

Your empirical claim isn't true.  Your conjecture based on your practical experience (its unclear exactly how much this is) with these games (a) isn't true (GMs can pull it off) and (b) your feelings may change with sufficient exposure of deftly played games that feature heavy improv.  Run more games and play more games (with people who are proficient in running them) that do these things.  You may still end up hating them but I don't see any evidence that you've run or played these games enough to know.

Play Dogs in the Vineyard.  Play Torchbearer.  Play Blades in the Dark.  Play Apocalypse/Dungeon World.  You know what, once I free myself up from one or more games, I'd be MORE THAN HAPPY to run one of these games for you and one of your friends.  If you still feel that these games only bear out trite play, that is completely cool.  I'm TOTALLY fine with that orientation toward these games as a judgement from experience.  But you actually have to have a reasonable amount of play (or any?) to make that claim and not get pushback (even if your claim is just "I feel").


----------



## prabe

So, sorry for inserting myself, but I've said things similar to what you're responding to ...


Manbearcat said:


> This is an empirical claim (which I've seen many times before):
> 
> "A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs."
> 
> This is a conjecture:
> 
> "I just don't think DMs can pull it off (a deep, consistent world that isn't trite)."
> 
> My response to this is the same as it always is:
> 
> Your empirical claim isn't true.  Your conjecture based on your practical experience (its unclear exactly how much this is) with these games (a) isn't true (GMs can pull it off) and (b) your feelings may change with sufficient exposure of deftly played games that feature heavy improv.  Run more games and play more games (with people who are proficient in running them) that do these things.  You may still end up hating them but I don't see any evidence that you've run or played these games enough to know.



I wouldn't say the games I was involved in, where the players had direct input in the setting design, were _trite_ or _shallow_ so much as they were _muddled_. My inclination has been to blame that on the fact that different people had different things they wanted in the game/setting, and at least some of those things were not great tastes that went great together. There's also, I think, a sense that a singular setting-designer has an easier time being consistent, and an easier time ditching a less-attractive idea than if there's someone else's feelings to consider.

I would say that as a GM, I found greater player-input (in the sense of putting things into the game-world) to be more work than doing everything myself. This applies both to the setting-design stuff, such as that built into Dresden Files (which is what we used) and to in-progress additions. I found (and find) it easier to keep track of the stuff that comes out of my own brain than the stuff that comes out of my brain + 3-4 players' brains.

Both of the previous paragraphs are, I hope clearly, entirely rooted in my experiences and preferences, and are not about anyone else's game/s.


Manbearcat said:


> Play Dogs in the Vineyard.  Play Torchbearer.  Play Blades in the Dark.  Play Apocalypse/Dungeon World.  You know what, once I free myself up from one or more games, I'd be MORE THAN HAPPY to run one of these games for you and one of your friends.  If you still feel that these games only bear out trite play, that is completely cool.  I'm TOTALLY fine with that orientation toward these games as a judgement from experience.  But you actually have to have a reasonable amount of play (or any?) to make that claim and not get pushback (even if your claim is just "I feel").



Um. If you'd be generous enough to extend that invitation my way, I'd be happy to take you up on it. Any game you want. If the PDF isn't free, I'll buy it. I'll admit to a specific curiosity about Dogs ... I picked up the genericized version a while ago and it looks interesting; the possibility of your character eroding out from under you as damage accrues more rapidly than healing/experience add/refresh things seems as though it could be a perfect match for the right type of campaign. That said, when I say, "Any game you want," I mean exactly that.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> So, sorry for inserting myself, but I've said things similar to what you're responding to ...
> 
> I wouldn't say the games I was involved in, where the players had direct input in the setting design, were _trite_ or _shallow_ so much as they were _muddled_. My inclination has been to blame that on the fact that different people had different things they wanted in the game/setting, and at least some of those things were not great tastes that went great together. There's also, I think, a sense that a singular setting-designer has an easier time being consistent, and an easier time ditching a less-attractive idea than if there's someone else's feelings to consider.
> 
> I would say that as a GM, I found greater player-input (in the sense of putting things into the game-world) to be more work than doing everything myself. This applies both to the setting-design stuff, such as that built into Dresden Files (which is what we used) and to in-progress additions. I found (and find) it easier to keep track of the stuff that comes out of my own brain than the stuff that comes out of my brain + 3-4 players' brains.
> 
> Both of the previous paragraphs are, I hope clearly, entirely rooted in my experiences and preferences, and are not about anyone else's game/s.




Yup, I read you.

The last I'll say on it is that these things take practice and take chemistry (which is both innate but can be groomed).  If this isn't something you've done before and you've done the exact opposite for a long period of time, there is a regime of re-orienting yourself that is required which is an alchemy of a little different things.  Its similar to learning the sometimes jarring paradigm of learning the controls of a new video game (after you're used to a certain setup of controls for a long period of time in a genre).  Or sparring southpaw after you've mastered orthodox footwork and angles.  Or going from a "Tricks-based" card game to "Hold 'em."  There are cognitive barriers that you just have to push past.  



> Um. If you'd be generous enough to extend that invitation my way, I'd be happy to take you up on it. Any game you want. If the PDF isn't free, I'll buy it. I'll admit to a specific curiosity about Dogs ... I picked up the genericized version a while ago and it looks interesting; the possibility of your character eroding out from under you as damage accrues more rapidly than healing/experience add/refresh things seems as though it could be a perfect match for the right type of campaign. That said, when I say, "Any game you want," I mean exactly that.




Absolutely!  

If Dogs interests you and you've got someone else that you know who is equally interested (someone you have chemistry with), I'll be more than glad to run a game for you when time opens up for me.  It would be my pleasure!  

When time opens up I'll let you know!


----------



## innerdude

Emerikol said:


> Let's imagine that what the players see is the land above the sea.  The parts they don't see are underwater.  The underwater part though is connected to and supports what is above the water.  So, in some styles what is above water has no underlying basis other than off the cuff imagination.  They try to backfill the undersea parts to fit some new idea they have.  For us, the well established landscape, enables us to provide things new to the group but having a strong basis in the environment.
> 
> . . .
> 
> A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs.   That is my practical experience.  I just don't think DMs can pull it off.  I doubt for me you could do it.  I would find a lot of peoples games on here "trite".
> 
> . . .
> 
> For me, having a DM with a deep world makes that world more real to me . . . .




The GM's construct of the "world," or the "fiction," or the "milieu," or whatever you want to call it, is just that---a construct. At what point is the construct "complete" enough for it to feel "real" to you?

Does there have to be detailed background information for every point or line drawn on the map of the world? Every city? Does every town need to have 20 fully realized NPCs before it will feel "real" to you? Do all 20 NPCs need to have fully realized daily schedules so you can roll on random tables to see if the PCs encounter them?

Does every nation-state in the world have to have a detailed 3,000 year history, with a list of kings, queens, regents before it will feel "real"?

And if not, what components of the construct do you decide is privileged / has primacy in making it "feel real" to you?

The thing of it is, a GM has to constantly generate off-the-cuff / in-the-moment "stuff to add to the fictional construct" no matter how much of the construct is prefabricated.

There's constant additions as the players interact with things in the world that simply didn't exist until the very moment the player says, "I look at / touch / act on X." It doesn't matter how much prefabrication happens beforehand, these situations still arise in every single moment of every single game session.

Yet somehow, a GM having to constantly make these spur-of-the-moment additions to the prefabricated construct don't make gameplay / the gameworld trite---but using a ruleset that systematically enables these additions coherently does?

I mean, you're entitled to your own preference. But it's my impression that if you really analyzed your preference as stated ("I prefer the world to be largely prefabricated, because it feels more real to me"), that you'd find there's a lot of un-analyzed assumptions and process gaps around the nature of what all that "prefabricated world fiction stuff" is actually doing. 

I know, because I once believed EXACTLY as you do. I used to believe that without a "fully realized," "coherent," pre-fabricated fictional milieu, that RPG play would consistently fall short of reaching my goals of "realism" and "immersion."


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> I didn't say you were "judging" Protagonist Play.  My response to you doesn't imply that.  You were responding to a statement about Protagonist Play by pivoting entirely to something else.  So it wasn't clear to me that you understood that you were pivoting.  Therefore I attempted to highlight the pivot to clarify that you're talking about something else.
> 
> If your point was just to pivot and talk about something else...then I guess...fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> I read your whole post.
> 
> This is an empirical claim (which I've seen many times before):
> 
> "A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs."



No.  You are wrong.  I'm going to put "in my opinion" before and after everything I write.  It is implied.  Especially on something subjective.



Manbearcat said:


> This is a conjecture:
> 
> "I just don't think DMs can pull it off (a deep, consistent world that isn't trite)."



Of course it is but it is my experience.  Thus the discussion of theoretical vs practical.  While I can't possibly disagree that it is theoretically possible to run an immersive world for me in an off the cuff way, my practical experience says I've yet to see it accomplished and it is sufficiently rare that in thirty years of gaming no one has as yet pulled it off.



Manbearcat said:


> My response to this is the same as it always is:
> 
> Your empirical claim isn't true.  Your conjecture based on your practical experience (its unclear exactly how much this is) with these games (a) isn't true (GMs can pull it off) and (b) your feelings may change with sufficient exposure of deftly played games that feature heavy improv.  Run more games and play more games (with people who are proficient in running them) that do these things.  You may still end up hating them but I don't see any evidence that you've run or played these games enough to know.



There can be no empirical claim about a game.  Not possible.  Anything could or could not immerse someone.  



Manbearcat said:


> Play Dogs in the Vineyard.  Play Torchbearer.  Play Blades in the Dark.  Play Apocalypse/Dungeon World.  You know what, once I free myself up from one or more games, I'd be MORE THAN HAPPY to run one of these games for you and one of your friends.  If you still feel that these games only bear out trite play, that is completely cool.  I'm TOTALLY fine with that orientation toward these games as a judgement from experience.  But you actually have to have a reasonable amount of play (or any?) to make that claim and not get pushback (even if your claim is just "I feel").



I have experience with people running games off the cuff which is what I was talking about.  You take that and add it to something else but that is my assertion.  And it is an undeniable fact that you don't have to read a book to realize the type of book is not for you.   I have sat in briefly on dungeonworld sessions.  I even went to a dungeonworld session at Gen Con one year just to see what it was about.  I thought "interesting" but not for me.

And you can push all you want but on the matter of taste in games, I am an expert on my own.  I don't claim to be an expert on yours or anyone else's.  I don't think my approach is unique in the world but I realize there are many approaches people like.   I don't really care whether people like or don't like some approach.  If they like a game and enjoy it then in my mind they are doing what is intended with A GAME.  I though will seek the most entertainment bang for my investment of time.


----------



## Emerikol

innerdude said:


> The GM's construct of the "world," or the "fiction," or the "milieu," or whatever you want to call it, is just that---a construct. At what point is the construct "complete" enough for it to feel "real" to you?



Well typically, I do a sandbox and the detail lessens the farther out from the starting point you get.  So in a small village, almost everyone may be detailed.  Oh I'm sure there are generic farmers passing through that may just be covered by a random encounters table.  Meaning I come up with a list of logical scenarios in advance and just roll for what is the current state.  So on a given day at a farmers market there may be any number of people there but not all of them.  So who is there and who is not on a given moment.   I roll for it.



innerdude said:


> Does there have to be detailed background information for every point or line drawn on the map of the world? Every city? Does every town need to have 20 fully realized NPCs before it will feel "real" to you? Do all 20 NPCs need to have fully realized daily schedules so you can roll on random tables to see if the PCs encounter them?



No.  I do have an amazing amount of information by most people's standards though.  I tend to be ready so that major off the cuff stuff is not necessary.  Obviously a conversation is off the cuff as I can't predict what the PCs would ask.  But I base answers on a deep knowledge of the characters that enables me to roleplay them effectively.  



innerdude said:


> Does every nation-state in the world have to have a detailed 3,000 year history, with a list of kings, queens, regents before it will feel "real"?



It would depend of course.  A tend to have a lot of detail though about history in the campaign world.  I don't have every Ruler from every era detailed out.   I might though in the sandbox area have a particular Kingdom detailed out in such a way.  



innerdude said:


> And if not, what components of the construct do you decide is privileged / has primacy in making it "feel real" to you?



My experience is when things are made up, they don't fit together very well.  There is no underlying rhyme or reason for things.  Having a very solid foundation makes these small off the cuff decisions far easier.   It's like method acting.  if you have to make up the entire character from scratch, or you just have to handle a particular situation using a well known well defined character, then to me it seems clear it's easier to roleplay the latter effectively.



innerdude said:


> The thing of it is, a GM has to constantly generate off-the-cuff / in-the-moment "stuff to add to the fictional construct" no matter how much of the construct is prefabricated.



While I agree, I think you exaggerate the level of off the cuff thinking that goes on.  There may be entire sessions where I don't have to do anything off the cuff.  My most common off the cuff thing is a conversation between a well defined NPC and the PCs.  I don't make up NPCs wholecloth.  I create a bunch of NPCs, a rogues gallery if you will, and introduce them into play when the party stumbles across someone in a random sort of way.  Like as a wandering encounter etc....



innerdude said:


> There's constant additions as the players interact with things in the world that simply didn't exist until the very moment the player says, "I look at / touch / act on X." It doesn't matter how much prefabrication happens beforehand, these situations still arise in every single moment of every single game session.



Again you exaggerate though I concede some of it happens sure.



innerdude said:


> Yet somehow, a GM having to constantly make these spur-of-the-moment additions to the prefabricated construct don't make gameplay / the gameworld trite---but using a ruleset that systematically enables these additions coherently does?



To me it is very similar to an author who crafts a book carefully and an author who just told a story off the cuff.   In theory could they be equally good?  In theory yes.  I doubt that would be true in very many cases though.



innerdude said:


> I mean, you're entitled to your own preference. But it's my impression that if you really analyzed your preference as stated ("I prefer the world to be largely prefabricated, because it feels more real to me"), that you'd find there's a lot of un-analyzed assumptions and process gaps around the nature of what all that "prefabricated world fiction stuff" is actually doing.
> 
> I know, because I once believed EXACTLY as you do. I used to believe that without a "fully realized," "coherent," pre-fabricated fictional milieu, that RPG play would consistently fall short of reaching my goals of "realism" and "immersion."



I understand the zeal of the newly converted.  I really do.  I confess that roleplayers are looking for different things out of play and that at one time my own approach was the dominant style.   So of course many who started in my style are going to realize another style is to their taste.   If everyone started in your style, there would be zealous people telling you that your "old" style is not as good as their new one.  
It's like potato chips.  I like plain without ruffles.  Some people think chips really didn't get good until they came in all different flavors and got ruffled.   I can't argue with their tastes but I thought the original chip was already perfect for me.  Now since chips aren't heavily invested roleplaying experiences, I have tried the other types and I can eat them in polite company but given a choice I always choose plain without ruffles.   

In gaming, I don't have time to engage in for me low quality experiences.  Time is too short.  I have other things to do including other forms of entertainment.   I've asked myself if my only choice to roleplay was this new style would I continue.  I think I wouldn't.  I have many other things to do.  I would not view the time investment worth it for what I'd get out of it.

That does not mean I condemn other styles.  It's inevitable that the growth and success of a hobby will lead to variations.  It's inevitable.  You guys buying books funds the hobby the same as I when I buy books.   And hey, I'm even help fund some of your games even though I'll never play them.  I am fascinated by rules mechanisms and often buy game rules to just read.  I've been wanting to buy cortex plus to read.  I am already certain I would not play it because of the primary dissociative mechanic they use when rolling ones.  I still find reading all the various approaches to be interesting.  It's probably why it is fun to debate here with you guys.   I know myself quiet well though so if conversion is your only payoff I would not waste any more of your time if I were you.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Manbearcat said:


> the Blades game I'm running for @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77



Just can't stop rubbing this in, huh.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Let's imagine that what the players see is the land above the sea.  The parts they don't see are underwater.  The underwater part though is connected to and supports what is above the water.  So, in some styles what is *above* water has no underlying basis other than off the cuff imagination.  They try to backfill the undersea parts to fit some new idea they have.  For us, the well established landscape, enables us to provide things new to the group but having a strong basis in the environment.



I don't really follow your metaphor, especially because I think the "above" I've bolded seems like it would make more sense if it read "below".



Emerikol said:


> The example given about the young girl and the bad boy thief is a good example.  If for some reason the PCs cross paths with those NPCs, having them already existing for me is far better than just making them up at the moment.  I don't doubt "in theory" you can have the same result either way but my "practical" experience is they are not nearly the same.





Emerikol said:


> There can be no empirical claim about a game.  Not possible.  Anything could or could not immerse someone.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have experience with people running games off the cuff which is what I was talking about.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have sat in briefly on dungeonworld sessions. I even went to a dungeonworld session at Gen Con one year just to see what it was about. I thought "interesting" but not for me.



What practical experience? Having sat in briefly on a Dungeonworld game?

And when you say _not nearly the same_, in what respect? Of course DW doesn't play the same as Moldvay Basic. It's standard, in DW, for the GM to ask the player questions about the PCs' expectations, experiences and so on. That is not standard for Moldvay Basic. But what is supposed to follow from this, besides @Emerikol doesn't like it?



Emerikol said:


> A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs.   That is my practical experience.  I just don't think DMs can pull it off.  I doubt for me you could do it.  I would find a lot of peoples games on here "trite".



This is not a claim about what you do or don't like. It is a claim about the consistency, depth and non-triteness of other peoples games. What's the evidence for it?

I have a lot of actual play posts on these boards. They're easy to find. Are you saying they seem trite? You posted in this thread which has a description of play from my Classic Traveller game in the OP. Is this something you're saying is trite?


----------



## innerdude

@Emerikol -- I appreciate the detailed response. My line of questioning isn't to "convert" you specifically.

My hope, I suppose, is that what I say may be of some use to other readers who may be going through a similar situation that I've gone through in the past. I wanted to improve the quality of the games I was running, but the amount of pre-session preparation / notes / fictional "prefabrication" didn't seem to have any correlation to the success of my sessions.

I've had sessions where I had little more than a basic scene and maybe 1 rough NPC sketch go off amazingly well. I've had sessions where I had 5 or 6 single-spaced pages of typed notes, with 6 or 7 highly detailed NPC stat blocks, and the session thoroughly bombed. I've had small, medium, and large-sized batches of prefabricated notes where the sessions were just . . . okay.

Full disclosure --- even at the height of my "prefabricated backstory" days, I didn't do as much detailed work as you outlined above. And it's clear that as a GM, you find that level of prefabrication necessary to having the experience you want.

Right after I finished my Pathfinder campaign in 2011, I realized that though I love the process of GM-ing, the amount of work required to run Pathfinder / D&D 3 was not tenable. Even if I had loved the system itself (which I didn't; it was more of a lukewarm "like"), I simply didn't have the time to bother with it anymore. And this was using the Golarion campaign setting, where at least 30% of the prefabricating of the game world was already done for me.

This kicked off my journey to find ways to create satisfying roleplaying experiences that didn't require huge amounts of prep time, and also just find a different experience than the one found in the D&D 3.x family of games (which is all I played from 2000 through 2011).

And lo and behold, there was this group of GMs on EnWorld espousing all these crazy ideas like, _Let the players have the ability to exert some authorial control_, and _Frame scenes, not settings_, and _Play to see what happens_, and _Say yes or roll the dice_, and _The fiction is a _*shared construct*_; it doesn't have any 'reality' except what is agreed upon._

And even though a lot of those GMs were running 4e (which for many reasons was a non-starter at the time), I couldn't dismiss out of hand that a lot of seemingly smart, well-intentioned people seemed to be having success adopting these principles. 

So I tried Savage Worlds to radically reduce prep time and started trying out some of the espoused principles. And lo and behold, it worked exactly as described. My players were more engaged, they had more stakes in the fiction---holy crapizoid, Batman! Suddenly I didn't have to define every piece of every little bit of the fiction. I could frame my players into the action and trust that they'd find their way.

I still did more prefabrication than I'm doing now, but not nearly as much with Pathfinder. And there were still moments where I slipped into "secret backstory" GM-mode more than I should have. But interestingly, the more I let go of the need to prefabricate, the more fun I and my players seemed to have.

Now having moved to Ironsworn, combined with my own existing experiences, I can more clearly see the potential "dark side" to prefabricating so much of the game world beforehand. It's very, very hard to let go of something I've created. If I spent the time to create it, there is an accompanying, strong impulse to _use it in play_, even if doing so doesn't serve the greater good of the fun of the group. It's very, very easy to let prefabricated content become a GM indulgence, justified under the banners of "realism" and "continuity," when really it's just an exercise in self-gratification. And I've very much come around on @pemerton's belief that GM "secret backstory", while potentially "useful" in terms of trying to create "continuity" and "realism" and "intrigue," is very much a danger to stifling player engagement.

So again, the question becomes, why do all of that prefabrication? What purpose does it serve? I think this thread has identified a number of useful purposes (reminders, continuity, streamlining gameplay with preset stat blocks, fleshing out characterizations). But it's not a requirement for a game to work, or to feel "immersive" or "coherent."

As @Manbearcat alluded earlier, all I can do now when someone says, "BUT RPGs SIMPLY DON'T WORK UNLESS YOU HAVE A COHERENT, PREFABRICATED, LIVING WORLD!!" is either surreptitiously roll my eyes and say nothing, or offer a counter perspective.

I'm here to tell anyone that will listen that this stuff _works_---if you approach it from the right mindset and perspective, and are willing to be open to an experience other than what you already know.


----------



## hawkeyefan

So I think that when it comes to a GM’s notes and portrayal of a deep and consistent world, any possible connection is more about the GM than the players.

I mean this in the sense that it’s more about the GM’s comfort. If a GM feels confident portraying the world, then it doesn’t really matter from the player’s perspective if he’s made it up ahead of time or on the fly.

Some GMs will find one or the other a better fit for them, and that’s understandable. So for a given GM, they may indeed feel that their world lacks depth or consistency if they’re forced to make more stuff up in the moment. And, he may he right that this impacts his players too, but only because of his discomfort with the method, not because of the method itself.

There are elements in the hobby that have been around a very long time, and many if those reinforce this idea. Some games may indeed benefit from copious notes, typically old school map and key type gaming. But it’s certainly not universal by any means.

As my gaming style has shifted over the years, I’ve come to realize how much we do in gaming is done just because that’s the way it’s always been done. And once I realized that, I was able to redirect my efforts to find new ways that worked better.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I don't really follow your metaphor, especially because I think the "above" I've bolded seems like it would make more sense if it read "below".



Above the water is visible and what is below the water is not.  That was the main use of the analogy.



pemerton said:


> What practical experience? Having sat in briefly on a Dungeonworld game?



People have been playing with poor prep for years.  Long before Dungeonworld ever existed.  Yes new games are perhaps catering to low prep and perhaps that makes them a bit better but what makes me dislike them likely hasn't changed.  I also dislike dissociative mechanics and a lot of what these games do uses those techniques.   I want to be acting from within my character and not using my character like a playing piece.



pemerton said:


> And when you say _not nearly the same_, in what respect? Of course DW doesn't play the same as Moldvay Basic. It's standard, in DW, for the GM to ask the player questions about the PCs' expectations, experiences and so on. That is not standard for Moldvay Basic. But what is supposed to follow from this, besides @Emerikol doesn't like it?



Of course.  



pemerton said:


> This is not a claim about what you do or don't like. It is a claim about the consistency, depth and non-triteness of other peoples games. What's the evidence for it?



Much as you want to deny it.  Depth, immersion, non-triteness are subjective.  Consistency perhaps can be more an objective standard but from what I see even theoretically the best you can achieve with grandmaster level DMing is equality.   I think the average run of the mill gamer playing both styles will find DMs that do more upfront prep are more consistent.   Now having said that, you only care about your game and if you are pulling it off for you then good for you.



pemerton said:


> I have a lot of actual play posts on these boards. They're easy to find. Are you saying they seem trite? You posted in this thread which has a description of play from my Classic Traveller game in the OP. Is this something you're saying is trite?



I find play reports even for my games are turned into a more story like form so it is hard to judge without actually watching.  Hey, I'm talking about a style's impact upon me.   I'm not saying it is that way for you.  Also, people play a particular style to different levels.  So some may mix and match various approaches.  I'm not condemning or judging your style for you.  I'm saying what my reaction is when I encounter your style.  

It's like food.  If I taste something and make an ugly face, that is not in any way saying other people don't love the food.  A matter of taste cannot be disputed.  That is a philosophical absolute truth.  When I give my opinion I am merely saying how your style impacts me.


----------



## Emerikol

innerdude said:


> @Emerikol -- I appreciate the detailed response. My line of questioning isn't to "convert" you specifically.



Hey we come here to talk.  I admit I get triggered sometimes and I do my fair share of triggering.  It's a game though and when we talk past each other we are just giving our experience and our preferences.  

I do believe people want different things out of roleplaying.  Roleplaying is too big to be just one thing.  It's kind of like sports.  At the beginning there was just sports and everyone played the same way.  Now we have a big variety and people who play basketball think playing football is not that fun.   Whereas some think otherwise.   My only opposition and I admit a trigger is when people say "we have a new better way".   The reality is you have a "new better way for you".   And it may be true for many others but not for everyone.  We all come to the game for different reasons.   Ultimately the goal is fun but there are different payoffs in the search for fun.



innerdude said:


> My hope, I suppose, is that what I say may be of some use to other readers who may be going through a similar situation that I've gone through in the past. I wanted to improve the quality of the games I was running, but the amount of pre-session preparation / notes / fictional "prefabrication" didn't seem to have any correlation to the success of my sessions.
> 
> I've had sessions where I had little more than a basic scene and maybe 1 rough NPC sketch go off amazingly well. I've had sessions where I had 5 or 6 single-spaced pages of typed notes, with 6 or 7 highly detailed NPC stat blocks, and the session thoroughly bombed. I've had small, medium, and large-sized batches of prefabricated notes where the sessions were just . . . okay.
> 
> Full disclosure --- even at the height of my "prefabricated backstory" days, I didn't do as much detailed work as you outlined above. And it's clear that as a GM, you find that level of prefabrication necessary to having the experience you want.



I have read dozens if not hundreds of similar stories.  Again as I said above.  The game started out in my style and was taught that way.  So all of the movement is to other styles.  It doesn't invalidate my style.  It is inevitable that my style wasn't fulfilling what some wanted out of roleplaying.   I have tried on occasion to speculate but often when you do you get a lot of backlash because no one wants to admit that every choice gains something and gives something up.



innerdude said:


> Right after I finished my Pathfinder campaign in 2011, I realized that though I love the process of GM-ing, the amount of work required to run Pathfinder / D&D 3 was not tenable. Even if I had loved the system itself (which I didn't; it was more of a lukewarm "like"), I simply didn't have the time to bother with it anymore. And this was using the Golarion campaign setting, where at least 30% of the prefabricating of the game world was already done for me.



I will admit that while I never liked 4e, I was tired of 3e/PF myself at some point.  I like some character built choices but I'm probably one of those who likes a bit less.  That means I like some character building but not too much.   I am probably one of those that is happy with four basic classes.   



innerdude said:


> This kicked off my journey to find ways to create satisfying roleplaying experiences that didn't require huge amounts of prep time, and also just find a different experience than the one found in the D&D 3.x family of games (which is all I played from 2000 through 2011).



For me, prep is work but it is a labor of love.  I feel great pleasure in providing something that my players enjoy and remember.



innerdude said:


> And lo and behold, there was this group of GMs on EnWorld espousing all these crazy ideas like, _Let the players have the ability to exert some authorial control_, and _Frame scenes, not settings_, and _Play to see what happens_, and _Say yes or roll the dice_, and _The fiction is a _*shared construct*_; it doesn't have any 'reality' except what is agreed upon._



The reality is that there are a variety of things that makes up a gamer preference set.  For example, I would say I'm a sandbox, skilled play, in-character always roleplayer.   This set of preferences kind of precludes many of the new approaches.  So even people like me in some ways are not like me in every way.  You could be sandbox but not skilled play.  You could be fine with dissociative mechanics and still have a sandbox.  (4e proved that).  It would be fascinating to try and build a list of gamer preferences because I don't have a list for people in your style.



innerdude said:


> And even though a lot of those GMs were running 4e (which for many reasons was a non-starter at the time), I couldn't dismiss out of hand that a lot of seemingly smart, well-intentioned people seemed to be having success adopting these principles.



Well, there are sports, soccer for example, that don't do anything for me.  They just aren't interesting to me.   But thousands, no millions, no billions love that game.  I'm not against their loving it either.  Enjoy!  That is the beauty of entertainment.  We can do what we like and others can too.  



innerdude said:


> So I tried Savage Worlds to radically reduce prep time and started trying out some of the espoused principles. And lo and behold, it worked exactly as described. My players were more engaged, they had more stakes in the fiction---holy crapizoid, Batman! Suddenly I didn't have to define every piece of every little bit of the fiction. I could frame my players into the action and trust that they'd find their way.
> 
> I still did more prefabrication than I'm doing now, but not nearly as much with Pathfinder. And there were still moments where I slipped into "secret backstory" GM-mode more than I should have. But interestingly, the more I let go of the need to prefabricate, the more fun I and my players seemed to have.



Then you were obviously playing a game originally that wasn't your ideal fit.  I guess I was lucky to find mine early on.   Now we also know that there are those gamers, I can them beer and pretzel gamers, who are just happy to be there.  Those types would likely play in your game and in mine and be happy either way.  There are also those who have varied preferences so they view our styles as different games.  Sometimes they play one game and sometimes they play another.  So there is that too.   Often times for example a D&D style game system fights against your style to some degree.   Playing dungeonworld or savage worlds is better.  



innerdude said:


> Now having moved to Ironsworn, combined with my own existing experiences, I can more clearly see the potential "dark side" to prefabricating so much of the game world beforehand. It's very, very hard to let go of something I've created. If I spent the time to create it, there is an accompanying, strong impulse to _use it in play_, even if doing so doesn't serve the greater good of the fun of the group. It's very, very easy to let prefabricated content become a GM indulgence, justified under the banners of "realism" and "continuity," when really it's just an exercise in self-gratification. And I've very much come around on @pemerton's belief that GM "secret backstory", while potentially "useful" in terms of trying to create "continuity" and "realism" and "intrigue," is very much a danger to stifling player engagement.



I would agree 100% that there are risks and pitfalls.  That some of the worst DMs have acted in bad faith as representatives of my style.  That doesn't really invalidate my style.  I've seen some pretty bad ones using other styles too.  

But....I do realize that there is a value choice in how you interact with the content.  If the DM just decides that going left instead of right would be more fun and to hell with the underlying content that is a decision and it works for some people.  It won't work for those who really embrace my style.   In my style, failure and setbacks are more common.  It feels a bit more like real life in that sense.   The party knows the DM is not going to bail them out or twist things around to make it all work out.  

Here is an example from years ago.  Now in those days I was not nearly the world builder I am today so keep that in mind.  This example is laser focused on one point.   I had a group going through the Giants.  There is a room where the King lives, I believe it is the frost giant G2 module, that has a secret escape door that the King would use if threatened.   The party had foolishly alerted and attracted pretty much every giant in the place and they were being hunted in force.  They had managed to dispatch the King though.  They realized though they were going to die almost certainly but they decided to search the room to see if there was any place they could hide.   They found the kings secret door and used it to escape the dungeon.

Now, if I had handwaved that escape route to enable the players to survive, I would have broke faith.  They would not have enjoyed it nor would it have been a story.  Now is it theoretically possible I could lie to them and try to keep it a secret?  I guess so but that is a lousy way to live life.   The fact they were saved by chance but chance that was real in the world made a difference.  



innerdude said:


> So again, the question becomes, why do all of that prefabrication? What purpose does it serve? I think this thread has identified a number of useful purposes (reminders, continuity, streamlining gameplay with preset stat blocks, fleshing out characterizations). But it's not a requirement for a game to work, or to feel "immersive" or "coherent."
> 
> As @Manbearcat alluded earlier, all I can do now when someone says, "BUT RPGs SIMPLY DON'T WORK UNLESS YOU HAVE A COHERENT, PREFABRICATED, LIVING WORLD!!" is either surreptitiously roll my eyes and say nothing, or offer a counter perspective.
> 
> I'm here to tell anyone that will listen that this stuff _works_---if you approach it from the right mindset and perspective, and are willing to be open to an experience other than what you already know.



I think people like me are at heart explorers.  They want to learn about a new world and explore it.  It's a big motivation.  They also want to achieve something by dint of their skill as players.  So they feel they "earned" their PC's greatness.

Gygax speaks to this a lot in the 1e DMG.  He of course is unaware of other styles and thus states it in absolute terms.  Still his assertions are true for people who are seeking the payoff my style provides.


----------



## Manbearcat

Alright, working back to "what is the point of the GM's notes", here are how some Blades in the Dark Sandbox notes might be leveraged in play.  The below are active Setting or Faction Clocks that get Fortune rolled and ticked during every Downtime phase.



> *ENTANGLEMENT - GANG TROUBLE*
> 
> Hans and Piotr split up on the way back because of concern that they may have caught a tail. But Piotr doubled back (Flaw of Principled and Loyal to his brother) for concern for his brother. This actually ended up getting Piotr cornered by a trio of Crows (easily identified by their brashness and their tats). Hans heard the commotion and ran to his brothers defense. The two of them got the naughty word kicked out of each other but at least it was together (and it could have been worse if it was apart). The Crows left a not-so-veiled hanging in the air "stay the eff away from Miss Cues (pool hall that Roric frequented), or next time you'll be missing more than a few teeth..."
> 
> 
> Not going to go with the standard Gang Trouble complication on this one. Going to go with Hans and Piotr are infirmary-bound - out one full Loop (Info Gather > Score > Downtime). They'll have recovered on your next Loop.
> 
> On the bright side, the experience of "getting tuned up" has toughened these two up. If at some point, you want to pay 2 Coin (1 apiece) for the pair of them to spar/go through some martial arts training with Shells' group (6 Downtime Project Clock w/ their Quality as the roll), you guys can add Thugs as a type for Hans and Piotr once that Clock completes.
> 
> 
> *FACTION CLOCKS
> 
> 
> Ulf Ironborn - "Studying Your Game" - 8 Ticks (last Downtime and this Downtime)*
> 
> The play in the tourney has incentivized him to ask around about you guys' Hold 'Em games and dispatch members of his Crew to home games you guys are involved with to get some experience against you. Once its full, they're going to be active in playing against you guys and Clocks to beat them will throttle up one (eg from 6 to 8 or from 8 to 10).
> 
> Tier 1 = 1 Fortune Dice.
> 
> 6 = 3
> 1 = 1
> 
> _4/8_
> 
> *The Crows - "Moving in on the Silver Stags Territory/your Hunting Grounds" - 8 Ticks.*
> 
> Their agents have grown increasingly more brazen in moving in on you guys and the Stags' turf. Last week a smoke shop had its windows broken and a clerk roughed up and a few Crows unsurprisingly showed up afterward promising they could protect the shop for a price. This week, you guys have seen several of their agents running 3 Card Monty in the alleys nearby.
> 
> Tier 2 vs Tier 3 = Worst of 2d6 Fortune Dice
> 
> 3/5 = 1
> 
> _1/8_
> 
> *"Save Barrowcleft vs Barrowcleft Apocalypse" - 10 Tick Competing Clocks*
> 
> Tier 6 apiece so d6 apiece.
> 
> _Save = 2 so 1/10
> Apocalypse = 4 so 2/10_
> 
> The tide turns against the ward, its citizens, and the city. A few brave souls enlist to fight the ghosts. They don't return...
> 
> *"Ramon's Suit" - His 6 Tick vs your 4 Tick (whenever you take it up)*
> 
> Tier 2 but we'll throttle it back to 0 so worst of 2d6 due to Scale
> 
> 4/5 = 2
> 
> _2/6_
> 
> A bad scrap on the street opened up the elbow of his suit something fierce and out man can't mend it.
> 
> *"Hutch's Vendetta" - His 8 Tick vs your 4 Tick (whenever you take it up)*
> 
> Tier 2 but we'll throttle it back to 0 so worst of 2d6 due to Scale
> 
> 2/6 = 1
> 
> _1/8_
> 
> Hutch is too wasted to thirst for vengeance.




The above _may _get used in the following ways during the next play loop:

1)  One of them may inform some *Situation Framing *of Free Play or of an aspect of the Score (particularly the Barrowcleft Apocalypse one as the Crew arranged for a "Kill Pool <+ Prop Bets>" game in their last Score where they compete with several other Gangs to try to suss out and stamp out the serial killer of Barrowcleft).

The odds of using some of the above as framing is doubly likely if I can figure out a way to tie it into one of PC's Vice, Heritage, Background, Allies/Enemies.

2)  One of them may inform a *Complication *from a Move in Free Play or a Score (particularly the Barrowcleft Apocalypse one as the Crew arranged for a "Kill Pool <+ Prop Bets>" game in their last Score where they compete with several other Gangs to try to suss out and stamp out the serial killer of Barrowcleft).

The odds of using some of the above as framing is doubly likely if I can figure out a way to tie it into one of PC's Vice, Heritage, Background, Allies/Enemies.

3)  One of them may inform a *Devil's Bargain* I propose or another player proposes in the Score (particularly the Barrowcleft Apocalypse one as the Crew arranged for a "Kill Pool <+ Prop Bets>" game in their last Score where they compete with several other Gangs to try to suss out and stamp out the serial killer of Barrowcleft).

The odds of using some of the above as framing is doubly likely if I can figure out a way to tie it into one of PC's Vice, Heritage, Background, Allies/Enemies.

4)  A player may use one of the above to help inform or to generate a *Flashback *during the Score.

5)  To help inform the *Entanglement *rolled during the Downtime phase.



Note that the "GM notes" are table-facing and players can use them to inform their own proposed Devil's Bargains or Flashbacks (which then could feed back into further "GM notes" being generated).


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Just can't stop rubbing this in, huh.



To be fair, referencing a specific game of game X being played by competent and experienced people isn't really off topic. This is the first time I've gone back to playing Blades in a while, as I mostly GM, and I found my experience GMing it really adds to my enjoyment being on the player end. The recursive process of uncovering the setting in play is awesome when everyone, ahem, knows what they're doing. In this case both I and @hawkeyefan have added significant details to the setting in terms of places, NPCs and factions and the result isn't muddled, or unclear, or lacking depth. If I were looking for an example in @Manbearcat 's shoes I'd probably use this game too.


----------



## Fenris-77

For clarity, I should probably add that I've actually run and played Scum and Villainy a lot more than core Blades, and while the rules are almost identical, the process in play is not, as genre specific stuff (Star Wars most prominently) really informs how things unfold in play, player expectations and player contributions. In both cases the function of 'GM notes' is about the same though.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> To be fair, referencing a specific game of game X being played by competent and experienced people isn't really off topic. This is the first time I've gone back to playing Blades in while, as I mostly GM, and I found my experience GMing it really adds to my enjoyment being on the player end. The recursive process of uncovering the setting in play is awesome when everyone, ahem, knows what they're doing. In this case both I and @hawkeyefan have added significant details to the setting in terms of places, NPCs and factions and the result isn't muddled, or unclear, or lacking depth. If I were looking for an example in @Manbearcat 's shoes I'd probably use this game too.




You (understandably) miss @Ovinomancer ‘s meaning here.

He wanted to play with us but was unable to because of schedule so he’s just being silly!

But back to your point, none of the 3 of us playing in this game have any issues (a) following the continuity as it emerges in our play, (b) maintaining the continuity as we play, and (c) maintaining the thematic coherency front-and-center as we play.

I would feel much better if folks would lose the “this (a through c above) isn’t possible” and would just say what I think they’re saying a lot: “I don’t enjoy the process of being a player in these games because the orientation (being a content generator) is jarring to me.”

I’d still recommend them trying the games (or trying them more if they already have), but that statement I’ve created above is neither a testable claim nor conjecture. It’s an uncontroversial biographical footnote about their cognitive state.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> To be fair, referencing a specific game of game X being played by competent and experienced people isn't really off topic. This is the first time I've gone back to playing Blades in a while, as I mostly GM, and I found my experience GMing it really adds to my enjoyment being on the player end. The recursive process of uncovering the setting in play is awesome when everyone, ahem, knows what they're doing. In this case both I and @hawkeyefan have added significant details to the setting in terms of places, NPCs and factions and the result isn't muddled, or unclear, or lacking depth. If I were looking for an example in @Manbearcat 's shoes I'd probably use this game too.



No, you misunderstand.  My fault, it's an inside joke.  I was invited to play in this game, and was very excited to do so, but had to decline because my work schedule means I could not commit.


----------



## John Dallman

prabe said:


> I wouldn't say the games I was involved in, where the players had direct input in the setting design, were _trite_ or _shallow_ so much as they were _muddled_. My inclination has been to blame that on the fact that different people had different things they wanted in the game/setting, and at least some of those things were not great tastes that went great together.



I've had one very good experience of being involved with setting design as a player. This was for an SF game where the would-be GM had a good general idea of what he wanted his future to be like, but wanted to construct an outline of history from here and now to then. There's a game specifically for doing that, _Microscope_. 

Since this was a play-online game, several years before the pandemic, we did the Microscope session in Google Hangouts, and Google Docs: a word-processor where several people can edit the same document simultaneously is marvellous for getting decisions recorded and agreed quickly. We didn't do any roleplaying within Microscope, but it proved to be good for structuring a brainstorming session.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> But back to your point, none of the 3 of us playing in this game have any issues (a) following the continuity as it emerges in our play, (b) maintaining the continuity as we play, and (c) maintaining the thematic coherency front-and-center as we play.



I've never made the claim that other people are not satisfied with these aspects when play with your approach.   



Manbearcat said:


> I would feel much better if folks would lose the “this (a through c above) isn’t possible” and would just say what I think they’re saying a lot: “I don’t enjoy the process of being a player in these games because the orientation (being a content generator) is jarring to me.”



I've never said it's impossible.  I've said in practice I haven't seen it successfully done to my satisfaction.   I do not attend every game store or play with every possible group in all the country or world.  



Manbearcat said:


> I’d still recommend them trying the games (or trying them more if they already have), but that statement I’ve created above is neither a testable claim nor conjecture. It’s an uncontroversial biographical footnote about their cognitive state.



Well of course I don't like being an author because that is not the viewpoint I prefer in roleplaying.  I've stated elsewhere what the goals of my style of play are.   Sandbox, Skilled Play, Non-dissociative character only viewpoint.   It's not rocket science.   And I don't find the idea jarring at all.  I just don't like it so your statement is by no means an absolute truth.  I don't enjoy games where everything is made up on the fly.  I've given my reasons but you insist that my reasons aren't my reasons.  You should take a breath and realize that people are different.  They see things differently.  That what you enjoy and experience is different than what others do.


----------



## prabe

John Dallman said:


> I've had one very good experience of being involved with setting design as a player. This was for an SF game where the would-be GM had a good general idea of what he wanted his future to be like, but wanted to construct an outline of history from here and now to then. There's a game specifically for doing that, _Microscope_.
> 
> Since this was a play-online game, several years before the pandemic, we did the Microscope session in Google Hangouts, and Google Docs: a word-processor where several people can edit the same document simultaneously is marvellous for getting decisions recorded and agreed quickly. We didn't do any roleplaying within Microscope, but it proved to be good for structuring a brainstorming session.



That sounds like an effective way to do it. I hope I've been clear that I'm not, like, spiritually opposed to player input of this kind; it's just that the tables I've been at where it existed, there wasn't (as I look back on it) anyone specifically empowered to say "no" to an addition to the setting, and there weren't any specific genre considerations (such as "an SF game") to provide any guidance or foundation for doing so. Maybe the tables were expecting the GM to enforce limits, but the GM was unwilling to. So, things were muddled, or cluttered, or something.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> That sounds like an effective way to do it. I hope I've been clear that I'm not, like, spiritually opposed to player input of this kind; it's just that the tables I've been at where it existed, there wasn't (as I look back on it) anyone specifically empowered to say "no" to an addition to the setting, and there weren't any specific genre considerations (such as "an SF game") to provide any guidance or foundation for doing so. Maybe the tables were expecting the GM to enforce limits, but the GM was unwilling to. So, things were muddled, or cluttered, or something.



I think there is a group of players that don't want to contribute and if forced to contribute will punish you by suggesting stupid things.   e.g. naming their character Michael Jordan in a fantasy setting.   There are other players that really embrace a setting and want to extend it.  Those players can be encouraged so long as they stay within what is already there.  So if a cleric character wants to come up with the marriage rituals for his faith I'm fine with it.   It's highly unlikely I've made a note on that as marriage is not common in my games.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I've never made the claim that other people are not satisfied with these aspects when play with your approach.
> 
> 
> I've never said it's impossible.  I've said in practice I haven't seen it successfully done to my satisfaction.   I do not attend every game store or play with every possible group in all the country or world.
> 
> 
> Well of course I don't like being an author because that is not the viewpoint I prefer in roleplaying.  I've stated elsewhere what the goals of my style of play are.   Sandbox, Skilled Play, Non-dissociative character only viewpoint.   It's not rocket science.   And I don't find the idea jarring at all.  I just don't like it so your statement is by no means an absolute truth.  I don't enjoy games where everything is made up on the fly.  I've given my reasons but you insist that my reasons aren't my reasons.  You should take a breath and realize that people are different.  They see things differently.  That what you enjoy and experience is different than what others do.




@Emerikol

Granting you the leeway to say “I wasn’t making an objective claim and my conjecture entirely allows for the prospect of me being wrong/under-informed” is no trouble for me whatsoever.

I accept your framing of this entirely.

But my post wasn’t about you. Be said this in many conversations before that had nothing to do with you. There are dozens (and more) of commenters on this site that hold that exact position. So excluding you from the above does nothing to minimize what I’m saying above.

Finally, please don’t say things like:

“Take a breath...”

Or

“...realize that people are different.”

I take lots of breaths (literally). And I’m quite composed.

No one on this board realizes that “people are different” more than I (not to say I corner the market on that...but I’ll stack my understanding of the human condition and my disdain for essentialism and reductionism against anyone).

If you would, can I ask you to please get back to saying interesting things about techniques and play (preferably with deconstructed play excerpts) as it relates to “GM notes.”


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I think there is a group of players that don't want to contribute and if forced to contribute will punish you by suggesting stupid things.   e.g. naming their character Michael Jordan in a fantasy setting.   There are other players that really embrace a setting and want to extend it.  Those players can be encouraged so long as they stay within what is already there.  So if a cleric character wants to come up with the marriage rituals for his faith I'm fine with it.   It's highly unlikely I've made a note on that as marriage is not common in my games.



While there may be players who punish GMs that way, I never got the feeling that was what was happening. It was a matter of the GM saying, "What do you want in the setting?" and the players saying "This" or "That" and those things not meshing well (at least in my brain, either as a player or as a GM). The larger problem was that (at least in some instances) it was hard, hard work getting ideas out of them. If you ask the players for that kind of input, and you don't get (much of) it, it doesn't make the GM's workload particularly lighter. If there's a difference in the amount of input you get from the players, it's hard not to at least look as though you're playing favorites (especially if the player giving the most input is your wife) but that's a different consideration.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> That sounds like an effective way to do it. I hope I've been clear that I'm not, like, spiritually opposed to player input of this kind; it's just that the tables I've been at where it existed, there wasn't (as I look back on it) anyone specifically empowered to say "no" to an addition to the setting, and there weren't any specific genre considerations (such as "an SF game") to provide any guidance or foundation for doing so. Maybe the tables were expecting the GM to enforce limits, but the GM was unwilling to. So, things were muddled, or cluttered, or something.




I guess all I can say on this is the following:

1) The overwhelming % of people I play with (virtually all of them) are at least as creative and/or/both as smart as I am. That is certainly the case with @darkbard and his wife, @hawkeyefan , and @Fenris-77 (and it was clear after 1 session).

If I have those resources available to me (and they’re sincere as well, which, again is virtually always the case), I would be appalled at myself (this as an autobiographical footnote about myself) if I didn’t leverage them.

2) In any given situation or any given complex system with multiple independent variables (a game setting for instance), things should be able to “fit together” in a * sensible, provocative, and interesting way. 

As such, I find it a rewarding creative challenge to put those pieces together in * such a way.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> @Emerikol
> 
> Granting you the leeway to say “I wasn’t making an objective claim and my conjecture entirely allows for the prospect of me being wrong/under-informed” is no trouble for me whatsoever.



Wrong about what?  My own tastes.  My own reaction to your style of play is mine.  For me it is absolute truth but that is the limit.   And yes, I am not unique in my preferences.  We have all sorts of people and there is overlap.   It's rare we have 100% overlap though which is what makes these forums interesting.



Manbearcat said:


> “...realize that people are different.”
> 
> I take lots of breaths (literally). And I’m quite composed.



It's good you are breathing.  I only say things like "realize people are different" because you seem hell bent on defining exactly why I don't like something and denying the reasons I give.   



Manbearcat said:


> If you would, can I ask you to please get back to saying interesting things about techniques and play (preferably with deconstructed play excerpts) as it relates to “GM notes.”



I'm not sure what you want here but I will think on it and post perhaps some details on how I go about world design in a future post.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> While there may be players who punish GMs that way, I never got the feeling that was what was happening. It was a matter of the GM saying, "What do you want in the setting?" and the players saying "This" or "That" and those things not meshing well (at least in my brain, either as a player or as a GM). The larger problem was that (at least in some instances) it was hard, hard work getting ideas out of them. If you ask the players for that kind of input, and you don't get (much of) it, it doesn't make the GM's workload particularly lighter. If there's a difference in the amount of input you get from the players, it's hard not to at least look as though you're playing favorites (especially if the player giving the most input is your wife) but that's a different consideration.



Yeah, my tongue was a little bit in my cheek when I said they were punishing the DM.  They aren't likely doing things to bug the DM on purpose.  I avoid those people.   But, it's kind of like kids making a mess.  I'm sure they don't want to make their parents mad or upset but sometimes they just can't help themselves.   

I also think at times there is a lack of seriousness in the approach to the game by some.  That can manifest as problematic or it can just be a fact of the situation.  Some people just want to slaughter enemies.  As long as I have a decent sized groups, one or two of these types are okay.   There are also though those who seem hell bent on disruption whether intentional or not.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> For clarity, I should probably add that I've actually run and played Scum and Villainy



I wonder how many versions of Moss Eyesly have been created as characters for that game.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> I guess all I can say on this is the following:
> 
> 1) The overwhelming % of people I play with (virtually all of them) are at least as creative and/or/both as smart as I am. That is certainly the case with @darkbard and his wife, @hawkeyefan , and @Fenris-77 (and it was clear after 1 session).
> 
> If I have those resources available to me (and they’re sincere as well, which, again is virtually always the case), I would be appalled at myself (this as an autobiographical footnote about myself) if I didn’t leverage them.
> 
> 2) In any given situation or any given complex system with multiple independent variables (a game setting for instance), things should be able to “fit together” in a * sensible, provocative, and interesting way.
> 
> As such, I find it a rewarding creative challenge to put those pieces together in * such a way.



The people I game with are all intelligent and creative. My wife is a hobby novelist, and I have dabbled in shorter fiction (though these days when I play with words it's more likely to be poetry). As far as I know the other people at the tables have never really written fiction. I think that background helps, when it comes to generating setting details, especially on the fly; obviously practice at gaming this way helps, too, and this was (mostly, I think) people's first experience with this sort of gaming.

That said, I really think the bigger problem for me was that people had ideas that really didn't mesh, in my brain. Obviously this was more of a problem when I was GMing, but it kinda nettled me as a player, too.

It probably says something about me that I found it challenging but not spectacularly rewarding.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> The people I game with are all intelligent and creative. My wife is a hobby novelist, and I have dabbled in shorter fiction (though these days when I play with words it's more likely to be poetry). As far as I know the other people at the tables have never really written fiction. I think that background helps, when it comes to generating setting details, especially on the fly; obviously practice at gaming this way helps, too, and this was (mostly, I think) people's first experience with this sort of gaming.
> 
> That said, I really think the bigger problem for me was that people had ideas that really didn't mesh, in my brain. Obviously this was more of a problem when I was GMing, but it kinda nettled me as a player, too.
> 
> It probably says something about me that I found it challenging but not spectacularly rewarding.




This is not a statement about you, your wife, or any one particular writer of fiction.

However, my instinct tells me that writers of fiction (particularly prolific ones) may be less inclined toward improv-intensive, emergent or procedurally-generated setting in TTRPGs.  Two words come to mind that both start with a P and an R:

Precious

and

Process

It would not surprise me in the least bit of most writers of fiction (whether fan-fic or professionally) (a) have a process that they've derived results from (and that process wouldn't be possessed of a distributed authority) and (b) are precious about both that process and their results/creations (I mean...the trope of editor and writer having an adversarial relationship is a trope for a reason).

What do you (and anyone else) think about that (broadly...not any one person's case...across the population of gamers).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> Note that the "GM notes" are table-facing and players can use them to inform their own proposed Devil's Bargains or Flashbacks (which then could feed back into further "GM notes" being generated).




So, not to bring our game too much into the thread here, but one thing that did occur to me is that the idea that our Cohorts Hans and Piotr will need medical attention, and I mentioned we may need to retain the services of a doctor to deal with my sore jaw from our first score.....I think I'll propose an idea connecting the two things (Hans and Piotr's Harm and my character's Harm) and maybe introduce the Long Term Project to gain the steady use of a doctor. I have some ideas on who this doctor may be and how I know him.

So your notes, provided to me, have given me some ideas to connect two things in the fiction through my character. And then when I share those with you, that will likely prompt more ideas on your end, giving us other potential vectors for the fiction. 

One of the advantages of the player facing nature of these details. 



John Dallman said:


> I've had one very good experience of being involved with setting design as a player. This was for an SF game where the would-be GM had a good general idea of what he wanted his future to be like, but wanted to construct an outline of history from here and now to then. There's a game specifically for doing that, _Microscope_.
> 
> Since this was a play-online game, several years before the pandemic, we did the Microscope session in Google Hangouts, and Google Docs: a word-processor where several people can edit the same document simultaneously is marvellous for getting decisions recorded and agreed quickly. We didn't do any roleplaying within Microscope, but it proved to be good for structuring a brainstorming session.




That's great.....I think that Microscope lends itself to worldbuilding, and I really want to use it to build a setting that our group then uses for play with another game. I think this seems like a natural use for Microscope (I think it may even be suggested in the book itself). Haven't had the chance to do so yet, but I really want to do that.



prabe said:


> It probably says something about me that I found it challenging but not spectacularly rewarding.




It may, but it may not.....it may just be that it's not your default approach and so it may take adjusting. It's certainly possible that it may never click with you, but I would imagine that, through use and exposure, you'd probably become comfortable with it, if not outright enjoy it.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> So, not to bring our game too much into the thread here, but one thing that did occur to me is that the idea that our Cohorts Hans and Piotr will need medical attention, and I mentioned we may need to retain the services of a doctor to deal with my sore jaw from our first score.....I think I'll propose an idea connecting the two things (Hans and Piotr's Harm and my character's Harm) and maybe introduce the Long Term Project to gain the steady use of a doctor. I have some ideas on who this doctor may be and how I know him.
> 
> So your notes, provided to me, have given me some ideas to connect two things in the fiction through my character. And then when I share those with you, that will likely prompt more ideas on your end, giving us other potential vectors for the fiction.
> 
> One of the advantages of the player facing nature of these details.




Yup.

These engender creative positive feedback loops which then become gamestate feedback loops (now you have a doctor which enables moves that weren't present prior and renders Harm less...harmful!).

And it anchors characters and locales within the fiction as it fleshes out the setting.  It increases resolution of and orients people/places/things and enhances relationships.  This in turn generates more prospects for conflict framing and complication introduction (eg, once your doctor, apothecary, witch becomes an established ally/asset, they then become a pressure point that the GM, or another player through a Devil's Bargain, can deploy to escalate things).

And the interesting thing is that, historically, the issue with cohorts/followers being introduced in games like D&D, its been viewed as adversarial play by GMs to then use them as a source of pressure.

But that isn't the emotional or physical orientation of players and play in a game like Blades.  

Why?

Because everything is transparent, table-facing, and integrated within the mechanical architecture of the game.  If I threaten your doctor (etc), you know exactly how that threat was generated and exactly how to attempt to resolve that threat (if you so choose).

In a game like historical D&D, the problem has been that this sort of thing is handled overwhelmingly (a) offscreen and/or (b) the mechanical architecture that caused the pressure point to be invoked and the means to resolve it are overwhelmingly or exclusively GM-facing.

Transparent, table-facing, integrated systemization of these things changes the orientation of players and the play when it comes to this kind of stuff.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> This is not a statement about you, your wife, or any one particular writer of fiction.
> 
> However, my instinct tells me that writers of fiction (particularly prolific ones) may be less inclined toward improv-intensive, emergent or procedurally-generated setting in TTRPGs.  Two words come to mind that both start with a P and an R:
> 
> Precious
> 
> and
> 
> Process
> 
> It would not surprise me in the least bit of most writers of fiction (whether fan-fic or professionally) (a) have a process that they've derived results from (and that process wouldn't be possessed of a distributed authority) and (b) are precious about both that process and their results/creations (I mean...the trope of editor and writer having an adversarial relationship is a trope for a reason).
> 
> What do you (and anyone else) think about that (broadly...not any one person's case...across the population of gamers).



The prolific writers I've interacted with threw off ideas like sparks. So have some non-prolific writers. The difference seems to be more one of persistence/work ethic.

My experience leads me to believe that a writer who free-writes may have a brain that works well with improving in a gaming context. My brain  does, and my wife's does. She wasn't super-comfortable DMing, but that may be more connected to not liking the authority distribution in D&D from that angle. I have not noticed any hangups in her playing--and she improvises well as a player, and she contributed a lot to the collaborative tables we were at.

I think that having the sort of brain that generates fiction helps a lot when it comes to bringing things into the fiction, and what I think I'll describe as shaping the narrative (pacing, but not just pacing). It's not the only sort of brain that helps, and it's absolutely possible that some people at the more-collaborative tables were unable to grok the different distribution for reasons unrelated to intelligence/creativity, and it's absolutely possible to GM improvisationally with a different sort of brain.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> No.  You are wrong.  I'm going to put "in my opinion" before and after everything I write.  It is implied.  Especially on something subjective.




So, an aside from someone who has a pretty constant task of breaking up arguments... as a practical matter on this site, it is not implied.

More specifically - you are in an environment where that implication is not _reliable_.  Too may posters will speak with the same structure, and will be making broad assertions of universal truth, rather than "IMHO" or "IME" or "This is just my personal preference."  Moreover, folks often don't realize that they begin with what they think is a statement of personal preference, but they elide into arguing as if it were not.  So, overall, folks have to take you at what you actually say on the page, because assuming otherwise fails too often.

So, in the name of considering the broad audience, there's something to be said for adjusting one's posting style to make such things more evident.  It can be a bit stilted, but it does seem to be fairly effective.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> And what I'm saying is that there's nothing about an AP that particularly enables this over anything else.  Your point is nearing a tautology -- APs teach good play because either it's well written and you like it or it isn't and you have to fix it.  The part missing here, the actual skill necessary for a good GM, is _the ability to recognize which is which_.  This isn't something APs help with.



You don't think that it is easier/harder to spot and create an alternative to ones own writing versus another person's?

I get that one of the skills a GM needs is assessment. And the use of that ability, when applied before play, is to write an alternative. The use of that ability during play, often forces different tools to be used. 

Maybe it is just me, but I have never seen a GM write an encounter, then change it before hand, unless the context absolutely warranted it. (Such as the wizard started a huge forest fire, so now the area they were going is burning or burnt.) But, I have seen a hundred GMs change encounters or scenes that other people have written.


----------



## Fenris-77

If you can't bring yourself to change your own stuff you probably shouldn't be sitting in the captain's chair. I change my own encounters all the time.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> You don't think that it is easier/harder to spot and create an alternative to ones own writing versus another person's?



Which do you want me to answer?  I'm not sure which you think I shouldn't think with this rhetorical question.

But, no, I don't think this is a good question at all.  

Having to change things doesn't necessarily teach you anything -- it's the ability to recognize that it needs change, why it needs change, and how it needs change that's the important skill set.  Presumably, this is _already_ an input to your own design efforts, so the comparison here is flawed.


Scott Christian said:


> I get that one of the skills a GM needs is assessment. And the use of that ability, when applied before play, is to write an alternative. The use of that ability during play, often forces different tools to be used.



How does this support your argument that AP play will always improve GMing skills?


Scott Christian said:


> Maybe it is just me, but I have never seen a GM write an encounter, then change it before hand, unless the context absolutely warranted it. (Such as the wizard started a huge forest fire, so now the area they were going is burning or burnt.) But, I have seen a hundred GMs change encounters or scenes that other people have written.



I'm not certain that you could notice this, in a game, so the observation seems very flawed.  How would you tell if a GM altered an encounter of their own design at some point prior to presenting it?  I mean, heck, in the context of this very thread, there are entire play styles that don't prep at all and yet achieve strong setting engagement.  This argument doesn't even make sense for a game like Blades in the Dark.  I'm not really sure it makes more sense for D&D, though.


----------



## prabe

Scott Christian said:


> You don't think that it is easier/harder to spot and create an alternative to ones own writing versus another person's?



I think that if one is working up adventures specifically for the party one's GMing for, one is less likely to have to alter them to fit the context they're going into, before the session. This is the sort of alteration that seems most-common in published adventures.

I agree with @Fenris-77 that roughly any decent GM should be able to edit an encounter on the fly, whether it's from a published product or scribbled notes.


Scott Christian said:


> I get that one of the skills a GM needs is assessment. And the use of that ability, when applied before play, is to write an alternative. The use of that ability during play, often forces different tools to be used.



I agree that there's a difference between recognizing that an encounter is wrong beforehand, and doing so during play. I don't agree that homebrew GMs don't change things between the page and the table.


Scott Christian said:


> Maybe it is just me, but I have never seen a GM write an encounter, then change it before hand, unless the context absolutely warranted it. (Such as the wizard started a huge forest fire, so now the area they were going is burning or burnt.) But, I have seen a hundred GMs change encounters or scenes that other people have written.



I've edited encounters on the fly in my 5E games, and between sessions; I'm running entirely homebrew adventures. Heck, if something comes up that's not an encounter that makes more sense than my notes, I'll change it (if it's not inconsistent with prior events, of course).


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> Having to change things doesn't necessarily teach you anything -- it's the ability to recognize that it needs change, why it needs change, and how it needs change that's the important skill set. Presumably, this is _already_ an input to your own design efforts, so the comparison here is flawed.



The comparison isn't flawed. It is asking, which you answered in your statement, which item, your own design or another's, would be easier to find a flaw. And the answer is another's. The implication that you feel you have already corrected your own designs (Presumably, this is _already_ an input to your own design efforts) shows that you have fewer errors in your own designs. Therefore, fewer tools on the toolbelt need to be used. And in the end, fewer skills practiced (or needed on the fly) because things are already smoothed over.


Ovinomancer said:


> How does this support your argument that AP play will always improve GMing skills?



I wrote two very specific examples. Examples that would be less likely to surface were one to play through something they created. These examples demonstrated skills that might be used and practiced, even to a well seasoned GM. 


Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not certain that you could notice this, in a game, so the observation seems very flawed. How would you tell if a GM altered an encounter of their own design at some point prior to presenting it? I mean, heck, in the context of this very thread, there are entire play styles that don't prep at all and yet achieve strong setting engagement. This argument doesn't even make sense for a game like Blades in the Dark. I'm not really sure it makes more sense for D&D, though.



To be fair, maybe for a lot of tables they would not notice it. But almost every GM I play with, we talk shop. We discuss what the original plan was, what the original encounter was, how things were altered, where it came from, alternatives they had in mind but didn't use, etc. I don't know, but for me that is kind of fun. But, you are right. I do not think most players would really know.


----------



## Scott Christian

prabe said:


> I agree that there's a difference between recognizing that an encounter is wrong beforehand, and doing so during play. I don't agree that homebrew GMs don't change things between the page and the table.



Fair enough, and thinking about specific examples, I believe you are correct. I do think the number of changes might be higher with APs than homebrew though. But, I am open to being wrong. 


prabe said:


> I've edited encounters on the fly in my 5E games, and between sessions; I'm running entirely homebrew adventures. Heck, if something comes up that's not an encounter that makes more sense than my notes, I'll change it (if it's not inconsistent with prior events, of course).



This goes into a GM style more than anything. Some GMs can do that well, others can't. The ones that can't either recognize it, or continue down a path that is not following their strength. At least, that has been my experience.


----------



## Umbran

Scott Christian said:


> The implication that you feel you have already corrected your own designs (Presumably, this is _already_ an input to your own design efforts) shows that you have fewer errors in your own designs.




If this were true, authors would not need editors.  And, by all that is holy, authors do need editors.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> The comparison isn't flawed. It is asking, which you answered in your statement, which item, your own design or another's, would be easier to find a flaw. And the answer is another's. The implication that you feel you have already corrected your own designs (Presumably, this is _already_ an input to your own design efforts) shows that you have fewer errors in your own designs. Therefore, fewer tools on the toolbelt need to be used. And in the end, fewer skills practiced (or needed on the fly) because things are already smoothed over.



I'm still at the point that you're strongly recommending GMs learn from APs because they're more likely to find flaws in the AP.  

That aside, your argument is still pretty flawed.  The skills needed to prevent flaws are the same ones you're recommending people learn.  You use more tools if you're ahead of the curve, not less.  


Scott Christian said:


> I wrote two very specific examples. Examples that would be less likely to surface were one to play through something they created. These examples demonstrated skills that might be used and practiced, even to a well seasoned GM.



The skills were used and practiced -- in the encounter design.  You're discounting good design work on the one hand, and then saying that doing good design work when fixing bad designs is how you use and practice good GMing.  You can't have it both ways -- either design is important or it is not.  Why you engage in that design work doesn't increase the skill involved.


Scott Christian said:


> To be fair, maybe for a lot of tables they would not notice it. But almost every GM I play with, we talk shop. We discuss what the original plan was, what the original encounter was, how things were altered, where it came from, alternatives they had in mind but didn't use, etc. I don't know, but for me that is kind of fun. But, you are right. I do not think most players would really know.



Right, the only way you'd know is if the GM tells you.  Even if you ask, the changes aren't necessarily going to come up.  When I do a design, it's often an iterative process, where I try things until I find the right setup.  Often, though, I can short circuit this because I've done it before and have a handy set of guidelines I can use to quickly create an exciting scene.  This means little change is needed, but not because I'm not practicing my skills but because I've already done that practice, and I'm using the results to not have to do so much work.  Your argument boils down to suggesting that poor AP design that requires fixing because it wasn't well designed to begin with is more valuable for teaching good GMing than the long practice and lessons learned that go into a GM's own designs.  And your metric is just changes.  This is a flawed approach -- you're discarding the very thing you're claiming to build up -- good GMing skills!


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I find play reports even for my games are turned into a more story like form so it is hard to judge without actually watching.



If you look at my actual play posts you will see that they are not "stories". They are recounts, as best I can recall after the event, of how the session unfolded.



Emerikol said:


> you seem hell bent on defining exactly why I don't like something and denying the reasons I give.



This is odd. Because when I invited you to engage with actual play posts you said that you won't. So how do you know you would find those games trite/shallow? Which you seem hell bent on asserting!

What I read when I see you saying _the setting is trite_ is simply that _Emerikol doesn't enjoy a setting that he has to contribute to_. I don't know quite how you fit that preference with the fact that you probably name your own PC (a very "dissociated" player move) and probably sometimes start your PC with an equipment list without actually playing out the acquisition of that equipment. But everyone has their idiosyncrasies.



Emerikol said:


> I think people like me are at heart explorers.  They want to learn about a new world and explore it.  It's a big motivation.  They also want to achieve something by dint of their skill as players.  So they feel they "earned" their PC's greatness.
> 
> Gygax speaks to this a lot in the 1e DMG.



I have posted about this approach to play probably more than anyone else on these boards. I call it _playing to find out what is in the GM's notes._ The play process consists in the player's making moves with their PCs which oblige the GM to provide the players with information from the GM's notes: this is how the players "learn about a new world" (information) by "exploring it" (making moves that trigger the GM to provide that information).

In my own experience - of reading setting material and reading accounts of this sort of play and occasionally seeing it in action - the worlds themselves are rarely very deep. Sometimes they are quite detailed though.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> If the DM just decides that going left instead of right would be more fun and to hell with the underlying content that is a decision and it works for some people.  It won't work for those who really embrace my style.   In my style, failure and setbacks are more common.  It feels a bit more like real life in that sense.   The party knows the DM is not going to bail them out or twist things around to make it all work out.
> 
> Here is an example from years ago.  Now in those days I was not nearly the world builder I am today so keep that in mind.  This example is laser focused on one point.   I had a group going through the Giants.  There is a room where the King lives, I believe it is the frost giant G2 module, that has a secret escape door that the King would use if threatened.   The party had foolishly alerted and attracted pretty much every giant in the place and they were being hunted in force.  They had managed to dispatch the King though.  They realized though they were going to die almost certainly but they decided to search the room to see if there was any place they could hide.   They found the kings secret door and used it to escape the dungeon.
> 
> Now, if I had handwaved that escape route to enable the players to survive, I would have broke faith.  They would not have enjoyed it nor would it have been a story.  Now is it theoretically possible I could lie to them and try to keep it a secret?  I guess so but that is a lousy way to live life.   The fact they were saved by chance but chance that was real in the world made a difference.



Here, you contrast how you prefer to play RPGs with GM-driven railroads.

The stuff you say here doesn't say anything about the difference between your preferred play and "protagonistic" play of the sort @innerdude, @Manbearcat and some other posters are describing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I have posted about this approach to play probably more than anyone else on these boards. I call it _playing to find out what is in the GM's notes._ The play process consists in the player's making moves with their PCs which oblige the GM to provide the players with information from the GM's notes: this is how the players "learn about a new world" (information) by "exploring it" (making moves that trigger the GM to provide that information).
> 
> In my own experience - of reading setting material and reading accounts of this sort of play and occasionally seeing it in action - the worlds themselves are rarely very deep. Sometimes they are quite detailed though.




My experience is when people coin a term to describe a playtstyle they dislike or don't want to engage in, their analysis of said playstyle is usually the thing that isn't very deep


----------



## pemerton

Scott Christian said:


> almost every GM I play with, we talk shop. We discuss what the original plan was, what the original encounter was, how things were altered, where it came from, alternatives they had in mind but didn't use, etc.



This seems to assume a very specific point of the GM's notes: _to describe imaginary events which will occur in the fiction_. AD&D 2nd ed modules are full of notes of this sort.

As @Ovinomancer said, there are other RPGs that don't use this technique at all.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> My experience is when people coin a term to describe a playtstyle they dislike or don't want to engage in, their analysis of said playstyle is usually the thing that isn't very deep



Thanks for that powerful observation!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Like the thread title asks: what is the point of GM's notes?
> 
> GM's notes can be pretty varied in their content - descriptions of imaginary places; mechanical labels and categories applied to imaginary people or imaginary phenomena; descriptions or lists of imaginary events, some of which are imagined to have already happened relative to the fiction of play and some of which are imagined as yet to happen relative that fiction.
> 
> So there may be more than one answer to this question.
> 
> Also, it's obvious that GM's notes are not essential to play a RPG. So any answer has to be more precise than just _to facilitate RPG play_.
> 
> (This thread was provoked by some of what I read here: D&D 5E - Do You Prefer Sandbox or Party Level Areas In Your Game World?. But I thought a new thread seemed warranted.)




There isn't a single purpose to GM notes. The purpose varies from group to group, GM to GM, style to style. They can be things set in stone, they can be starting points, they can be things expected to take a shape of their own as the campaign unfolds, they can be placeholder until the GM gets a better idea of things during play. Totally depends on what people are at the table to experience and how the GM's mind (and memory) works


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Thanks for that powerful observation!



You are welcome. I ate my spinach today


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> There isn't a single purpose to GM notes. The purpose varies from group to group, GM to GM, style to style.



Yes. The OP notes this. As you quoted, it says _there may be more than one answer to this question_.



Bedrockgames said:


> They can be things set in stone, they can be starting points, they can be things expected to take a shape of their own as the campaign unfolds, they can be placeholder until the GM gets a better idea of things during play. Totally depends on what people are at the table to experience and how the GM's mind (and memory) works



OK. The thread is about elaborating on some of these points.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Yes. The OP notes this. As you quoted, it says _there may be more than one answer to this question_.
> 
> 
> OK. The thread is about elaborating on some of these points.




I was actually interested when I saw the thread, then the first post of yours I saw was you conduction the same playstyle attacks using a veneer of intellectual curiosity. You've taken your main critique of play styles you don't like and made a thread about it


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I was actually interested when I saw the thread, then the first post of yours I saw was you conduction the same playstyle attacks using a veneer of intellectual curiosity. You've taken your main critique of play styles you don't like and made a thread about it




I don’t see how you can pull that from the neutral framing of the lead post.

And I don’t see how you can pull that from the conversation that has since been generated by multiple participants.

Personally, I’ve discussed:

* How paucity of notes opens up the play space and leads to authority distribution in a “play to find out” game like Dungeon World.

* How map & key notes in Moldvay Basic Delving constrain the play space so Skilled Play can be derived.

* How Faction Clock notes focus and propel play and aid in authority distribution (in a way that is different than Dungeon Workd) in Sandbox Play like Blades in the Dark.

* How PC build cues that focus on dramatic need are effectively “GM notes” such that they trigger the GM to make moves and frame conflicts that provoke/engage with those PC dramatic needs.


That is a lot of variety in the ways notes orient play (triggered by the lead post).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I don’t see how you can pull that from the neutral framing of the lead post.
> 
> And I don’t see how you can pull that from the conversation that has since been generated by multiple participants.




The lead post wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about the first post I responded to here, where it looked like the same old "gaming to discover what's in the GMs notes" critique Pemerton always leverages at people who play things like a more traditional sandbox or living world (it is a simplistic and reductive criticism: and it is a playstyle attack disguised as inquiry IMO).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Personally, I’ve discussed:
> 
> * How paucity of notes opens up the play space and leads to authority distribution in a “play to find out” game like Dungeon World.
> 
> * How map & key notes in Moldvay Basic Delving constrain the play space so Skilled Play can be derived.
> 
> * How Faction Clock notes focus and propel play and aid in authority distribution (in a way that is different than Dungeon Workd) in Sandbox Play like Blades in the Dark.
> 
> * How PC build cues that focus on dramatic need are effectively “GM notes” such that they trigger the GM to make moves and frame conflicts that provoke/engage with those PC dramatic needs.
> 
> 
> That is a lot of variety in the ways notes orient play (triggered by the lead post).




I wasn't objecting to your points about notes.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> My experience is when people coin a term to describe a playtstyle they dislike or don't want to engage in, their analysis of said playstyle is usually the thing that isn't very deep




I've posted a lot of stuff in this thread, but I'm pretty confident this was another thing I posted about.

There are multiple forms of Adventure Path or Metaplot-driven play.

Two of those forms are, in fact, Railroads.  The point of play is for it to be a Railroad.  We (the cultural "we" here) would do ourselves a service if we just admitted what it is and that (a) its not a degenerate form of play in and of itself (its only degenerate if its represented as something else and/or the participants are expecting a different form of play), (b) therefore calling it a "Railroad" is not pernicious, (c) it is (in fact) desirable for a large number of players, (d) so therefore it would behoove us to talk plainly about it so GMs can improve their craft.

One of those two forms is basically a passive, theatrical experience for the players where funneled play triggers prescripted exposition dumps.  In this case, GMs need to be good at (i) funneling toward that prescription, (ii) knowing when the prescripted exposition dump is triggered, and (iii) theatrically delivering the triggered exposition dump.

The second of those two forms is Adventure Path as Skilled Play (similar to Gloomhaven or a CRPG).  Teams play through the AP in basically a "keep score" fashion (even if they're just "keeping score" with their expectation of self).  In this form of play the GM needs to be good at (i) - (iii) above though the expectation of theatricality is comparatively muted.  Less important than theatricality in exposition is (iv) the ability to deliver the puzzle/obstacle information sufficiently (revealing enough but not leading in a way that impacts Skilled Play) and (v) play "Team NPC" aggressively but fairly.  (iv) and (v) become even more important if this is a tourney-esque scenario (like at a Hobby Shop) where you're going to run multiple Teams through it and they can compare and contrast their success (their "Score").


These are two discrete forms of play that are very _"reveal what is in the GM's notes"-intensive._

Not all notes are like this or for this...but these two forms of play are orthodox D&D (there are other forms of D&D, but these aren't remotely deviant forms of D&D...they're everywhere).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I've posted a lot of stuff in this thread, but I'm pretty confident this was another thing I posted about.
> 
> There are multiple forms of Adventure Path or Metaplot-driven play.
> 
> Two of those forms are, in fact, Railroads.  The point of play is for it to be a Railroad.  We (the cultural "we" here) would do ourselves a service if we just admitted what it is and that (a) its not a degenerate form of play in and of itself (its only degenerate if its represented as something else and/or the participants are expecting a different form of play), (b) therefore calling it a "Railroad" is not pernicious, (c) it is (in fact) desirable for a large number of players, (d) so therefore it would behoove us to talk plainly about it so GMs can improve their craft.
> 
> One of those two forms is basically a passive, theatrical experience for the players where funneled play triggers prescripted exposition dumps.  In this case, GMs need to be good at (i) funneling toward that prescription, (ii) knowing when the prescripted exposition dump is triggered, and (iii) theatrically delivering the triggered exposition dump.
> 
> The second of those two forms is Adventure Path as Skilled Play (similar to Gloomhaven or a CRPG).  Teams play through the AP in basically a "keep score" fashion (even if they're just "keeping score" with their expectation of self).  In this form of play the GM needs to be good at (i) - (iii) above though the expectation of theatricality is comparatively muted.  Less important than theatricality in exposition is (iv) the ability to deliver the puzzle/obstacle information sufficiently (revealing enough but not leading in a way that impacts Skilled Play) and (v) play "Team NPC" aggressively but fairly.  (iv) and (v) become even more important if this is a tourney-esque scenario (like at a Hobby Shop) where you're going to run multiple Teams through it and they can compare and contrast their success (their "Score").
> 
> 
> These are two discrete forms of play that are very _"reveal what is in the GM's notes"-intensive._
> 
> Not all notes are like this or for this...but these two forms of play are orthodox D&D (there are other forms of D&D, but these aren't remotely deviant forms of D&D...they're everywhere).




I feel we covered this ground in other conversations. My point is I think your analysis and mine are biased here. When we frame this in terms of degenerate play (a term I really despise), railroading, as playing to find out what’s in the GMs notes, especially when we are trying to analyze playstyles we don’t like (I don’t care for adventure paths and metaplot) it is a belittling label that I suspect most adherents of said styles would reject (even those practicing ‘degenerate play’ within those styles: will not be using this term again in this thread but invoking it so you are clear on what I am saying). I just think it is a little convenient that these kinds of labels tend fall conveniently around the parameters of ones own playstyle. I think a better term for metaphor and adventure path is linear structure and event based. Railroad can happen in ANY structure if the GM blocks choices or forces players to go a given direction. Even in a metaphor (*EDIT: metaplot*) driven adventure, the sham (*EDIT: GM*) can respect player agency and shape metaphor (*EDIT: metaplot*) around their choices (to honestly reflect their choices). Then it wouldn’t be a railroad.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> The lead post wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about the first post I responded to here, where it looked like the same old "gaming to discover what's in the GMs notes" critique Pemerton always leverages at people who play things like a more traditional sandbox or living world (it is a simplistic and reductive criticism: and it is a playstyle attack disguised as inquiry IMO).



I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes." And I do believe, though you may likely feel differently, that pemerton and others have sufficiently explained and justified how this descriptor applies to said procedures. I don't think that this play procedure under discussion is necessarily limited to your own preferred "traditional sandbox or living world" style games either, since this could also apply to AP play. And I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, as I am someone who also regularly plays and runs games where "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" would be an apt description, including traditional sandbox games. I also know that I'm not the only one who runs games on "both sides of the fence," so to speak. I'm not sure why I should be offended by pemerton's characterization of these games, though perhaps you can shed light on why I should be offended or I should construe this as a playstyle attack. 



Bedrockgames said:


> My experience is when people coin a term to describe a playtstyle they dislike or don't want to engage in, their analysis of said playstyle is usually the thing that isn't very deep



My experience is that passive-aggressive barbs like this do more harm than benefit for discussions. So I would suggest that the best way to move forward is to instead help with digging deeper in regards to the analysis rather than fishing for new ways to be offended by imaginary slights against your preferred playstyle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes."



My point is it isn't accurate. It is pejorative. I think you think you are describing something accurately but not seeing how your bias is shaping your analysis. A term like "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes' is not only dismissive, it is going to miss any nuance or variety going on in that style. Even the most heavy handed adventure path, which I am no fan of, is going to be more than just discovering what the GM has on the page because there is going to be life breathed into the scenario by the players. Again, I don't care for that style myself, I like sessions that are designed to go in all kinds of directions, but I understand from having played them and talking to people who do play them, the point isn't simply to find out what's in the notes. It is also a really weird way to describe the world building that the prep is doing. The bottom line to me is this: if your method of analysis is always just reassuring you that you style isn't something like simply 'playing to discover the GM's notes', you are probably not being objective as you think you are. It is such a sneering description of a playstyle


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> My experience is that passive-aggressive barbs like this do more harm than benefit for discussions. So I would suggest that the best way to move forward is to instead help with digging deeper in regards to the analysis rather than fishing for new ways to be offended by imaginary slights against your preferred playstyle.




This isn't passive aggressive this is a direct criticism of the discussion. And I think these kinds of playstyle attacks couched as analysis do deserve to be called out for what they are. And I am not even defending my playstyle. So far we've been talking about two playstyels I don't even like. I just don't think 'playing to discover the GM's notes' is a fair description of them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes." And I do believe, though you may likely feel differently, that pemerton and others have sufficiently explained and justified how this descriptor applies to said procedures. I don't think that this play procedure under discussion is necessarily limited to your own preferred "traditional sandbox or living world" style games either, since this could also apply to AP play. And I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, as I am someone who also regularly plays and runs games where "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" would be an apt description, including traditional sandbox games.




I wouldn't describe any three of these styles as playing to discover the GM's notes. And I've been in enough of these threads to understand it is a critique of the style from Pemerton (and many other posters). There are plenty of alternative adventure structures out there. Labeling them, analyzing them, and figuring out how to prepare for them is valuable. Whether you are talking event based, situation based, player driven, character driven, sandbox, linear adventure paths, etc understanding what they are actually trying to do and how to do them is useful. Finding dismissive terms for them isn't (especially when those terms totally miss the mark on what they are about). I could easily come up with similar terms for your preferred style, but I don't because it isn't really about accuracy or understanding when you do that, it is about shading a style with a bit of shame and making it sound less lofty. Period.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> My point is it isn't accurate. It is pejorative. I think you think you are describing something accurately but not seeing how your bias is shaping your analysis. A term like "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes' is not only dismissive, it is going to miss any nuance or variety going on in that style. Even the most heavy handed adventure path, which I am no fan of, is going to be more than just discovering what the GM has on the page because there is going to be life breathed into the scenario by the players. Again, I don't care for that style myself, I like sessions that are designed to go in all kinds of directions, but I understand from having played them and talking to people who do play them, the point isn't simply to find out what's in the notes. It is also a really weird way to describe the world building that the prep is doing. The bottom line to me is this: if your method of analysis is always just reassuring you that you style isn't something like simply 'playing to discover the GM's notes', you are probably not being objective as you think you are. It is such a sneering description of a playstyle



Your point was that you felt offended by pemerton's characterization of your preferred playstyle as "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes" and as such felt obligated to make that offense known through a passive aggressive remark against pemerton by implying that this analysis is shallow. It was hardly a deeper point than that. That said, if you don't think that your own biases are equally at play here, Bedrockgames, then I think you are sorely mistaken and also worth reflecting on. 



Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't passive aggressive this is a direct criticism of the discussion. And I think these kinds of playstyle attacks couched as analysis do deserve to be called out for what they are. And I am not even defending my playstyle. So far we've been talking about two playstyels I don't even like. I just don't think 'playing to discover the GM's notes' is a fair description of them.



Hmmm... or maybe you think you are describing something accurately as a "direct criticism of the discussion," but not seeing how your own bias is shaping the passive aggressive tone of your remarks. If you don't think something is a fair description, then I would suggest offering up with a fair description rather than making passive aggressive barbs and refusing to recognize them for what they were.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I wouldn't describe any three of these styles as playing to discover the GM's notes.



How would you describe them with greater accuracy then? If you then it's a pejorative, then please give them a suitably positive aphoristic term.



Bedrockgames said:


> And I've been in enough of these threads to understand it is a critique of the style from Pemerton (and many other posters).



If you've been in enough of these threads as you claim, then I would have hoped that you knew by now how to navigate them with more grace without raising Cain anytime there is a perceived slight against your preferred playstyle or making passive aggressive barbs. If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't repeatedly choose to engage these threads and should rather voluntarily avoid them as you are able. _Period. _


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I feel we covered this ground in other conversations. My point is I think your analysis and mine are biased here. When we frame this in terms of degenerate play (a term I really despise), railroading, as playing to find out what’s in the GMs notes, especially when we are trying to analyze playstyles we don’t like (I don’t care for adventure paths and metaplot) it is a belittling label that I suspect most adherents of said styles would reject (even those practicing ‘degenerate play’ within those styles: will not be using this term again in this thread but invoking it so you are clear on what I am saying). I just think it is a little convenient that these kinds of labels tend fall conveniently around the parameters of ones own playstyle. I think a better term for metaphor and adventure path is linear structure and event based. Railroad can happen in ANY structure if the GM blocks choices or forces players to go a given direction. Even in a metaphor (*EDIT: metaplot*) driven adventure, the sham (*EDIT: GM*) can respect player agency and shape metaphor (*EDIT: metaplot*) around their choices (to honestly reflect their choices). Then it wouldn’t be a railroad.




You need to read what I wrote again if this was your takeaway.

I mean...you could aptly describe what I wrote as:

“IN DEFENSE OF RAILROADS”

Framing degenerate play as it was used above wasn’t something to anchor a screed. It was used to defend purposeful, transparent Railroads from being included in the “Railroad as Epithet” bin (eg play specifically advertised as something else but actually being an undesired Railroad).

I mean, the inverse is also true:

Player sits down expecting a Railroad (as advertised)

< GM proceeds to run a Story Now game >

That is definitely degenerate play. It’s basically The Pea and Shell game or 3 Card Monty as RPGing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Your point was that you felt offended by pemerton's characterization of your preferred playstyle as "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes" and as such felt obligated to make that offense known through a passive aggressive remark against pemerton by implying that this analysis is shallow. It was hardly a deeper point than that. That said, if you don't think that your own biases are equally at play here, Bedrockgames, then I think you are sorely mistaken and also worth reflecting on.




No, my point wasn't that. I do indeed also disagree with characterizing sandboxes and living worlds as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. But my point was in response to labeling adventure paths and meta plot campaigns as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. And it isn't a passive aggressive remark, I am being very clear and direct in what I mean. Calling it discovering GMs notes is a pejorative, it isn't a label that accurately reflects anything, it is a critique. And I know it is because I've used it myself to describe adventure paths when I had been critical of them. However it is also a very shallow critique, reflecting subjective bad experiences with the playstyle. I've mentioned many times in the early 2000s, I was pretty tired of the whole structure of adventures being based around a series of encounters with EL's designed to get a certain pace. And my remark was I felt, I might as well just hand my players my notes because that is all this feels like. That was an honest sincere reaction to how I felt at the time. But it wasn't an analysis. You can't take that subjective feeling that I was just waiting for players to discover what is in my notes, and use it to create principles for a good adventure path, because for people who like adventure paths, for people who play them and enjoy them, people who run them, that isn't really the point. The notes are a tool, they are not an end unto itself. And I've talked enough with people who run these kinds of games to get that there is more going on in them than that. I even have to acknowledge back when I felt that way, what I was describing was only one aspect of the game that frustrated me. There were still a lot of areas of play where it wasn't like that at all. 

In terms of my own biases, absolutely I have them. Everyone has biases. That is why I have been trying more and more to not characterize play styles that aren't mine, without first understanding them from within and how people who play them and like them see them. This is why I am asking you guys for mechanics all the time (and I will point out I almost never get a response in these threads when I ask for a useful narrative mechanic or scene framing mechanic to use in my own campaign). It is also why in the past six months I've bought tons of RPGS, including many that have been mentioned in these threads (like Blades in the Dark), during debates about playstyle. It is also why I've moved more and more away from things like definitional arguments (where to take things from the other point of view, people promoting my preferred playstyle often define RPGs strictly in order to exclude more story focused play).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> How would you describe them with greater accuracy then? If you then it's a pejorative, then please give them a suitably positive aphoristic term.




Terms already exist: event based adventure, linear adventure, adventure path, sandbox, etc. All something like "Playing to discover what's in the GM's notes does" is add judgment on top of something we already have labels for


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> If you've been in enough of these threads as you claim, then I would have hoped that you knew by now how to navigate them with more grace without raising Cain anytime there is a perceived slight against your preferred playstyle or making passive aggressive barbs. If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't repeatedly choose to engage these threads and should rather voluntarily avoid them as you are able. _Period. _




I don't have to agree with you. And if I think something is shady rhetoric which I do think this is, then I think it is fair to point out


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> You need to read what I wrote again if this was your takeaway.
> 
> I mean...you could aptly describe what I wrote as:
> 
> “IN DEFENSE OF RAILROADS”
> 
> Framing degenerate play as it was used above wasn’t something to anchor a screed. It was used to defend purposeful, transparent Railroads from being included in the “Railroad as Epithet” bin (eg play specifically advertised as something else but actually being an undesired Railroad).
> 
> I mean, the inverse is also true:
> 
> Player sits down expecting a Railroad (as advertised)
> 
> < GM proceeds to run a Story Now game >
> 
> That is definitely degenerate play. It’s basically The Pea and Shell game or 3 Card Monty as RPGing.




I am having some trouble following this post Manbearcat. But my point was linear does not equal railroad. An adventure path isn't a railroad, it is a linear adventure. It becomes a railroad if you are not allowed to deviate from it. Plenty of GMs, use adventure path structures as a starting point, possibly an end point, but are fully open to the possibility that the game goes in other directions. This is a very common way to run adventure paths from what I have seen. Again, I really hate using the term degenerate for things like art, media and games. I really can't support its use here, but I think by the definition of that word you are using, this doesn't constitute degenerate play. People playing adventure paths know there is a path but there are also different attitudes from group to group, on how much you can deviate from that path. For most, deviating from it can be fine. Framing starting out as an adventure path and ending up with another kind of mode of play, whether that is story now, sandbox or something situational, is itself a problem I think. That is one of the things that makes RPGs great, there is a freedom to not be constrained by these structures.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imagine you’ve accepted an invite to a Sandbox game where damn near everything is nailed down beforehand. Loads of high resolution maps, fully fleshed out sites and fixed NPCs, and a node-based map detailing the interactions of all of the above.

You sit down and by the middle of session 2 you’re certain that none of the above is true. You’re in full-throated No Myth Story Now play where everything is emerging via play, people/places/conflicts accreting around PC dramatic need and player + GM + resolution mechanic interaction.

Degenerate play.

Just like if you signed up for a Sci Fi game and the GM ports the PCs to Narnia. Bait-and-switch. Pea and Shell. The game lost the desired qualities that it once had (or at least alleged to have). Degenerate.


----------



## Lanefan

innerdude said:


> The GM's construct of the "world," or the "fiction," or the "milieu," or whatever you want to call it, is just that---a construct. At what point is the construct "complete" enough for it to feel "real" to you?
> 
> Does there have to be detailed background information for every point or line drawn on the map of the world? Every city? Does every town need to have 20 fully realized NPCs before it will feel "real" to you? Do all 20 NPCs need to have fully realized daily schedules so you can roll on random tables to see if the PCs encounter them?
> 
> Does every nation-state in the world have to have a detailed 3,000 year history, with a list of kings, queens, regents before it will feel "real"?
> 
> And if not, what components of the construct do you decide is privileged / has primacy in making it "feel real" to you?
> 
> The thing of it is, a GM has to constantly generate off-the-cuff / in-the-moment "stuff to add to the fictional construct" no matter how much of the construct is prefabricated.
> 
> There's constant additions as the players interact with things in the world that simply didn't exist until the very moment the player says, "I look at / touch / act on X." It doesn't matter how much prefabrication happens beforehand, these situations still arise in every single moment of every single game session.
> 
> Yet somehow, a GM having to constantly make these spur-of-the-moment additions to the prefabricated construct don't make gameplay / the gameworld trite---but using a ruleset that systematically enables these additions coherently does?



IMO, yes.  Not because of the systematic enabling of additions, but because of - I can't think of the right words - what you're adding to?

A GM using a pre-made setting still has to improvise all the time, no argument there.  The thing to me is that having the pre-made setting in place allows (and if done well, even slightly forces) consistency in what one improvises such that it fits with whatever's already in place.  In a somewhat-floundering analogy, the pre-made setting is a wall - a wall in a solid house that's already passed building inspection - and the on-the-fly improv is a picture you're hanging on said wall.  The end result is a prettier room in a still-solid house.

My worries come when you're not just improvising the picture but the wall as well, and in fact the entire house.  How solid is it?  How consistent is it?  How reliable is it?  Unless you've got an incredible memory*, the only way to achieve this is by making notes for the future summarizing everything you improvised just now...which means all you've done is taken work that could have been done earlier and pushed it back (or foisted it onto the players, which I as a player would likely end up resenting); and you still end up with a pile of notes. 

* - I don't, and experience has taught me to put very little faith/trust in those who make this claim.


innerdude said:


> I mean, you're entitled to your own preference. But it's my impression that if you really analyzed your preference as stated ("I prefer the world to be largely prefabricated, because it feels more real to me"), that you'd find there's a lot of un-analyzed assumptions and process gaps around the nature of what all that "prefabricated world fiction stuff" is actually doing.
> 
> I know, because I once believed EXACTLY as you do. I used to believe that without a "fully realized," "coherent," pre-fabricated fictional milieu, that RPG play would consistently fall short of reaching my goals of "realism" and "immersion."



I don't suggest it has to be fully built down to the nth degree, but I do suggest that there needs to be enough of a framework in place to put everyone on the same page - the map and gazetteer shows and tells what's where and who's there, the history tells briefly how things got to how they are, etc.  These are the walls on which the pictures - the in-game improvisations and additions - can later be hung.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't passive aggressive this is a direct criticism of the discussion. And I think these kinds of playstyle attacks couched as analysis do deserve to be called out for what they are. And I am not even defending my playstyle. So far we've been talking about two playstyels I don't even like. I just don't think 'playing to discover the GM's notes' is a fair description of them.



It's not an accurate description of that playstyle, especially if you have proactive players.  The DMs notes may say that there are scattered barbarian tribes in the north, but I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes.  I'm playing to take over the Bear tribe and become chief.  Then I'm playing to merge the rest of the tribes into a cohesive barbarian host and lead them as we descend upon Silverymoon to loot it and raze it to the ground.  I guarantee you that there's nothing in the DMs notes about what I'm playing for.  His notes are there for our purposes, not just so that we can discover what's in them.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> His notes are there for our purposes, not just so that we can discover what's in them.



It sounds as though you're saying his notes are there so y'all can _change_ what's in them.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> It sounds as though you're saying his notes are there so y'all can _change_ what's in them.



Bend them to my will.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> If you've been in enough of these threads as you claim, then I would have hoped that you knew by now how to navigate them with more grace without raising Cain anytime there is a perceived slight against your preferred playstyle or making passive aggressive barbs. If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't repeatedly choose to engage these threads and should rather voluntarily avoid them as you are able. _Period. _



While this thread has contained some really great discussion, even on first reading the OP I saw the thread as being something of a trap; with the bait being the discussion's premise and the catch being another round of denigration of one playstyle and evangelism for another; a movie I've seen before.

Impressively, it took 17 pages before someone (not even me, for once!) set the trap off.

@Bedrockgames is merely pointing out its existence.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's not an accurate description of that playstyle, especially if you have proactive players.  The DMs notes may say that there are scattered barbarian tribes in the north, but I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes.  I'm playing to take over the Bear tribe and become chief.  Then I'm playing to merge the rest of the tribes into a cohesive barbarian host and lead them as we descend upon Silverymoon to loot it and raze it to the ground.  I guarantee you that there's nothing in the DMs notes about what I'm playing for.  His notes are there for our purposes, not just so that we can discover what's in them.




This is something I have tried to find words for in these discussions about playing to discover the GM's notes. And what is more, the GM is going to be responding by playing the NPCs and factions. They are not dead words on a page


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Imagine you’ve accepted an invite to a Sandbox game where damn near everything is nailed down beforehand. Loads of high resolution maps, fully fleshed out sites and fixed NPCs, and a node-based map detailing the interactions of all of the above.
> 
> You sit down and by the middle of session 2 you’re certain that none of the above is true. You’re in full-throated No Myth Story Now play where everything is emerging via play, people/places/conflicts accreting around PC dramatic need and player + GM + resolution mechanic interaction.
> 
> Degenerate play.
> 
> Just like if you signed up for a Sci Fi game and the GM ports the PCs to Narnia. Bait-and-switch. Pea and Shell. The game lost the desired qualities that it once had (or at least alleged to have). Degenerate.




The problem isn't play degenerating (and again I really think we shouldn't be adopting this term for RPG stuff, to describe a misalignment of expectations). The problem is you can't always predict the dynamics of a group before you play, language is imperfect for playing gaming conventions etc. Sometimes someone says "I am going to run a sandbox" and they mean something else. That happens. Sometimes someone sets out to run a sandbox but he or she discovers the players are really there for a dramatic story and so the GM shifts gears and adapts, accommodating the tastes of the players. You can do these things in an RPG. You can also get overly rigid about the expectations you are setting "We are going to play sandbox! Nothing more!". 

Also, minor point, your description of a sandbox isn't how I would see sandbox play myself (this idea of everything being nailed down before hand: which by the way is one of the reasons why I think there is so much disagreement about the GM's notes thing. There is world building, but you are not pinning things on the map, waiting to be discovered by the PCs: that is why language like world in motion, living adventure are 50% of the discussion in a sandbox). I don't usually use high res maps for the players (the maps are typically for the GM). I may simply not understand the term fully, but I wouldn't describe it as node based either (there are not preset paths I am putting down for players to discover: interactions are more spontaneous).


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> It sounds as though you're saying his notes are there so y'all can _change_ what's in them.




He is saying the note is just describing details in the world as a snapshot. Once you play begins everything is moving. One of the places where I first encountered this idea, though I know it existed prior, is Feast of Goblyns. I called this idea Living Adventure (they called it a wandering major encounter in FoG---but you can see how that leads to all kinds of other things if you explore it). This is one of the reasons it is a little frustrating to see these kinds of details described as playing to find out what is in the GMs notes. The GM might not even know what's in his notes once play starts and NPCs take on a life of their own:


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> He is saying the note is just describing details in the world as a snapshot. Once you play begins everything is moving. One of the places where I first encountered this idea, though I know it existed prior, is Feast of Goblyns. I called this idea Living Adventure (they called it a wandering major encounter in FoG---but you can see how that leads to all kinds of other things if you explore it). This is one of the reasons it is a little frustrating to see these kinds of details described as playing to find out what is in the GMs notes. The GM might not even know what's in his notes once play starts and NPCs take on a life of their own:
> 
> View attachment 134748
> View attachment 134749



Well, yes. There's a reasonable argument that the reason stuff exists in the setting is for the PCs to interact with it, and (probably) change it. There's also a reasonable argument that before the PCs can change something they have to find it, or find out it exists. I think the difference between those arguments is the difference between some people saying the point of a given game is to find out what's in the GM's notes, and other people saying the first people are missing the point.

I'm not surprised that elements of this argument go way, way back. Seems as though most of the major arguments in TRPGs do.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> @Bedrockgames is merely pointing out its existence.



Nah. That's not what he was doing at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Well, yes. There's a reasonable argument that the reason stuff exists in the setting is for the PCs to interact with it, and (probably) change it.




More than that, the stuff on the page can change before the players interact with it because this stuff can all be living, moving elements in the setting


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Nah. That's not what he was doing at all.




I believe that is what I was doing.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I believe that is what I was doing.



Through snide passive aggressive insults and some veiled personal attacks? How noble of you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Through snide passive aggressive insults and some veiled personal attacks? How noble of you.




I was very direct in critiquing the OP. There is nothing passive aggressive here. I am describing what I have seen play out in these threads around the concept of "playing to discover what is in the GM's notes".


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm still at the point that you're strongly recommending GMs learn from APs because they're more likely to find flaws in the AP.
> 
> That aside, your argument is still pretty flawed. The skills needed to prevent flaws are the same ones you're recommending people learn. You use more tools if you're ahead of the curve, not less.



I think I see the error here. (It might be my communication.) The skills needed to prevent flaws are _different_ than the ones used on the fly when finding flaws. At least, that is my take. 


Ovinomancer said:


> The skills were used and practiced -- in the encounter design. You're discounting good design work on the one hand, and then saying that doing good design work when fixing bad designs is how you use and practice good GMing. You can't have it both ways -- either design is important or it is not. Why you engage in that design work doesn't increase the skill involved.



Maybe you are misunderstanding. I am not dissing design work at all. I am saying, that when a GM uses an AP, they use and _sometimes practice_ different skills that they would not use in adventures of their own design. Hence, my original claim, that APs can teach young and experienced GMs alike. It can create new tools and/or remind a GM of tools they haven't used in a long time.


Ovinomancer said:


> Right, the only way you'd know is if the GM tells you. Even if you ask, the changes aren't necessarily going to come up. When I do a design, it's often an iterative process, where I try things until I find the right setup. *Often, though, I can short circuit this because I've done it before and have a handy set of guidelines I can use to quickly create an exciting scene.* This means little change is needed, but not because I'm not practicing my skills but because I've already done that practice, and I'm using the results to not have to do so much work.



This is exactly my point. The difference between your creation and an AP is different, and sometimes those differences use different skill sets. So the experienced GM that has used their own material for twenty years might experience something brand new (or relived or re-experienced) when running an AP as is.


----------



## Scott Christian

Umbran said:


> If this were true, authors would not need editors.  And, by all that is holy, authors do need editors.



How does what I said mean authors do not need editors? That makes zero sense.

What I said is people who write, and are confident in their abilities, _believe _they need fewer editorial adjustments. And this can be found in a multitude of authors throughout every genre and and every style. And it can definitely be found in a GM that wrote something for _their _players and _their _table, versus a traditional published piece. 

To restate the piece I was discussing: Ovinomancer believed his written adventure needed fewer adjustments than a traditional AP that has been published.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This is something I have tried to find words for in these discussions about playing to discover the GM's notes. And what is more, the GM is going to be responding by playing the NPCs and factions. They are not dead words on a page



Yeah.  Done right, the playstyle is the DM entirely reacting to what the players are doing, but doing so with the prepped game world.  The DM is not leading the players, the players are leading the DM.


----------



## prabe

Scott Christian said:


> Ovinomancer believed his written adventure needed fewer adjustments than a traditional AP that has been published.



I'm inclined to believe him. Not because I think @Ovinomancer is better at designing adventures than whoever designed that AP, but because when he designed his own adventure, he did it (I presume) taking into account the PCs and how they're being played, the players' play style/s, his own GMing style, table preferences and expectations, and such. The odds of a published adventure fitting his table as well as one he wrote seem to approach 0.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I was very direct in critiquing the OP. There is nothing passive aggressive here. I am describing what I have seen play out in these threads around the concept of "playing to discover what is in the GM's notes".



I see it, too.  It's something that particular poster has a history of doing.


----------



## Scott Christian

pemerton said:


> This seems to assume a very specific point of the GM's notes: _to describe imaginary events which will occur in the fiction_. AD&D 2nd ed modules are full of notes of this sort.
> 
> As @Ovinomancer said, there are other RPGs that don't use this technique at all.



And I stated two times in that discussion, that I do not believe all players talk shop with their GM. I do. It is fun. The only reason I brought it up is because I was questioned on how I would know if something is changed. I know it has been changed. Why? Because I discuss the adventure with my GMs. Maybe it is because I am an experienced GM. But we talk. Sometimes for hours - about the entire campaign.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> I think I see the error here. (It might be my communication.) The skills needed to prevent flaws are _different_ than the ones used on the fly when finding flaws. At least, that is my take.



The skills need to prevent flaws are predicated on the ones to find flaws.  If I'm preventing flaws, its because I can already recognize them.  You cannot prevent flaws (effectively) if you cannot find them.


Scott Christian said:


> Maybe you are misunderstanding. I am not dissing design work at all. I am saying, that when a GM uses an AP, they use and _sometimes practice_ different skills that they would not use in adventures of their own design. Hence, my original claim, that APs can teach young and experienced GMs alike. It can create new tools and/or remind a GM of tools they haven't used in a long time.



There are two things going on here.  Firstly, the ability to recognize flaws that need to be fixed isn't something that is special to APs.  You've introduced that APs are special because they have more(?) chances of being flawed and therefore a GM learns more about recognizing flaws.  This isn't clear because work done by a GM for their own games has already done this pass -- there are fewer flaws to recognize in play because the GM has already done most of this work in design.  There's nothing unique about APs, except maybe the higher likelihood of poor design for a given GM's game.

Secondly, you're advocating for APs as teaching new tools.  This is flawed because you must already be good enough at GMing to recognize when an AP is doing something clever and worth learning and when it's doing something badly than needs correction.  The skill to recognize these things is not taught by APs, it's actually harmed by them, because there's the assumption that the AP is actually well-designed and so emulating all of it is something you should do.  And, perhaps it is, for a given table, but there's nothing in the AP that teaches this especially over things generated by a GM.  What I mean here is that it's just as likely for a GM to learn that things do or don't work with their own material as it is with an AP.

The presumed value of an AP is that the GM has less work to do to run a game that is presumably well-designed.  I find most APs are full of very specific approaches that don't suit a number of tables, and that this isn't apparent at all.  There's a reason why there are so many threads on fixing APs and/or blogs that do the same -- they dissect the adventure with the eye of an experienced GM and show how the adventure is poorly designed in places and how it might be modified.  If the APs taught this easily, as you claim, then the need for these threads/blogs would be reduced and they wouldn't be as popular as they are.  Except, they proliferate.


Scott Christian said:


> This is exactly my point. The difference between your creation and an AP is different, and sometimes those differences use different skill sets. So the experienced GM that has used their own material for twenty years might experience something brand new (or relived or re-experienced) when running an AP as is.



Yes, a poorly designed game that shows the GM why they long ago learned to not do that.  Like the opening of Descent, where the PCs are pressganged during a scene where an NPC gets a whole scene as to how awesome they are, and then threatened with death unless they do the adventure for the NPC.  This is absolutely terrible design -- the worst of railroading and Force.  It utterly strips any attachment you might have built with the players to the adventure and makes it adversarial.  And, the fun thing is that the adventure is written as if the players as supposed to like this, and be friendly with the NPC threatening them and press-ganging them.  It's absolutely terrible!  I learned nothing from this, because I had to completely rewrite the start of this AP so that it doesn't immediately send my players into adversarial mode.

APs are not, in any way, unique or special in how they can let a GM learn.  Most GMs learn more when they go off and do their own stuff, and not from APs.  Is there a possibility a GM can learn something from an AP?  Sure.  But, they aren't particularly good teachers, on average.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> And I stated two times in that discussion, that I do not believe all players talk shop with their GM. I do. It is fun. The only reason I brought it up is because I was questioned on how I would know if something is changed. I know it has been changed. Why? Because I discuss the adventure with my GMs. Maybe it is because I am an experienced GM. But we talk. Sometimes for hours - about the entire campaign.



I don't see how this illuminates anything, or is at all presumed to be normal.  This is your experience, and not universal.  However, to leverage this, is your GM a good GM?  What skill from an AP do you think your GM could learn, specifically?


----------



## Umbran

Scott Christian said:


> How does what I said mean authors do not need editors? That makes zero sense.
> 
> What I said is people who write, and are confident in their abilities, _believe _they need fewer editorial adjustments.




Yeah.  And I'm just opining that they'd often be wrong in that assessment.  Authors tend to be a bit blind to the flaws in their own work.



Scott Christian said:


> And it can definitely be found in a GM that wrote something for _their _players and _their _table, versus a traditional published piece.




I don't argue that a GM can't target their own players better than a published work can.  But I don't expect targeting is as large an issue in the broad scheme of things.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> The lead post wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about the first post I responded to here, where it looked like the same old "gaming to discover what's in the GMs notes" critique Pemerton always leverages at people who play things like a more traditional sandbox or living world (it is a simplistic and reductive criticism: and it is a playstyle attack disguised as inquiry IMO).



You seem to confuse _description _with _critique_. Also, you may note that I was responding to a post that referred to other peoples' games being _trite and shallow_. Obviously that's the sort of playstyle critique you don't find objectionable!


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It's not an accurate description of that playstyle, especially if you have proactive players.  The DMs notes may say that there are scattered barbarian tribes in the north, but I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes.  I'm playing to take over the Bear tribe and become chief.  Then I'm playing to merge the rest of the tribes into a cohesive barbarian host and lead them as we descend upon Silverymoon to loot it and raze it to the ground.  I guarantee you that there's nothing in the DMs notes about what I'm playing for.  His notes are there for our purposes, not just so that we can discover what's in them.



How would you declare any of those actions if you hadn't first learned what was written in the GM's notes?

EDIT: @prabe made the point before I did:



prabe said:


> There's a reasonable argument that the reason stuff exists in the setting is for the PCs to interact with it, and (probably) change it. There's also a reasonable argument that before the PCs can change something they have to find it, or find out it exists.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> More than that, the stuff on the page can change before the players interact with it because this stuff can all be living, moving elements in the setting



That just sounds like changing what is written on the page. More notes, or different notes, don't make notes not notes.


----------



## pemerton

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames, here is the post that I replied to:



Emerikol said:


> I think people like me are at heart explorers.  They want to learn about a new world and explore it.  It's a big motivation.





pemerton said:


> I have posted about this approach to play probably more than anyone else on these boards. I call it playing to find out what is in the GM's notes. The play process consists in the player's making moves with their PCs which oblige the GM to provide the players with information from the GM's notes: this is how the players "learn about a new world" (information) by "exploring it" (making moves that trigger the GM to provide that information).



Where is the unfairness or pejorative in what I say. In a GMed RPG, _what else_ would "exploring" and "learning about a new world" consist in?

Here are some posts from Maxperson:


Maxperson said:


> It's not an accurate description of that playstyle, especially if you have proactive players.  The DMs notes may say that there are scattered barbarian tribes in the north, but I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes.  I'm playing to take over the Bear tribe and become chief.  Then I'm playing to merge the rest of the tribes into a cohesive barbarian host and lead them as we descend upon Silverymoon to loot it and raze it to the ground.  I guarantee you that there's nothing in the DMs notes about what I'm playing for.  His notes are there for our purposes, not just so that we can discover what's in them.





Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  Done right, the playstyle is the DM entirely reacting to what the players are doing, but doing so with the prepped game world.  The DM is not leading the players, the players are leading the DM.



The two of you seem to assume that these describe the same thing that @Emerikol described. Why? To me they seem to be describing something quite different. Emerikol says _I want to learn about a new world and explore it_. Maxperson says _I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes_. Those look like contradictory descriptions, not synonymous ones.

It seems relevant to this that Emerikol's approach _depends upon_ there being pre-authored notes, where Maxperson's does not and seems like it would be equally well-served by "no myth" RPGing.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> How would you declare any of those actions if you hadn't first learned what was written in the GM's notes?
> 
> EDIT: @prabe made the point before I did:



It doesn't matter.  The game still isn't about discovering the DM's notes.  Will you discover some of them?  Sure.  Will you bend them to your will and force the DM to respond to YOUR actions and YOUR desires?  Absolutely(if you're at all proactive).  The game is about the players self-oriented goals, not the subservient component of the DM's notes.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, @Bedrockgames, here is the post that I replied to:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the unfairness or pejorative in what I say. In a GMed RPG, _what else_ would "exploring" and "learning about a new world" consist in?
> 
> Here are some posts from Maxperson:
> 
> 
> The two of you seem to assume that these describe the same thing that @Emerikol described. Why? To me they seem to be describing something quite different. Emerikol says _I want to learn about a new world and explore it_. Maxperson says _I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes_. Those look like contradictory descriptions, not synonymous ones.
> 
> It seems relevant to this that Emerikol's approach _depends upon_ there being pre-authored notes, where Maxperson's does not and seems like it would be equally well-served by "no myth" RPGing.



I'm willing to bet that if I were in @Emerikol's game and I "discovered" those barbarians, he'd let me attempt my goals as I described above.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I'm willing to bet that if I were in @Emerikol's game and I "discovered" those barbarians, he'd let me attempt my goals as I described above.



How does this respond to my point? Which was that "Emerikol says _I want to learn about a new world and explore it_. Maxperson says _I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes_. Those look like contradictory descriptions, not synonymous ones."


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> How does this respond to my point? Which was that "Emerikol says _I want to learn about a new world and explore it_. Maxperson says _I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes_. Those look like contradictory descriptions, not synonymous ones."



Nothing contradictory about it.  HE wants to learn about the world and explore it.  Those are his CHOSEN(not DM notes) goals.  The DM notes don't control him, either.  HE gets to decide where and what he is looking for.  Maybe he will find it.  Maybe he won't.  But in any case the DM has to respond to his goals and actions.  The DM's notes are subservient to those.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> How does this respond to my point? Which was that "Emerikol says _I want to learn about a new world and explore it_. Maxperson says _I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes_. Those look like contradictory descriptions, not synonymous ones."



I suspect the issue is that "GM's notes" has been associated with "outcomes the GM wants," and the argument flows from this very specific version of "GM's notes."  Any points made to show that there's still plenty of GM's notes being explored will likely be met with some response predicated on this construct of GM's notes as planned outcomes.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Nothing contradictory about it.  HE wants to learn about the world and explore it.  Those are his CHOSEN(not DM notes) goals.  The DM notes don't control him, either.  HE gets to decide where and what he is looking for.  Maybe he will find it.  Maybe he won't.  But in any case the DM has to respond to his goals and actions.  The DM's notes are subservient to those.



What would _the world _consist in, if not matters set out in the GM's notes? @Emerikol has made it quite clear that he won't like it if the GM just makes it up.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> I suspect the issue is that "GM's notes" has been associated with "outcomes the GM wants," and the argument flows from this very specific version of "GM's notes."



In the OP I distinguished "descriptions of imaginary places; mechanical labels and categories applied to imaginary people or imaginary phenomena; descriptions or lists of imaginary events, some of which are imagined to have already happened relative to the fiction of play and some of which are imagined as yet to happen relative that fiction".

It is clearly the first of those that is especially salient in @Emerikol's case, though I suspect the others also figure in his RPGing.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> What would _the world _consist in, if not matters set out in the GM's notes? @Emerikol has made it quite clear that he won't like it if the GM just makes it up.



It doesn't matter if the world is made up of the DM's notes.  The DM's notes are subservient to the players' goals.  I(and Emerikol) get to use those notes for our purposes, not the DMs.  We are not playing to discover what he wrote down.  Unless such discovery is part of the goals WE set.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't matter if the world is made up of the DM's notes.  The DM's notes are subservient to the players' goals.  I(and Emerikol) get to use those notes for our purposes, not the DMs.  We are not playing to discover what he wrote down.  Unless such discovery is part of the goals WE set.




You're starting a new game as a Fighter in a BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl game.

You were beseeched (and paid) by the last surviving member of a caravan (a merchant) to explore a ruin to the SE.  The merchant believes their guards and goods were taken there by the ambushers.  

You go.  

You uncover some horrible truth with grave implications in the delving.

You return and head directly to the palace to request an audience with the king.  After earnestly parleying with the Chamberlain, you're rebuffed (no dice are rolled).



The city where you meet the merchant = _GM Notes_.

The merchant and his/her story = _GM Notes_.

The parley with and acceptance of the merchant's pleading/offer = _Player decision-point._

What equipment or hirelings is/are available for purchase when you loadout for the delve = _GM Notes._

How you spend your available coin = _Player decision-points._

No Random Encounters on the road to the ruin =_ GM Notes_

The map and key of the ruin/delve itself = _GM Notes_.

The players' loadout and execution of character and party moves during the delve = _Player decision-points._

The ruin/delve's response to the PCs' delving = _GM Notes_.

Random Encounter on the road back from the ruin = _GM Notes._

The player's execution of character and party moves during the Random Encounter = _Player decision-points_.

The circumstances/orientation of the city when you return from the delve = _GM Notes._

Go see the king = _Player decision-point._

The Chamberlain receiving you = _GM Notes_.

The parley with the Chamberlain = _Player decision-point._

The Chamberlain rebuffing you (the GM "saying no") with no dice being rolled = _GM Notes_.



Agree or disagree with this formulation above?  If so, where and why?

How do the below constituent parts of the above manifest as *subservient to the players' goals *(I have some ideas on a few of them, but not all)?

* The city.

* The merchant and his/her story.

* The equipment/hirelings available.

* The Random Encounter frequency/table for the road.

* The map and key of the ruin.

* The Wandering Monsters for the ruin and the ruin's response to the PCs' delving.

* The situation in the city when the PCs return.

* The nature of the Chamberlain and logistics of reception.

* The Chamberlain rebuffing you without action resolution mechanics being invoked.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> You're starting a new game as a Fighter in a BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl game.
> 
> You were beseeched (and paid) by the last surviving member of a caravan (a merchant) to explore a ruin to the SE.  The merchant believes their guards and goods were taken there by the ambushers.
> 
> You go.
> 
> You uncover some horrible truth with grave implications in the delving.
> 
> You return and head directly to the palace to request an audience with the king.  After earnestly parleying with the Chamberlain, you're rebuffed (no dice are rolled).
> 
> 
> 
> The city where you meet the merchant = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The merchant and his/her story = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with and acceptance of the merchant's pleading/offer = _Player decision-point._
> 
> What equipment or hirelings is/are available for purchase when you loadout for the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> How you spend your available coin = _Player decision-points._
> 
> No Random Encounters on the road to the ruin =_ GM Notes_
> 
> The map and key of the ruin/delve itself = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The players' loadout and execution of character and party moves during the delve = _Player decision-points._
> 
> The ruin/delve's response to the PCs' delving = _GM Notes_.
> 
> Random Encounter on the road back from the ruin = _GM Notes._
> 
> The player's execution of character and party moves during the Random Encounter = _Player decision-points_.
> 
> The circumstances/orientation of the city when you return from the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> Go see the king = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain receiving you = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with the Chamberlain = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain rebuffing you (the GM "saying no") with no dice being rolled = _GM Notes_.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree with this formulation above?  If so, where and why?
> 
> How do the below constituent parts of the above manifest as *subservient to the players' goals *(I have some ideas on a few of them, but not all)?
> 
> * The city.
> 
> * The merchant and his/her story.
> 
> * The equipment/hirelings available.
> 
> * The Random Encounter frequency/table for the road.
> 
> * The map and key of the ruin.
> 
> * The Wandering Monsters for the ruin and the ruin's response to the PCs' delving.
> 
> * The situation in the city when the PCs return.
> 
> * The nature of the Chamberlain and logistics of reception.
> 
> * The Chamberlain rebuffing you without action resolution mechanics being invoked.



The short, easy answer is that it's all there for me to use or ignore as I like.  I didn't have to take that job.  

The city exists for me to use for my goals.  Whatever I decide, the city is a resource to help me achieve that.  Whether it's simple outfitting, finding a contact, going to the library to research information I need/want, or whatever, the city is there for me(and the other players.)

The merchant and his story exist to give me options.  I can opt to help him or not, make him a contact or not, purchase from him or not.  It's my choice and his existence is there to facilitate my goals if he is capable or to ignore in that regard if he's not.

Equipment and hirelings are covered by the above as well.

Encounters, random or otherwise, serve as a challenge for my character and to help him grow in power to accomplish his goals.  

The map and key I don't see in your story, so I'm not sure in what context they came to me.  However, they are potential resources to help me achieve my goals.  Perhaps I need money and/or goodwill to accomplish what I want to do in the world and they can help me.

What situation in the city when I return? Wanting to speak with the king?  If so, that's my choice.

The conversation with the chamberlain is simply game play.  Sometimes you succeed and sometimes you don't.


----------



## pemerton

@Maxperson, there's nothing you're describing about your play goals that would differ if the GM had no notes at all. You're not describing the same sort of thing as @Emerikol.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> The two of you seem to assume that these describe the same thing that @Emerikol described. Why? To me they seem to be describing something quite different. Emerikol says _I want to learn about a new world and explore it_. Maxperson says _I'm not playing to discover what's going on with those tribes_. Those look like contradictory descriptions, not synonymous ones.
> 
> It seems relevant to this that Emerikol's approach _depends upon_ there being pre-authored notes, where Maxperson's does not and seems like it would be equally well-served by "no myth" RPGing.



Let me help out here.  I like science fiction and fantasy novels.  Part of that is learning about a new world.  The way it works, the peoples, etc....   I do still like a plot.  I still want suspense.   Of course if my players just wanted to be bird watchers that would not be a satisfying campaign for me or them.  

I will still say that given an equal plot and character depth, I am going to choose speculative style fiction or historical fiction.  Why?  Because I want to learn about a world I don't know about.   I enjoy the discovery as part of the game.  So "as I go" in my roleplaying a major payoff for me is the world I am discovery as I achieve what you might call my normal character objectives.  

So I wouldn't even call exploration for explorations sake to be an in game motive all that much.  It's more an explore because we are looking for some specific thing.   So this is a PLAYER payoff and not a CHARACTER payoff.  My character lives in that world so he is not as fascinated with it as I am.

Hope that helps clarify.


Edit:
I just thought of another analogy.  I'm a southerner so bear with me.

A good world is like good gravy.  It's great but no one wants it by itself.  You need some meat or some biscuits to put that gravy on top of before the full enjoyment of the gravy takes place.   I love gravy though and it makes almost any meal better.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> You're starting a new game as a Fighter in a BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl game.
> 
> You were beseeched (and paid) by the last surviving member of a caravan (a merchant) to explore a ruin to the SE.  The merchant believes their guards and goods were taken there by the ambushers.
> 
> You go.
> 
> You uncover some horrible truth with grave implications in the delving.
> 
> You return and head directly to the palace to request an audience with the king.  After earnestly parleying with the Chamberlain, you're rebuffed (no dice are rolled).
> 
> 
> 
> The city where you meet the merchant = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The merchant and his/her story = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with and acceptance of the merchant's pleading/offer = _Player decision-point._
> 
> What equipment or hirelings is/are available for purchase when you loadout for the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> How you spend your available coin = _Player decision-points._
> 
> No Random Encounters on the road to the ruin =_ GM Notes_
> 
> The map and key of the ruin/delve itself = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The players' loadout and execution of character and party moves during the delve = _Player decision-points._
> 
> The ruin/delve's response to the PCs' delving = _GM Notes_.
> 
> Random Encounter on the road back from the ruin = _GM Notes._
> 
> The player's execution of character and party moves during the Random Encounter = _Player decision-points_.
> 
> The circumstances/orientation of the city when you return from the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> Go see the king = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain receiving you = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with the Chamberlain = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain rebuffing you (the GM "saying no") with no dice being rolled = _GM Notes_.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree with this formulation above?  If so, where and why?
> 
> How do the below constituent parts of the above manifest as *subservient to the players' goals *(I have some ideas on a few of them, but not all)?
> 
> * The city.
> 
> * The merchant and his/her story.
> 
> * The equipment/hirelings available.
> 
> * The Random Encounter frequency/table for the road.
> 
> * The map and key of the ruin.
> 
> * The Wandering Monsters for the ruin and the ruin's response to the PCs' delving.
> 
> * The situation in the city when the PCs return.
> 
> * The nature of the Chamberlain and logistics of reception.
> 
> * The Chamberlain rebuffing you without action resolution mechanics being invoked.





Manbearcat said:


> You're starting a new game as a Fighter in a BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl game.
> 
> You were beseeched (and paid) by the last surviving member of a caravan (a merchant) to explore a ruin to the SE.  The merchant believes their guards and goods were taken there by the ambushers.
> 
> You go.
> 
> You uncover some horrible truth with grave implications in the delving.
> 
> You return and head directly to the palace to request an audience with the king.  After earnestly parleying with the Chamberlain, you're rebuffed (no dice are rolled).
> 
> 
> 
> The city where you meet the merchant = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The merchant and his/her story = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with and acceptance of the merchant's pleading/offer = _Player decision-point._
> 
> What equipment or hirelings is/are available for purchase when you loadout for the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> How you spend your available coin = _Player decision-points._
> 
> No Random Encounters on the road to the ruin =_ GM Notes_
> 
> The map and key of the ruin/delve itself = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The players' loadout and execution of character and party moves during the delve = _Player decision-points._
> 
> The ruin/delve's response to the PCs' delving = _GM Notes_.
> 
> Random Encounter on the road back from the ruin = _GM Notes._
> 
> The player's execution of character and party moves during the Random Encounter = _Player decision-points_.
> 
> The circumstances/orientation of the city when you return from the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> Go see the king = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain receiving you = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with the Chamberlain = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain rebuffing you (the GM "saying no") with no dice being rolled = _GM Notes_.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree with this formulation above?  If so, where and why?
> 
> How do the below constituent parts of the above manifest as *subservient to the players' goals *(I have some ideas on a few of them, but not all)?
> 
> * The city.
> 
> * The merchant and his/her story.
> 
> * The equipment/hirelings available.
> 
> * The Random Encounter frequency/table for the road.
> 
> * The map and key of the ruin.
> 
> * The Wandering Monsters for the ruin and the ruin's response to the PCs' delving.
> 
> * The situation in the city when the PCs return.
> 
> * The nature of the Chamberlain and logistics of reception.
> 
> * The Chamberlain rebuffing you without action resolution mechanics being invoked.




These are word games. All you are trying to do is take a common tool in pretty much any play  and tie anything that happens to it to force this argument that players are playing to discover the GM's notes. Take the chamberlain rebuffing the players: that isn't in the GMs notes. The Chamberlain rebuffs the players is something that emerges naturally once the chamberlain is introduced (and the existence of a chamberlain may not even be in the GMs notes at all, that may be a figure who organically emerge's as the players interact with the palace and the GM has to think more clearly about who is there. And this exploration is a combination of the players making choices, deciding where to go, as they explore and push against the world the GM created. They are not playing to discover the GM's notes, they are playing to explore and interact with the GM's world, and the notes are just a tool for helping to track what he or she has created. Again, these are word games, in service to denying the value of play styles you don't like or that you think are lower than other types of play styles. This is extremely obvious and it is extremely questionable rhetoric.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Let me help out here.  I like science fiction and fantasy novels.  Part of that is learning about a new world.  The way it works, the peoples, etc....   I do still like a plot.  I still want suspense.   Of course if my players just wanted to be bird watchers that would not be a satisfying campaign for me or them.
> 
> I will still say that given an equal plot and character depth, I am going to choose speculative style fiction or historical fiction.  Why?  Because I want to learn about a world I don't know about.   I enjoy the discovery as part of the game.  So "as I go" in my roleplaying a major payoff for me is the world I am discovery as I achieve what you might call my normal character objectives.
> 
> So I wouldn't even call exploration for explorations sake to be an in game motive all that much.  It's more an explore because we are looking for some specific thing.   So this is a PLAYER payoff and not a CHARACTER payoff.  My character lives in that world so he is not as fascinated with it as I am.
> 
> Hope that helps clarify.



Thanks. I would say it was already very clear.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't matter if the world is made up of the DM's notes.



This claim clearly isn't true. If it was true, then no one would think there's any difference between (say) no-myth-ish Dungeon World or Burning Wheel and (say) notes-heavy D&D or CoC.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, there's nothing you're describing about your play goals that would differ if the GM had no notes at all. You're not describing the same sort of thing as @Emerikol.



The notes still matter in max persons example, or more accurately, the world that was created still matters. He is just explaining to you why it isn't simply about discovering what is in the GMs notes. This is what we've been telling you thread after thread, and post after post. These things are just as much about what the players decide to do, what the living NPCs in the setting decide to do, etc. There is an energy arising in these games, a chemistry, and that is totally ignored in the 'playing to discover the GM's notes' insult (and it is an insult)


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> They are not playing to discover the GM's notes, they are playing to explore and interact with the GM's world, and the notes are just a tool for helping to track what he or she has created.



This strikes me as almost a difference without a distinction.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> This strikes me as almost a difference without a distinction.




It is enormously different. And failing to understand the difference is why people are regularly failing to understand this playstyle. Like I said, words are dead on a page. A living world that the GM made is not


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> *It is enormously different. *And failing to understand the difference is why people are regularly failing to understand this playstyle. Like I said, words are dead on a page. A living world that the GM made is not



"I think you think you are describing something accurately but not seeing how your bias is shaping your analysis."


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The notes still matter in max persons example, or more accurately, the world that was created still matters.



In what @Maxperson describes, it seems to be of no matter when the world is created, or what methodology is used.

This is quite different from @Emerikol, who has clearly described a methodology. With express comparison to learning what has been written in a novel.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In what @Maxperson describes, it seems to be of no matter when the world is created, or what methodology is used.
> 
> This is quite different from @Emerikol, who has clearly described a methodology. With express comparison to learning what has been written in a novel.




I haven't been following Emerikols posts so I can't weigh in on those. But, and MaxPerson can weigh in if I am wrong, that there is a world created to explore seems to matter very much. I think all he is trying to draw your attention to is how much the players actions impact the course of the game, what happens within that world, etc. A lot of sandbox GMs for example talk about smashing the setting, destroying the scenery, etc. Allowing the players to do that is an essential concept in a sandbox game, and while I don't know if Maxperson would say what he is doing is sandbox, what is describing sounds a lot like smashing the scenery. What he is talking about is the player characters exerting their agency in the setting. Again, Maxperson can weigh in if I am wrong, but there is generally an expected sense of fair play the players want when they doing that as they explore a world. If the GM is just making up all of the world as he goes, then it doesn't feel real enough (it is literally just a world produced by their actions). There should be some concrete in there. But no GM creation is going to be exhaustive. The GM may know there are hill tribes to the north. He may not have thought through all the details about that hill tribe, and as they players go there and interact with them, ask questions, the GM is expected to refine some elements of the world in those moments (and generally it is expected to follow logically from the things already laid down). That isn't playing to discover the GMs notes at all. And further, the NPCs you may have down on the page, say the hill tribe chief, are just as free to move around and do things as the players. The players are not simply discovering what's in the players (*EDIT: GM's*) notes if midway through the session the hill tribe chief hatches a plan to steal an artifact the PCs possess (this may be an even neither the GM nor the players foresaw until some spark ignited it in their meeting with the hill tribe). Again it is the energy, the life, the interaction, the ability of players to actually shape setting through their characters, that is the point of play. The point of play isn't to discover what is in the GMs binder. That is an enormously misleading and uncharitable characterization of the activity

And importantly that energy isn't limited to sandbox play. It exists in most types of play where the GM is expected to prep things (even in things like adventure paths)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> "I think you think you are describing something accurately but not seeing how your bias is shaping your analysis."




I've explained in a few posts why your characterization isn't accurate. But one final point of elaboration, if you play the kinds of games pemerton (*Edit: Maxperson*) and I do, and even if you play adventure paths or meta plot adventures I think, as playing to discover the GMs notes, they are going to be very different games than the ones we run. I've played in games where the GM was effectively doing that or getting very close, where it feels like all you are doing is discovering the GM notes. And I think that is due more to a very non-fluid, rigid style of GMing that stops at the GMs notes, holds them in a kind of stasis. Those notes are just tools for remembering what exists in the scenario/world/adventure etc. They aren't met to be unchangeable things. They adapt and evolve in different ways for different reasons (depending on the playstyle). You are mistaking a tool of the style, for the style itself (and frankly the framing is pretty insulting)


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I haven't been following Emerikols posts so I can't weigh in on those.



In that case why are you attacking my replies to him, if you don't even know what I'm replying to?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, there's nothing you're describing about your play goals that would differ if the GM had no notes at all. You're not describing the same sort of thing as @Emerikol.



The point, which you seem to be missing, is that these play goals can and do happen WITH DM notes.  Your style isn't required for players to be able to assert their own goals and make the world their own play place.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> In that case why are you attacking my replies to him, if you don't even know what I'm replying to?



You must be wrong on the general principle that you are pemerton.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This claim clearly isn't true. If it was true, then no one would think there's any difference between (say) no-myth-ish Dungeon World or Burning Wheel and (say) notes-heavy D&D or CoC.



Context..........................context.  You asked a question, so I answered it in that context.  For someone who prides himself on his language skills, I would have thought you would understand context.  In the context of your question to me, the notes don't matter.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> In what @Maxperson describes, it seems to be of no matter when the world is created, or what methodology is used.
> 
> This is quite different from @Emerikol, who has clearly described a methodology. With express comparison to learning what has been written in a novel.



When the world is created matters for the feel of the world to a lot of people.  When the world is created doesn't create a situation where the players are playing to "discover the DM's notes."  It's possible to play a game like that, but such a game is not created simply by virtue of heavy prep.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In that case why are you attacking my replies to him, if you don't even know what I'm replying to?



I was responding to your exchange with Maxperson and the general assertions I saw you make


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> This strikes me as almost a difference without a distinction.




It seemed like quite a big distinction but maybe I can help you grasp it better with an example of said distinction...

DM NOTES: Hrothgar of the Howing winds is the leader of the Wolf Nomads

Playing to discover the DM's notes would be, through play, discovering said information perhaps by visiting the lands of the Wolf Nomads, or researching the lineage of the Wolf Nomad leaders or... well I think you get the picture.

However the minute I as a player... Usurp the leadership from Hrothgar of the Howling Winds, aid Hrothgar in also claiming the leadership of the Deer Clans, assassinate Hrothgar for his son to claim leadership or to destabilize the Wolf tribe so an invading army can wipe it out... or take any one of numerous actions through my character that changes/modifies or creates a difference in the world... I am no longer "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes".

It is this distinction that I believe @Bedrockgames is trying to make (please feel free to correct me if my take is incorrect).  A descriptor of "Play to find out what's in the GM's notes" in no way takes into account the ability of players to change and/or create their own "notes" in accordance with the GM's, something that heavy prep style does not in and of itself preclude from happening... thus it is a mischaracterization of what actually happens in the playstyle.  Is the distinction more clear now??


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> It is this distinction that I believe @Bedrockgames is trying to make (please feel free to correct me if my take is incorrect).  A descriptor of "Play to find out what's in the GM's notes" in no way takes into account the ability of players to change and/or create their own "notes" in accordance with the GM's, something that heavy prep style does not in and of itself preclude from happening... thus it is a mischaracterization of what actually happens in the playstyle.  Is the distinction more clear now??




It is this but also the fact that the GM is an active 'player' in the game too, putting the world, its characters, and its factions into motion. There is an energy at the table that is the focus. The worldbuidling, the prep, the notes are all in service to one another and to the energy that arises during play


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> It seemed like quite a big distinction but maybe I can help you grasp it better with an example of said distinction...
> 
> DM NOTES: Hrothgar of the Howing winds is the leader of the Wolf Nomads
> 
> Playing to discover the DM's notes would be, through play, discovering said information perhaps by visiting the lands of the Wolf Nomads, or researching the lineage of the Wolf Nomad leaders or... well I think you get the picture.
> 
> However the minute I as a player... Usurp the leadership from Hrothgar of the Howling Winds, aid Hrothgar in also claiming the leadership of the Deer Clans, assassinate Hrothgar for his son to claim leadership or to destabilize the Wolf tribe so an invading army can wipe it out... or take any one of numerous actions through my character that changes/modifies or creates a difference in the world... I am no longer "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes".
> 
> It is this distinction that I believe @Bedrockgames is trying to make (please feel free to correct me if my take is incorrect).  A descriptor of "Play to find out what's in the GM's notes" in no way takes into account the ability of players to change and/or create their own "notes" in accordance with the GM's, something that heavy prep style does not in and of itself preclude from happening... thus it is a mischaracterization of what actually happens in the playstyle.  Is the distinction more clear now??



Edit: I appreciate your attempt to clarify matter. 

Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process. This is why the distinction seems a bit arbitrary, if not a somewhat meaningless one, as the ability to simply create "new notes" in the game is basically a truism of TTRPGs through PC actions, whether we are playing sandboxes, no myth story games, or adventure paths. And "discovering what's in the GM's notes" doesn't seem terribly different from "discovering what's in the GM's authored world," regardless of whether they exist in notated form or not.


----------



## Imaro

Maxperson said:


> The point, which you seem to be missing, is that these play goals can and do happen WITH DM notes.  Your style isn't required for players to be able to assert their own goals and make the world their own play place.




I've been arguing this as well... it's the ability of one side to pre-define the necessary criteria for "protagonism" (basically that the GM must not heavy prep and the  players must be able to co-author outside of their characters in-game influence for real "protagonism" to exist) that has made it hard and frustrating to have this discussion and why I semi-bowed out earlier.  IMO, with the right approach a heavy prepped game can achieve protagonism in the sense of being about player goals and desires through being equally driven by player and GM desire.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Edit: I appreciate your attempt to clarify matter.
> 
> Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process. This is why the distinction seems a bit arbitrary, if not a somewhat meaningless one, *as the ability to simply create "new notes" in the game is basically a truism of TTRPGs through PC actions*, whether we are playing sandboxes, no myth story games, or adventure paths. And "discovering what's in the GM's notes" doesn't seem terribly different from "discovering what's in the GM's authored world," regardless of whether they exist in notated form or not.




The fact that this is a truism pretty much explains why "play to find out what's in the GM's notes is mildly insulting and such a bad descriptor of the playstyle.  Just saying.

EDIT: You're basically saying no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes... but you still think it's a good descriptor for a particular playstyle.  Make it make sense please??


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> The fact that this is a truism pretty much explains why "play to find out what's in the GM's notes is mildly insulting and such a bad descriptor of the playstyle.  Just saying.



I think you misunderstand me. Just saying.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I think you misunderstand me. Just saying.




If so maybe you haven't expressed yourself well enough for me to grasp your point... are you going to expound further or....??


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process. This is why the distinction seems a bit arbitrary, if not a somewhat meaningless one,* as the ability to simply create "new notes" in the game is basically a truism of TTRPGs through PC actions*, whether we are playing sandboxes, no myth story games, or adventure paths. And "discovering what's in the GM's notes" doesn't seem terribly different from "discovering what's in the GM's authored world," regardless of whether they exist in notated form or not.




There are two big problems with the 'playing the discover the GM's notes" that go beyond description: it is insulting (which I think just about everyone on my side of the fence has agreed upon) and it is extremely reductive, and fails to capture the nuances of what is really going on. Sure you can simplify and reduce it to that explanation, but as I said, if you do so, and then try to run a game based on that as a principle: it isn't going to be the kind of game me, Maxperson, or virtually anyone whose game you are trying to run, typically run. I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand why folks object to having a style of play they know and enjoy, described as 'playing to discover the GM's notes' both inaccurate and objectionable. And it shouldn't surprise people using that term that they get push back. There was a video about sandbox play by Ron Edwards (who by the way, to be clear, I don't have a problem with at all, I actually like his persona even though I often find myself in strong disagreement with his ideas). He was being a bit facetious, and called it Kittybox. It was obviously meant in humor, I am not 'offended' that he used that language. But I also don't think that kind of terminology is a good way to understand a style objectively, and it is definitely doing to get pushback from people who like sandbox (just like if I called your style "latrine play" you might object to it). Playing to discover what is in the GM's notes is one step above that. It is something people invoke when they feel like they have no agency or real choice in a game session. It is not a description but a judgment. 

And that bolded bit is why "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" doesn't really work as a tool of description for any RPG style. This is why I said even adventure paths are not playing to discover what's in the GMs notes. There is always a more living element in play to varying degrees, there are always going to be things coming that weren't in the notes nor were addressed by the notes. The notes themselves are just a tool, not the purpose of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play.




This is why 'living' is an important term here. A lot of GMs avoid putting monsters in specific rooms because that seems highly artificial (and if they do this is often understood to be a 'snapshot'). That orc can move freely. He might not even be a concrete detail, he could be a possibility arising from a random table. grWhatever the case, once the players interact with it, then the point of play really begins. And the GM might be discovering what that orc is all about as the players do. If I roll on a wandering monster table and an orc enters the picture, then I am going to be figuring out why he is there on the spot. If the players do something unexpected (like try to befriend it) I will likely be going beyond notes and figuring out its motivations. If they then hit it off with the orc and decide to leave the dungeon and go rob  a bank with the orc, we are in territory that is clearly not 'playing to discover the GM's notes'. And  reducing this kind of play to that, misses the essence of what is going on.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Edit: I appreciate your attempt to clarify matter.
> 
> Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process.



No.  The difference is who is setting the goals.  If you are passive and just follow the DM's leads into a dungeon and kill an orc, you are just playing to discover things that the DM is putting before you.  If you are initiating your own plans and shaping the world to your desires, forcing the DM to react to your actions, you are not.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> EDIT: You're basically saying no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes... but you still think it's a good descriptor for a particular playstyle.  Make it make sense please??





Imaro said:


> If so maybe you haven't expressed yourself well enough for me to grasp your point... are you going to expound further or....??



I can try. I'm not saying that no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes. I'm saying that playing to explore and interact with the world is often - but not always, depending upon the style of game - a distinction without a difference as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. "I want to explore and interact with Blizzard's world of Azeroth" isn't terribly different, from where I'm standing with, "I want to discover what's in Blizzard's notes about Azeroth." One just lends itself to more romantic notions of exploration, discovery, and character agency than the more frank version that points out the fundamental process that involves the "man behind the curtain."

Furthermore, the ability to generate "new notes" or game states of the in-game fiction doesn't somehow nullify or debunk "play to discover the GM's notes" as a descriptor for the fundamental "behind-the-scenes" play processes that are transpiring in certain game styles. It's about like saying, "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" can't possibly apply as a descriptor to my game styles on the counter-claim that "I play to roleplay a character." The fact that I am roleplaying a character in a TTRPG is a fairly obvious point. The fact that my character can make an orc from the GM's notes dead is an equally meaningless point as the ability to usurp the leadership of a NPC that existed in the GM's notes. The ability to create "new notes," so to speak, basically just says that you can interact with the pre-existing notes in the fiction, but it doesn't really rebuke the central feedback loop of play.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> The skills need to prevent flaws are predicated on the ones to find flaws. If I'm preventing flaws, its because I can already recognize them. You cannot prevent flaws (effectively) if you cannot find them.



There is nothing about this statement that I disagree with. But, in all of my examples, flaws do not present themselves until gameplay occurs. That is the case for most games I know; the GM thinks something is good, but winds up being so-so or blah. And the reverse can also happen, one the GM thought would be blasé turns out really fun. And then the majority turn out as expected. 

It is those unexpected events that occur during play that can help a GM stretch or relearn some skills. And many of those occur running an AP as opposed to one's own material. One's own material generally doesn't have as many unexpected situations.


Ovinomancer said:


> There are two things going on here. Firstly, the ability to recognize flaws that need to be fixed isn't something that is special to APs. You've introduced that APs are special because they have more(?) chances of being flawed and therefore a GM learns more about recognizing flaws. This isn't clear because work done by a GM for their own games has already done this pass -- there are fewer flaws to recognize in play because the GM has already done most of this work in design. There's nothing unique about APs, except maybe the higher likelihood of poor design for a given GM's game.
> 
> Secondly, you're advocating for APs as teaching new tools. This is flawed because you must already be good enough at GMing to recognize when an AP is doing something clever and worth learning and when it's doing something badly than needs correction. The skill to recognize these things is not taught by APs, it's actually harmed by them, because there's the assumption that the AP is actually well-designed and so emulating all of it is something you should do. And, perhaps it is, for a given table, but there's nothing in the AP that teaches this especially over things generated by a GM. What I mean here is that it's just as likely for a GM to learn that things do or don't work with their own material as it is with an AP.



All of this falls under the assumption that the GM is omniscient and can accurately predict everything. Which a quick glance through any of these posts on this site often proves otherwise. 

If you don't accept the premise that an AP might have more circumstances in game than an event/notes/campaign written by the GM running the table, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because my entire claim rests on this idea. 

I do appreciate your viewpoint though. Thank you.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I can try. I'm not saying that no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes. I'm saying that playing to explore and interact with the world is often - but not always, depending upon the style of game - is a distinction without a difference as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. "I want to explore and interact with Blizzard's world of Azeroth" isn't terribly different, from where I'm standing with, "I want to discover what's in Blizzard's notes about Azeroth." One just lends itself to more romantic notions of exploration, discovery, and character agency than the more frank version that points out the fundamental process that involves the "man behind the curtain."



That isn't what we are saying, though.  We aren't saying, "I want to explore and interact with Blizzard's world of Azeroth."  We are saying, "I want to forge the orcs into a great nation and then raze Stormwind to the ground."   Are we interacting with Blizzard's world of Azeroth?  Yep.  That isn't the goal, though.  The goal is to accomplish what I am setting out to do and the premade world of Azeroth is subservient to that goal and exists only to facilitate my attempt.


Aldarc said:


> Furthermore, the ability to generate "new notes" or game states of the in-game fiction doesn't somehow nullify or debunk "play to discover the GM's notes" as a descriptor for the fundamental "behind-the-scenes" play processes that are transpiring in certain game styles. It's about like saying, "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" can't possibly apply as a descriptor to my game styles on the counter-claim that "I play to roleplay a character." The fact that I am roleplaying a character in a TTRPG is a fairly obvious point. The fact that my character can make an orc from the GM's notes dead is an equally meaningless point as the ability to usurp the leadership of a NPC that existed in the GM's notes. The ability to create "new notes," so to speak, basically just says that you can interact with the pre-existing notes in the fiction, but it doesn't really rebuke the central feedback loop of play.



No.  It's like saying that "Play to discover what's in the DM's notes" doesn't apply, because "Play to discover what's in the DM's notes" is a purpose of play in and of itself, and if we have a different purpose, then not only is "Play to discover what's in the DM's notes" inaccurate, but it's also an insult to our real playstyle.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I can try. I'm not saying that no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes. I'm saying that playing to explore and interact with the world is often - but not always, depending upon the style of game - a distinction without a difference as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. "I want to explore and interact with Blizzard's world of Azeroth" isn't terribly different, from where I'm standing with, "I want to discover what's in Blizzard's notes about Azeroth." One just lends itself to more romantic notions of exploration, discovery, and character agency than the more frank version that points out the fundamental process that involves the "man behind the curtain."




But you can't ever, no matter what you choose to do or try, enact fundamental and lasting change on Blizzard's world of Azeroth.  I don't think this in any way supports your assertion since a player of WoW is never forcing change or adding to Blizzard's notes on Azeroth.  If anything I think the difference between a playstyle where the world can actually change through the actions of the PC's and where they can work with their DM/GM to set and achieve their own personalized goals, desires and needs would highlight why the descriptor is such a mischaracterization.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> But you can't ever, no matter what you choose to do or try, enact fundamental and lasting change on Blizzard's world of Azeroth.  I don't think this in any way supports your assertion since a player of WoW is never forcing change or adding to Blizzard's notes on Azeroth.  If anything I think the difference between a playstyle where the world can actually change through the actions of the PC's and where they can work with their DM/GM to set and achieve their own personalized goals, desires and needs would highlight why the descriptor is such a mischaracterization.



Of course, but the point of my example is not whether one can enact lasting change in Azeroth or not. The point of the example was to highlight a functional overlap between exploration and interaction in Azeroth and playing to discover of Blizzard's notes.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Of course, but the point of my example is not whether one can enact lasting change in Azeroth or not. The point of the example was to highlight a functional overlap between exploration and interaction in Azeroth and playing to discover of Blizzard's notes.



But you're extrapolating from the methods of an MMO rpg (Which has different constraints & drivers than a single persons ttrpg campaign).


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> The short, easy answer is that it's all there for me to use or ignore as I like.  I didn't have to take that job.
> 
> The city exists for me to use for my goals.  Whatever I decide, the city is a resource to help me achieve that.  Whether it's simple outfitting, finding a contact, going to the library to research information I need/want, or whatever, the city is there for me(and the other players.)
> 
> The merchant and his story exist to give me options.  I can opt to help him or not, make him a contact or not, purchase from him or not.  It's my choice and his existence is there to facilitate my goals if he is capable or to ignore in that regard if he's not.
> 
> Equipment and hirelings are covered by the above as well.
> 
> Encounters, random or otherwise, serve as a challenge for my character and to help him grow in power to accomplish his goals.
> 
> The map and key I don't see in your story, so I'm not sure in what context they came to me.  However, they are potential resources to help me achieve my goals.  Perhaps I need money and/or goodwill to accomplish what I want to do in the world and they can help me.
> 
> What situation in the city when I return? Wanting to speak with the king?  If so, that's my choice.
> 
> The conversation with the chamberlain is simply game play.  Sometimes you succeed and sometimes you don't.






Bedrockgames said:


> These are word games. All you are trying to do is take a common tool in pretty much any play  and tie anything that happens to it to force this argument that players are playing to discover the GM's notes. Take the chamberlain rebuffing the players: that isn't in the GMs notes. The Chamberlain rebuffs the players is something that emerges naturally once the chamberlain is introduced (and the existence of a chamberlain may not even be in the GMs notes at all, that may be a figure who organically emerge's as the players interact with the palace and the GM has to think more clearly about who is there. And this exploration is a combination of the players making choices, deciding where to go, as they explore and push against the world the GM created. They are not playing to discover the GM's notes, they are playing to explore and interact with the GM's world, and the notes are just a tool for helping to track what he or she has created. Again, these are word games, in service to denying the value of play styles you don't like or that you think are lower than other types of play styles. This is extremely obvious and it is extremely questionable rhetoric.




@BRG

I'm just going to lead with this.  Look at your post.  That entire thing is challenging my integrity and impugning my motives.  The entire thing.

You get to a point in these conversations where you and I nearly always arrive here.  I don't do this to you (I don't recall ever doing it actually) but you seem to very often arrive here with me and this is just more de ja vu.  Just please throttle it back.

Alright, onto talking about TTRPGs.

I've puzzled a bit on what the disconnect is here.  Why there is this inability to communicate and these hard feelings.  Here is what I've come up with.

"Play to find out what happens" is (a) not the exclusive priority of play in Dogs, x World games, and Forged in the Dark games.

"Play to find out what happens" (b) could trivially be taken offense at.  For instance:

"Oh so I'm just beholden here to _whatever happens_ with no agency?  I'm just strapped in as a passive audience member with no input into 'what happens'?  I'm just watching stuff unfold...just _finding out_?  Is that it?  Is that what you think is happening in my games?

No buddy.  I'm MAKING STUFF HAPPEN.  And I don't appreciate your disingenuous rhetoric!"

So, to address (a) as it pertains to our discussion on GM notes:

Obviously "finding out what is in the GM notes/prep" is just the inversion of "playing to find out what happens."  Put another way:

"This game is prep-intensive with pre-established, high-resolution setting, adventuring sites, NPCs, puzzles, mysteries...this stuff exists before play...this is the significant bulk of content generation in this game (before play, between sessions, not at the table during play)...uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting it is the primary point of play."

Contrast with "play to find out what happens":

"This game is so prep light that it nears no prep territory.  The setting, adventuring sites, NPCS, puzzles, mysteries emerge in the course of play.  Almost all of the content generated happens during play...discovering it > orienting it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it is the primary point of play."

So a few differences here:


When content is generated.
How content is generated.
Prep-intensity.
The track as it pertains to content.  Discover vs uncover (everyone at the table is discovering it simultaneously in the latter form of play) + REorient at the end of play in the first with orient at the beginning of play in the latter (because there is an orientation already established in the first while the 2nd has no orientation up front and must be oriented during play).

Just one quick example and then I'm tapping out and someone else can respond/run with this for awhile (I'll be back on tonight most likely):

In the first, that chamberlain (yes, back to the chamberlain of yore!) is *un*covered.  He has already been derived as a piece of content.  He already *has an orientation.*

In the second, that chamberlain is *dis*covered.  He surely exists (kings have chamberlains of course) but he has to yet to be derived as a piece of content.  He *has to be oriented right now.*


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> But you're extrapolating from the methods of an MMO rpg (Which has different constraints & drivers than a single persons ttrpg campaign).



I'm not _extrapolating from_ an MMORPG. I'm extrapolating from my own experiences running different styles of tabletop roleplaying games. The MMORPG exists as an analogic point of reference. I will admit that it's not a perfect analogy, but I swear that once I accomplish the task of writing the perfect analogy that works in all cases as a point of reference, including those that are neither relevant nor pertinent to the analogy, then I will alert you to that perfect analogy as soon as humanly possible.


----------



## prabe

@Manbearcat 

You can reply to this as you have time, if you want, but your descriptions of the priorities of play in the two styles--especially your use of "orient"--reminded me of the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop, which I usually see applied strictly to combat (both strategic and tactical) but it seems as though at least considering it more broadly as applied to player/character goals might be helpful as a GM (seems less likely to be helpful as a player).


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I'm not _extrapolating from_ an MMORPG. I'm extrapolating from my own experiences running different styles of tabletop roleplaying games. The MMORPG exists as an analogic point of reference. I will admit that it's not a perfect analogy, but I swear that once I accomplish the task of writing the perfect analogy that works in all cases as a point of reference, including those that are neither relevant nor pertinent to the analogy, then I will alert you to that perfect analogy as soon as humanly possible.



I'm not asking for perfect. I'm saying the inherent constraints a videogame and even moreso an mmorpg face are exactly what we are arguing don't exist in our games and are what at least I would consider major factors in pushing the agenda of a game towards the goal of "Play to Find out Whats in the DM's Notes". Thus its problematic as an analogy.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> @BRG
> 
> I'm just going to lead with this.  Look at your post.  That entire thing is challenging my integrity and impugning my motives.  The entire thing.
> 
> You get to a point in these conversations where you and I nearly always arrive here.  I don't do this to you (I don't recall ever doing it actually) but you seem to very often arrive here with me and this is just more de ja vu.  Just please throttle it back.
> 
> Alright, onto talking about TTRPGs.
> 
> I've puzzled a bit on what the disconnect is here.  Why there is this inability to communicate and these hard feelings.  Here is what I've come up with.
> 
> "Play to find out what happens" is (a) not the exclusive priority of play in Dogs, x World games, and Forged in the Dark games.
> 
> "Play to find out what happens" (b) could trivially be taken offense at.  For instance:
> 
> "Oh so I'm just beholden here to _whatever happens_ with no agency?  I'm just strapped in as a passive audience member with no input into 'what happens'?  I'm just watching stuff unfold...just _finding out_?  Is that it?  Is that what you think is happening in my games?
> 
> No buddy.  I'm MAKING STUFF HAPPEN.  And I don't appreciate your disingenuous rhetoric!"
> 
> So, to address (a) as it pertains to our discussion on GM notes:



I'm not saying this about you, but there is at least one poster here who comes across like, "My playstyle is awesomesauce, because it's protagonistic and has lots of agency,  you're playstyle is just playing to find out what's in the DM's notes."  Whether that's intentional or not, it comes across as both arrogant and dismissive, which of course gets the other side's dander up.  The phrase itself is also somewhat pejorative in and of itself.  


Manbearcat said:


> Obviously "finding out what is in the GM notes/prep" is just the inversion of "playing to find out what happens."  Put another way:



I disagree with this.  When you "Play to...." anything, that's the purpose of your play.  If the purpose of our play is not finding out what's in the DM's notes, but rather to accomplish the goals we set for our characters, then "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes." is wrong.   Finding out what is in the DM's note, though, can be and is incidental to the purpose of our play.  It's not a true inversion.


Manbearcat said:


> "This game is prep-intensive with pre-established, high-resolution setting, adventuring sites, NPCs, puzzles, mysteries...this stuff exists before play...this is the significant bulk of content generation in this game (before play, between sessions, not at the table during play)...uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting it is the primary point of play."



Again I'm going to disagree.  You can play that way, where you are just running around defeating the pre-set challenges as the primary point of play.  OR the primary point of play can be accomplishing player set goals within the pre-set world.  That breaks your chain anywhere from discovering to resolving, depending on what's going on in the world and what the PCs goals are.

When a lot of prep is done on a world or you are using a world like the Forgotten Realms where a lot of prep has already been done for you, the players are going to have a lot of information given to them before even the first session of play.  With that information, I will often formulate goals for my PC before the first session ever happens.  There may not even be "discovering" as a primary point of my play, let alone the rest of that chain.  Or, I may as a player incorporate portions of that chain as a part of my personal goals. 

Suppose my goal was to become a god by killing one and taking his place.  I don't need to uncover who the gods are, but I do need to select one or perhaps a few as potential targets.  I'd then need to gain a lot of power and probably true artifacts, so I might as part of my personal goal incorporate some "Discovering -> engaging, etc." as part of my personal goal of gaining power to kill that god. 

At no point, though, is that chain the primary point of my game play, and I might have personal goals that require even less of that sort of thing. We are not playing to "Discover what is in the DM's notes."



Manbearcat said:


> So a few differences here:
> 
> 
> When content is generated.
> How content is generated.
> Prep-intensity.
> The track as it pertains to content.  Discover vs uncover (everyone at the table is discovering it simultaneously in the latter form of play) + REorient at the end of play in the first with orient at the beginning of play in the latter (because there is an orientation already established in the first while the 2nd has no orientation up front and must be oriented during play).
> 
> Just one quick example and then I'm tapping out and someone else can respond/run with this for awhile (I'll be back on tonight most likely):
> 
> In the first, that chamberlain (yes, back to the chamberlain of yore!) is *un*covered.  He has already been derived as a piece of content.  He already *has an orientation.*
> 
> In the second, that chamberlain is *dis*covered.  He surely exists (kings have chamberlains of course) but he has to yet to be derived as a piece of content.  He *has to be oriented right now.*



I understand the differences.  The objection comes  mainly from the mischaracterization that is inherent in "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes."  We know that there are significant differences and prefer our style of play over the other for various reasons.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I'm not asking for perfect. *I'm saying the inherent constraints a videogame and even moreso an mmorpg face are exactly what we are arguing don't exist in our games* and are what at least I would consider major factors in pushing the agenda of a game towards the goal of "Play to Find out Whats in the DM's Notes". Thus its problematic as an analogy.



I have repeatedly found that _exceptionalism_ as a principle rarely, if ever, holds up to serious scrutiny.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I have repeatedly found that _exceptionalism_ as a principle rarely, if ever, holds up to serious scrutiny.




Edit: Missing the bigger point... but ok.  

Please expound... what *inherent *constraints of a videogame/ MMOrpg exist in TTrpg's?  I'll readily admit I mis-spoke if you can list some that do but right now I'm drawing a blank, especially as it applies to the context we are discussing this in.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> There is nothing about this statement that I disagree with. But, in all of my examples, flaws do not present themselves until gameplay occurs. That is the case for most games I know; the GM thinks something is good, but winds up being so-so or blah. And the reverse can also happen, one the GM thought would be blasé turns out really fun. And then the majority turn out as expected.
> 
> It is those unexpected events that occur during play that can help a GM stretch or relearn some skills. And many of those occur running an AP as opposed to one's own material. One's own material generally doesn't have as many unexpected situations.
> 
> All of this falls under the assumption that the GM is omniscient and can accurately predict everything. Which a quick glance through any of these posts on this site often proves otherwise.
> 
> If you don't accept the premise that an AP might have more circumstances in game than an event/notes/campaign written by the GM running the table, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because my entire claim rests on this idea.
> 
> I do appreciate your viewpoint though. Thank you.



Okay.  You have the following:

Premise:   APs are good training tools for GMs.
Assumption 1:  This is because APs have many flaws and flat scenes.
Assumption 2:  These flaws are usually not visible until play is occurring.
Conclusion:  Ergo, APs are good training tools because they force the GM to react to poor design on the fly.

I find this to be a flawed argument.  Particularly, A2 is doesn't at all apply to me, as I fix things in prep and so don't often encounter the need to correct for bad AP design on the fly.  When I create my own material, I incorporate this knowledge in my scenes as I go.  So the argument that APs force GMs to fix things on the fly seems very weak, and that this is a learning tool is also weak because you keep skipping over the point that knowing when a scene is flat isn't taught by an AP, it's taught by experience that's gained just by gaming.  If anything, APs hinder this realization because you have to overcome the assumption that APs are well-written or the intended way to play to begin with.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Edit: Missing the bigger point... but ok.



Out of all my post, you picked out an imperfect analogy for your scrutiny, but okay as well, I suppose.



Imaro said:


> Please expound... what *inherent *constraints of a videogame/ MMOrpg exist in TTrpg's?  I'll readily admit I mis-spoke if you can list some that do but right now I'm drawing a blank, especially as it applies to the context we are discussing this in.



How about we shelve that conversation for some other time? I do think that it's an interesting topic of conversation and one worth exploring, but it may not be the most pertinent one for the topic at hand, though I will freely admit my own culpability in inviting it with my analogy to a AAA MMORPG franchise property. Because I think that the pertinent matter at hand in our conversation is about the distinction and overlap between "play to explore and interact with the GM's world" and "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" rather than the shared and distinct constraints of MMORPG and TTRPG gameplay.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I'm not saying this about you, but there is at least one poster here who comes across like, "My playstyle is awesomesauce, because it's protagonistic and has lots of agency,  you're playstyle is just playing to find out what's in the DM's notes."  Whether that's intentional or not, it comes across as both arrogant and dismissive, which of course gets the other side's dander up.  The phrase itself is also somewhat pejorative in and of itself.




@Manbearcat, this reflects my sense of things over the course of these threads; and my point was really about the rhetoric. Where it genuinely feels like no matter how many times we say "No that isn't what we do, you are missing the point of play for us" a lot of people here just plow forward with an analysis that has this level of certainty to it that is not capturing anything we recognize at work within these styles. And in particular the rhetoric really does seem to focus on a kind of word play, where anything we say gets dragged into the GMs notebook (even after we take great pains to explain why its more than a note on the page, and in play it isn't merely about discovering the note). And finally, "playing to discover what's in the GM's notebook" is dismissive and insulting. You can ignore that as much as you want when people say it. But it has emerged in the course of playstyle debates, and was initially presented to say something to the effect of "no you are not creating a living world, your players are just playing to discover what's in the GM's notebooks". If you don't attempt to understand these playstyles on their own terms, I don't think you will never understand them. And I think there is something seriously wrong with a mode of analysis that always seems to reinforce you and the other posters' who adhere to it's playstyle preferences (this is pattern I've noticed on my side of the aisle too, which is why I am no longer interested in things like definitions of RPGs that exclude narrative RPGs: it isn't honest analysis, it is playstyle debate disguised as analysis----and sometimes we don't even realize we are doing it).


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> In the OP I distinguished "descriptions of imaginary places; mechanical labels and categories applied to imaginary people or imaginary phenomena; descriptions or lists of imaginary events, some of which are imagined to have already happened relative to the fiction of play and some of which are imagined as *potentially *yet to happen relative that fiction".
> 
> It is clearly the first of those that is especially salient in @Emerikol's case, though I suspect the others also figure in his RPGing.



There's an important word word missing in that description which, for purposes of pointing it out, I've taken the liberty of inserting above.

Adding that word changes the whole tone of the definition away from including things that _must_ happen towards including things that _may_ happen, and will unless the PCs - for better or worse - somehow do something about it.

What's already happened in the fiction is locked in, yes.  But locking in the future as well, as your definition seems to want to do, points to a railroad where there may well not be one.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> You're starting a new game as a Fighter in a BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl game.
> 
> You were beseeched (and paid) by the last surviving member of a caravan (a merchant) to explore a ruin to the SE.  The merchant believes their guards and goods were taken there by the ambushers.
> 
> You go.
> 
> You uncover some horrible truth with grave implications in the delving.
> 
> You return and head directly to the palace to request an audience with the king.  After earnestly parleying with the Chamberlain, you're rebuffed (no dice are rolled).
> 
> 
> 
> The city where you meet the merchant = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The merchant and his/her story = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with and acceptance of the merchant's pleading/offer = _Player decision-point._
> 
> What equipment or hirelings is/are available for purchase when you loadout for the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> How you spend your available coin = _Player decision-points._
> 
> No Random Encounters on the road to the ruin =_ GM Notes_
> 
> The map and key of the ruin/delve itself = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The players' loadout and execution of character and party moves during the delve = _Player decision-points._
> 
> The ruin/delve's response to the PCs' delving = _GM Notes_.
> 
> Random Encounter on the road back from the ruin = _GM Notes._
> 
> The player's execution of character and party moves during the Random Encounter = _Player decision-points_.
> 
> The circumstances/orientation of the city when you return from the delve = _GM Notes._
> 
> Go see the king = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain receiving you = _GM Notes_.
> 
> The parley with the Chamberlain = _Player decision-point._
> 
> The Chamberlain rebuffing you (the GM "saying no") with no dice being rolled = _GM Notes_.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree with this formulation above?  If so, where and why?



Disagree on just a few specific lines where you seem to be rolling "rules-based events" in with GM Notes, perhaps to bolster your point.  Random wilderness encounters i.e. frequency, creatures potentially met, etc. - are often laid out in the base rules system the GM is using for that campaign (e.g. the 1e DMG); meaning that if the GM is playing the game as written then sooner or later those encounters are going to arise unless she in effect overrides her dice and tells them not to.

Other than that, your assessment is more or less correct.

What I don't see is where there's any problem with any of the above.  There's a nice foundation laid for a campaign which could go in any number of directions; and the players/PCs end up faced with a series of questions they now need to answer regarding the Chamberlain, the King, and what to do next:  

narrator voice

"_Do they seek someone else in high authority e.g. the head of a major local temple or guild, and warn that person instead?  Do they start investigating the Chamberlain to find out if he's a crook?  Do they examine the King's recent actions and try to figure out if he's acting under his own free will?  Do they try to sneak into the palace to get to the King directly?  Do they chuck it all and head back out to find more ruins to plunder?  Stay tuned for our next exciting episode..._" 

/narrator voice

What's left unsaid in the summary of events is whether the GM planned this specific outcome, whether the GM had plans for several possible outcomes, or whether she'd left herself in react mode once the PCs got back to town with their info assuming they went back to town at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> @BRG
> 
> I'm just going to lead with this.  Look at your post.  That entire thing is challenging my integrity and impugning my motives.  The entire thing.
> 
> You get to a point in these conversations where you and I nearly always arrive here.  I don't do this to you (I don't recall ever doing it actually) but you seem to very often arrive here with me and this is just more de ja vu.  Just please throttle it back.
> 
> Alright, onto talking about TTRPGs.
> 
> I've puzzled a bit on what the disconnect is here.  Why there is this inability to communicate and these hard feelings.  Here is what I've come up with.
> 
> "Play to find out what happens" is (a) not the exclusive priority of play in Dogs, x World games, and Forged in the Dark games.
> 
> "Play to find out what happens" (b) could trivially be taken offense at.  For instance:
> 
> "Oh so I'm just beholden here to _whatever happens_ with no agency?  I'm just strapped in as a passive audience member with no input into 'what happens'?  I'm just watching stuff unfold...just _finding out_?  Is that it?  Is that what you think is happening in my games?
> 
> No buddy.  I'm MAKING STUFF HAPPEN.  And I don't appreciate your disingenuous rhetoric!"
> 
> So, to address (a) as it pertains to our discussion on GM notes:
> 
> Obviously "finding out what is in the GM notes/prep" is just the inversion of "playing to find out what happens."  Put another way:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast with "play to find out what happens":
> 
> "This game is so prep light that it nears no prep territory.  The setting, adventuring sites, NPCS, puzzles, mysteries emerge in the course of play.  Almost all of the content generated happens during play...discovering it > orienting it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it is the primary point of play."
> 
> So a few differences here:
> 
> 
> When content is generated.
> How content is generated.
> Prep-intensity.
> The track as it pertains to content.  Discover vs uncover (everyone at the table is discovering it simultaneously in the latter form of play) + REorient at the end of play in the first with orient at the beginning of play in the latter (because there is an orientation already established in the first while the 2nd has no orientation up front and must be oriented during play).
> 
> Just one quick example and then I'm tapping out and someone else can respond/run with this for awhile (I'll be back on tonight most likely):
> 
> In the first, that chamberlain (yes, back to the chamberlain of yore!) is *un*covered.  He has already been derived as a piece of content.  He already *has an orientation.*
> 
> In the second, that chamberlain is *dis*covered.  He surely exists (kings have chamberlains of course) but he has to yet to be derived as a piece of content.  He *has to be oriented right now.*




I don't really have time tonight to dive into this, but I think this really presents a false choice between two extremes, and one of those extremes, isn't even a real playstyle (at least play to discover what is in the GM's notes isn't capturing me or Maxperson's approach as far as I can tell--Maxperson can weigh in if I am wrong). I would say there is a probably a bit of play to find out in a typical game featuring lots of prep. There also probably lots of what I would call situational adventure. And lots of living worlds going on. Your analysis keeps stopping at the notes on the page, which again are just there as a tool. A lot of times it is more like the GM has notes on what is presently going on and what the situation in the world is (i.e. so and so wants to get such and such, from this guy) and so it isn't even as much about the players discovering what is in the GM's notes when they arrive at location X: it is about the GM figuring out what is actually going on at location X when they get there, and figuring out what the actors at location X are up to. This gets even more complicated when the players start interacting with the NPCs. Ultimately, my experience is most of the sandbox campaigns I've run, really become about the NPCs and groups in the setting. It is a fluid, organic interaction between the world the GM built, the choices the players make and the actions they take, and the response of the NPCs. I think when you try to break that down into something like  a 'play loop' or procedure it fails to capture the nuances (because this is a very open type of play that is open precisely because you don't know what to expect in terms of how people are going to interact and when or why players might ask questions). And all the notes are are tools  in service to all the this. The emphasis is on the sense of a real living world. And that is just sandbox, there were lots of other styles of play that got hit with the play to discover what is in the GM's notes label. All the notes are really for is so the GM can have some kind of foundation for there being this world that exists outside the players (at least in the style I am describing, in a lot of things like adventure paths and meta plot play, those notes are probably a lot more flexible in that it isn't as important to create the sense of an objective world, as much as it is important to create a thrilling adventure or emotionally powerful plot---many of the adventure path and meta plot focused GMs I speak with seem more at ease with changing these details during play----and just want to say I think this is no the correct use of meta plot, but it seems to be meaning a style of adventure where the GM is weaving a story around the PCs, often conceived in advance of play. 



> "This game is prep-intensive with pre-established, high-resolution setting, adventuring sites, NPCs, puzzles, mysteries...this stuff exists before play...this is the significant bulk of content generation in this game (before play, between sessions, not at the table during play)...uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting it is the primary point of play."




Others can weigh in, I think this really oversimplifies. Especially when the PCs themselves are going to be creating setting content through their characters. It is odd because it describes with some accuracy parts of what is going on, but seems to totally miss the point of it. Again, I feel like there is an arrogance in this analysis, where someone is viewing it from without, imposing a model of understanding that has zero connection to the way people who actually engage the style think about it. Just take the statement 'this is the significant bulk of content generation': I would argue most of the game content is generated during play through the interactions. I may make an NPC with goals, but I may have no idea what kinds of adventures that will itself create until play begins and until the players start doing things. Again, for me the proof is in the fact that if you took the "uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting" and tried to apply that in play, the game would fall flat on its face. It isn't that orderly. It isn't that neat. It isn't that rigid. And you are not just missing the spark, there are things missing here as well like the PCs generating content, the NPCs having agency of their own, emergent adventures and events, etc. Yes sometimes I may plan a mystery in a campaign. You can do that in this framework. But most of the time, it is a much more laid back, organic experience that is more like a chemical reaction than a set of procedures or bullet points.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Out of all my post, you picked out an imperfect analogy for your scrutiny, but okay as well, I suppose.




I think I've replied to more than one of your posts in this thread...



Aldarc said:


> How about we shelve that conversation for some other time? I do think that it's an interesting topic of conversation and one worth exploring, but it may not be the most pertinent one for the topic at hand, though I will freely admit my own culpability in inviting it with my analogy to a AAA MMORPG franchise property. Because I think that the pertinent matter at hand in our conversation is about the distinction and overlap between "play to explore and interact with the GM's world" and "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" rather than the shared and distinct constraints of MMORPG and TTRPG gameplay.



Yes, let's.

I've already expressed that I feel "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" is both a mis-characterization and slightly insulting, akin to claiming pemerton or Manbearcat's style is "Play to test the group's improv skills".  Yes both relay something used during the average play session, either notes or improv... but IMO that's about all either identifies. 

The distinction between "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" vs "Play to explore and interact with the GM's world" is that one is much more widely encompassing and thus accounts for what happens in an actual play session better than the other.  I have never ran a session purely off of notes, no matter how deeply detailed they were, where said notes encompassed and accounted for everything that happened. However everything that happened in the game session did become part of the exploration and interaction with the GM's world... whether that entailed seeking treasure, pursuing personal needs and goals or exploring some lost and forgotten tomb.  That my friend is the distinction.  One is a simplistic mis-characterization that tries to define the playstyle using a singular component (something I find missing with the more broad "Play to see what happens" of the other playstyle being discussed) to try and shoehorn the playstyle with an ill-fitting, slightly insulting descriptor.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> The distinction between "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" vs "Play to explore and interact with the GM's world" is that one is much more widely encompassing and thus accounts for what happens in an actual play session better than the other.  I have never ran a session purely off of notes, no matter how deeply detailed they were, where said notes encompassed and accounted for everything that happened. However everything that happened in the game session did become part of the exploration and interaction with the GM's world... whether that entailed seeking treasure, pursuing personal needs and goals or exploring some lost and forgotten tomb.  That my friend is the distinction.  One is a simplistic mis-characterization that tries to define the playstyle using a singular component (something I find missing with the more broad "Play to see what happens" of the other playstyle being discussed) to try and shoehorn the playstyle with an ill-fitting, slightly insulting descriptor.




This


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Obviously "finding out what is in the GM notes/prep" is just the inversion of "playing to find out what happens."  Put another way:
> 
> "This game is prep-intensive with pre-established, high-resolution setting, adventuring sites, NPCs, puzzles, mysteries...this stuff exists before play...this is the significant bulk of content generation in this game (before play, between sessions, not at the table during play)...uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting it is the primary point of play."
> 
> Contrast with "play to find out what happens":
> 
> "This game is so prep light that it nears no prep territory.  The setting, adventuring sites, NPCS, puzzles, mysteries emerge in the course of play.  Almost all of the content generated happens during play...discovering it > orienting it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it is the primary point of play."
> 
> So a few differences here:
> 
> 
> When content is generated.
> How content is generated.
> Prep-intensity.
> The track as it pertains to content.  Discover vs uncover (everyone at the table is discovering it simultaneously in the latter form of play) + REorient at the end of play in the first with orient at the beginning of play in the latter (because there is an orientation already established in the first while the 2nd has no orientation up front and must be oriented during play).
> 
> Just one quick example and then I'm tapping out and someone else can respond/run with this for awhile (I'll be back on tonight most likely):
> 
> In the first, that chamberlain (yes, back to the chamberlain of yore!) is *un*covered.  He has already been derived as a piece of content.  He already *has an orientation.*
> 
> In the second, that chamberlain is *dis*covered.  He surely exists (kings have chamberlains of course) but he has to yet to be derived as a piece of content.  He *has to be oriented right now.*



Ah, the old chamberlain, resurrected yet again.    In 1e his Con score would be down to about 5 by now...

There's a third, combination option which is IMO likely how many GMs would do it: the chamberlain pre-exists as a piece of content in that the notes say or imply the king has a chamberlain, but what that content actually does in the fiction (i.e. how the chamberlain responds to the PCs) is derived in the moment - with or without the aid of any game mechanics - based on the PCs' words and approach.

As for your differences list, there's one other difference not listed: the (perceived or real) robustness and-or consistency and-or stability of the framework that newly-generated content rests upon.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> I'm not _extrapolating from_ an MMORPG. I'm extrapolating from my own experiences running different styles of tabletop roleplaying games. The MMORPG exists as an analogic point of reference. I will admit that it's not a perfect analogy, but I swear that once I accomplish the task of writing the perfect analogy that works in all cases as a point of reference, including those that are neither relevant nor pertinent to the analogy, then I will alert you to that perfect analogy as soon as humanly possible.



Doesn't count if there's no chamberlains involved!


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay.  You have the following:
> 
> Premise:   APs are good training tools for GMs.
> Assumption 1:  This is because APs have many flaws and flat scenes.
> Assumption 2:  These flaws are usually not visible until play is occurring.
> Conclusion:  Ergo, APs are good training tools because they force the GM to react to poor design on the fly.
> 
> I find this to be a flawed argument.  Particularly, A2 is doesn't at all apply to me, as I fix things in prep and so don't often encounter the need to correct for bad AP design on the fly.



Using individual modules rather than whole APs as my basis, I have to disagree.

Many, many times I've read a module and thought "this would be cool to run as is, or close" and then found in play that it had read far better than it played.  Sometimes I can fix it on the fly, more often I can't, and once or twice in the past I've even thrown up my hands and said "Sorry, guys, this ones's just not working out but we're committed now, for the sake of continuity let's just plow through it and call it a bad idea".

The converse is also true: there's many times I've read a module and been left uninspired, then on later running it found it to be awesomesauce.


----------



## kenada

I’ve been following along for several pages now (and finally caught up). I picked up on the inversion from “Play to find out what happens” to “Play to find out what’s in the GM’s notes” pretty early on. I don’t think it works. “Play to find out what happens” effects protagonistic play in e.g., Apocalypse World because of the principles that support it. If instead of asking provocative questions and building on the answers, you portray a living world and respond to change with consequences, then you can still play to find out what happens, but the nature of that will be different (e.g., the game is a sandbox of the GM’s creation where the PCs can effect change).


----------



## Older Beholder

I like to have a session written up beforehand, (D&D 5E) for the last couple of games I ran, I had 17 pages for about 7-8 hours of gaming.
I do rewrite blocks of monster stats in my notes which can take up a bit of space, (If there's a fight involving a group of different monsters, I just find it easier to have them all in one spot) it also helps me remember their abilities a little better.

Sometimes this can be heavily scripted, other times it's more open and just some dot points or rough ideas. Usually a combo of the two depending on what's happening in the adventure.

I'm not the greatest public speaker / improv guy, so it's just easier and more comfortable for me to go in prepared.
Most the time when things go well and everything flows I barely even need to refer to the notes. But for me at least, there will always be details and ideas that get missed during play even at the best of times, so GM notes just increase the chances of me not missing stuff. 

I always had a (pipe) dream to write an adventure and send it in, back when Dungeon Magazine was still a thing. So I think it's carried over from that a little, where I'm still trying to write adventure ideas that can be edited and re-used for different groups further down the track.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The point, which you seem to be missing, is that these play goals can and do happen WITH DM notes.



Which post of mine are you referring to here?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I think I've replied to more than one of your posts in this thread...



"My post" (i.e., singular) as in the post that included an analogy among the rest of its content rather than in regards to all my posts in this thread. 



Imaro said:


> I've already expressed that I feel "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" is both a mis-characterization and slightly insulting, akin to claiming pemerton or Manbearcat's style is "Play to test the group's improv skills".  Yes both relay something used during the average play session, either notes or improv... but IMO that's about all either identifies.



Again, as someone who also likes running these style games, I don't find this label particularly insulting. It's aromantic, but apt. Styles can have more than one label. Sometimes these styles will overlap, be included with or excluded from other styles depending on the label. 



Imaro said:


> The distinction between "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" vs "Play to explore and interact with the GM's world" is that one is much more widely encompassing and thus accounts for what happens in an actual play session better than the other.  *I have never ran a session purely off of notes,* no matter how deeply detailed they were, where said notes encompassed and accounted for everything that happened. However everything that happened in the game session did become part of the exploration and interaction with the GM's world... whether that entailed seeking treasure, pursuing personal needs and goals or exploring some lost and forgotten tomb.  That my friend is the distinction.  One is a simplistic mis-characterization that tries to define the playstyle using a singular component (something I find missing with the more broad "Play to see what happens" of the other playstyle being discussed) to try and shoehorn the playstyle with an ill-fitting, slightly insulting descriptor.



Okay. Having followed pemerton's discussions elsewhere, I take "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" as more figurative than literal, as per the bold. The "notes" may or may not be pre-written in any sense, though they may exist in the GM's headspace. They could even be generated on the fly through the setting FAQ that players engage in. MAR Barker was once asked what food one of the local cultures ate in his Tekumél world. He thought about it based upon his pre-existing notes and understanding of the world, and then provided the players with a pretty detailed answer. Even if Barker was inventing this up mostly on the spot and had not written it down as part of his game prep, there is still a sense that the players must defer to the _GM as author_ and their "notes" for the fiction. 

As such, there may be a hyper-focus on the use of the word "notes" rather than "GM's," which also appears in the whole "play to explore and interact with the *GM's world*." This last part in bold was a massive red flag for me personally as it emphasizes a sense of ownership and authorship of the world on behalf of the GM. If it's going to be referred to as the "GM's world" rather than the "PC's world," which they as living characters inhabit, then yeah that _potentially_ suggests to me that the PCs exist more as tourists to the GM's theme park rather than protagonists. I find this more problematic than "GM's notes."


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> There's an important word word missing in that description which, for purposes of pointing it out, I've taken the liberty of inserting above.
> 
> Adding that word changes the whole tone of the definition away from including things that _must_ happen towards including things that _may_ happen, and will unless the PCs - for better or worse - somehow do something about it.
> 
> What's already happened in the fiction is locked in, yes.  But locking in the future as well, as your definition seems to want to do, points to a railroad where there may well not be one.



Lanefan, I know from your posting history that you write in, in advance, not just possibilities but actualities. For instance, based on the way you prep with maps, you make it _actually the case _that there are many places where secret doors will not be discovered.

And I'm pretty sure, from other posts you've made, that this generalises beyond secret doors, and even beyond the discovery of discrete items or architectural features. For instance, based on a map you would deem it the case that no one travelling north of a swamp will enter the foothills. (This was a topic of discussion in a thread I believe earlier this year, or perhaps late last year.)

You take a very strong view that a game in which these potential events are contemplated involves "Schroedinger's <whatever>."



Lanefan said:


> Other than that, your assessment is more or less correct.
> 
> What I don't see is where there's any problem with any of the above./QUOTE]Who said that there is a problem with it? Not @Manbearcat. The point of his setting it out was simply to illustrate the role of the GM's notes in that sort of play.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The distinction between "Play to discover what's in the GM's notes" vs "Play to explore and interact with the GM's world" is that one is much more widely encompassing and thus accounts for what happens in an actual play session better than the other.



Another distinction is that the first is literal and the second is metaphor. Are you able to give a non-metaphorical version of the second?


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> what that content actually does in the fiction (i.e. how the chamberlain responds to the PCs) is derived in the moment - with or without the aid of any game mechanics - based on the PCs' words and approach.



What is the relationship between "derived" (the verb you use) and _decided_?

In most RPGs the GM has to decide what a NPC does having reference to the PCs' words and approach: this is true of Classic Traveller, Moldvay Basic, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Prince Valiant, and numerous other games.

A big part of what differentiates some of these games, in this respect, is the basis for the decision. Glossing this as "with or without the aid of any game mechanics" without considering the nature of those mechanics, who gets to decide whether they're invoked, in what way they take "words and approach" as input, and in what way they constrain the GM decision as output, seems to be overlooking the substance of the discussion.

For instance, just to set up three possibilities:

* The GM has no default disposition in mind for the Chamberlain, and decides how the Chamberlain responds by calling for a reaction roll by the player of the PC who approaches the Chamberlain;

* The GM has a note, or at the moment of play creates a (perhaps literal, perhaps mental) note that the Chamberlain is ill-disposed to the PC, and hence will accede to any request only if a particularly difficult social check is made;

* As the previous dot point, but the GM decides to "inhabit" the mindset of the ill-disposed Chamberlain and hence will have the Chamberlain accede to any request only if s/he feels that the player of the PC has made a sufficiently persuasive case.​
Each of these is an example of _how the chamberlain responds to the PCs being derived in the moment - with or without the aid of any game mechanics - based on the PCs' words and approach_. But I think it's obvious that they are very different approaches to adjudication.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Lanefan, I know from your posting history that you write in, in advance, not just possibilities but actualities. For instance, based on the way you prep with maps, you make it _actually the case _that there are many places where secret doors will not be discovered.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure, from other posts you've made, that this generalises beyond secret doors, and even beyond the discovery of discrete items or architectural features. For instance, based on a map you would deem it the case that no one travelling north of a swamp will enter the foothills. (This was a topic of discussion in a thread I believe earlier this year, or perhaps late last year.)
> 
> You take a very strong view that a game in which these potential events are contemplated involves "Schroedinger's <whatever>."



When I read "events happening in the future" my thoughts went to GM notes along the lines of "Three months into the new year a Huge Blue Dragon will attack the city of Praetos" or "The cult of Chronos will infiltrate the Apollo temple over the second half of next year and will have taken over by year's end".  Not putting the word "potential" in there strongly implies these events are going to happen even if the PCs take out the Blue Dragon before it attacks or break up the Chronos cult before their plans get going; and that sort of thing really does stand to invalidate PC actions and-or effects on the setting.

Things on maps count, to me, as previously locked in: the map shows merely the results of history.  Those walls that don't have any secret doors in them were (in the fiction) built long before the PCs started adventuring and as nobody's cut any secret doors through them since, that's what the map shows.  Any hills that were once just north of where that swamp now lies were (in the fiction) eroded ages before any of the PCs' ancestors settled this region, and that's what the map shows.  And so on.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> What is the relationship between "derived" (the verb you use) and _decided_?
> 
> In most RPGs the GM has to decide what a NPC does having reference to the PCs' words and approach: this is true of Classic Traveller, Moldvay Basic, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Prince Valiant, and numerous other games.
> 
> A big part of what differentiates some of these games, in this respect, is the basis for the decision. Glossing this as "with or without the aid of any game mechanics" without considering the nature of those mechanics, who gets to decide whether they're invoked, in what way they take "words and approach" as input, and in what way they constrain the GM decision as output, seems to be overlooking the substance of the discussion.
> 
> For instance, just to set up three possibilities:
> 
> * The GM has no default disposition in mind for the Chamberlain, and decides how the Chamberlain responds by calling for a reaction roll by the player of the PC who approaches the Chamberlain;​​* *The GM has a note,* or at the moment of play creates a (perhaps literal, perhaps mental) note that the Chamberlain is ill-disposed to the PC, and hence will accede to any request only if a particularly difficult social check is made;​​* As the previous dot point, but the GM decides to "inhabit" the mindset of the ill-disposed Chamberlain and hence will have the Chamberlain accede to any request only if s/he feels that the player of the PC has made a sufficiently persuasive case.​
> Each of these is an example of _how the chamberlain responds to the PCs being derived in the moment - with or without the aid of any game mechanics - based on the PCs' words and approach_. But I think it's obvious that they are very different approaches to adjudication.



Bolded bit is to point out that in my example the only "GM notes" are that the chamberlain exists at all; the part you added in your reply doesn't apply here.

The chamberlain's reaction or attitude _isn't_ pre-determined in this example.  That the point:  it's left open, to better allow the PCs to be the authors of their own success or failure, whether such comes via dice-roll mechanics or via the GM simply roleplaying the chamberlain as being a typical, rational person reacting to what's being said to him.

Hence, my saying it's done via a combination of GM notes and in-the-moment (not necessarily mechanical) resolution.


----------



## Lanefan

I think, no matter what the game is or what the situation is or what character I'm playing, that the next time a PC of mine encounters a chamberlain I'm going to start proceedings by shooting it dead, just on principle.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> I think, no matter what the game is or what the situation is or what character I'm playing, that the next time a PC of mine encounters a chamberlain I'm going to start proceedings by shooting it dead, just on principle.


----------



## Emerikol

Imaro said:


> I've been arguing this as well... it's the ability of one side to pre-define the necessary criteria for "protagonism" (basically that the GM must not heavy prep and the  players must be able to co-author outside of their characters in-game influence for real "protagonism" to exist) that has made it hard and frustrating to have this discussion and why I semi-bowed out earlier.  IMO, with the right approach a heavy prepped game can achieve protagonism in the sense of being about player goals and desires through being equally driven by player and GM desire.



I think one of the problems is the appropriation of words by some game designers.  Protagonism in plain English does not demand what you have made of it.   I realize over time that words do become game designer speak and mean different things.  I am not criticising that necessarily.  

So here is the confusion.   If God created a real fantasy world with real magic, took you and dropped you into it would you have protagonism or not?   I think you'd say no by the standards of game design.  I think for the people on the other side their eyes would bug out because how could you not have protagonism as you'd be a real living person in a real fantasy world.   The reality is that as a real person in a real fantasy world you would have no authorial ability.  You'd just be able to do whatever you as a human could do in that world.  For us that is the very essence of protagonism in its purest english language sense before game designers redefined the term.   

Again, I am not criticising game designers creating their own meta-language but when you come on these boards you shouldn't assume that we know game designer speak.  It would be like be talking about objects and design patterns in the field of programming.  You might respond, "I know what an object is..." but you don't in terms of my redefinition of the term.  And yes you'd be using the original usage.  Object existed as a word before programming.  So I'd need to be careful when talking to a non-programmer.


----------



## Emerikol

Imaro said:


> But you can't ever, no matter what you choose to do or try, enact fundamental and lasting change on Blizzard's world of Azeroth.  I don't think this in any way supports your assertion since a player of WoW is never forcing change or adding to Blizzard's notes on Azeroth.  If anything I think the difference between a playstyle where the world can actually change through the actions of the PC's and where they can work with their DM/GM to set and achieve their own personalized goals, desires and needs would highlight why the descriptor is such a mischaracterization.



But this is what TTRPG is giving you.  It's giving you the ability to have an Azeroth and change it.  You can overthrow the king (in theory).   You can mutate the world by your actions in the very same way we mutate the real world with our actions.


----------



## Emerikol

So let me throw something out there....

A living world is designed by the GM and is designed to change.  The events plotted out for the future though are very much able to be impacted by the PCs.  I usually plot out the moves of the NPCs for a good distance in the future and I revisit every so often to adjust.  For most NPCs the PCs don't affect them that much.  For some though it's major changes because the PCs have directly impacted their plans.   Most people's lives in a medieval type setting don't change that much over time.  

I like though to have what I call plot threads running all the time.  Villains of various sorts are up to no good.  The PCs may not ever encounter them and they may succeed.  Or the PCs will take note and stop them.  

So if a PC suddenly said they wanted to achieve something in game that would not be possible in that world, yes they are constrained by what I'd call the world's reality.  Just like we are constrained by our reality.  The difference is that the fantasy world has magic so many dreams are more possible than in ours of course.  I don't view protagonism as the ability to change the world that exists.  It is the freedom to do within that world as you will.   Now that may run counter to you concept of protagonism in game designer speak for some of these modern games.   It fits the english language definition fairly well though.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Thanks. I would say it was already very clear.



I am glad you understand but it seemed others did not from their posts so I was clarifying. 

It seems obvious to me that there is always more than one player payoff when playing a game.


----------



## Imaro

Emerikol said:


> But this is what TTRPG is giving you.  It's giving you the ability to have an Azeroth and change it.  You can overthrow the king (in theory).   You can mutate the world by your actions in the very same way we mutate the real world with our actions.




I think our thoughts are pretty much aligned on this.


----------



## Emerikol

Imaro said:


> I think our thoughts are pretty much aligned on this.



I wasn't sure as I don't know all your preferences as well as some of the others on here.

I think these two things are not the same though for clarification
1.  Mutate the world in a way that someone living in a world that really existed could mutate it given the rulesset as the guiding principles on the physics.

2.  Mutate the world from the viewpoint of a creator (author) so that their character fulfills challenges and achieves goals in a way that is pleasing to the player.

The big debate, I think, is that some say #2 is the only sort of thing that gives true protagonism.  I think in plain english that is hogwash.  I will though say that in terms some game designers use that it is obviously true because they've used the term but redefined it.  They needed a word that fit a valid playstyle outcome and they chose protagonism.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Another distinction is that the first is literal and the second is metaphor. Are you able to give a non-metaphorical version of the second?




Can I ask why this distinction matters?

EDIT: And the first is not literal since, as so many of us have posted in this thread and you seem to be choosing to continuously ignore, it does not accurately describe the playstyle only a single facet of it.  Do you "Play to discover what can be generated by the improv skills of your group"?  That's literal and describes what you must as part of the fabricated definition of "protagonism", some in this thread are using, do.  Why instead do you call your playstyle "Play to find out what happens"?  Isn't that literally what we are all doing to some point or another in numerous playstyles??


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I think one of the problems is the appropriation of words by some game designers.  Protagonism in plain English does not demand what you have made of it.   I realize over time that words do become game designer speak and mean different things.  I am not criticising that necessarily.



I disagree.  A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story.  If play is such that the PC is reacting to the world, then there's a good argument that they aren't the protagonist of the story -- they aren't the lead character because the story doesn't focus on and revolve around them.

I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though.  Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?  


Emerikol said:


> So here is the confusion.   If God created a real fantasy world with real magic, took you and dropped you into it would you have protagonism or not?   I think you'd say no by the standards of game design.  I think for the people on the other side their eyes would bug out because how could you not have protagonism as you'd be a real living person in a real fantasy world.   The reality is that as a real person in a real fantasy world you would have no authorial ability.  You'd just be able to do whatever you as a human could do in that world.  For us that is the very essence of protagonism in its purest english language sense before game designers redefined the term.



Nope.  Of course there's no protagonism there.  That story doesn't revolve around the character.


Emerikol said:


> Again, I am not criticising game designers creating their own meta-language but when you come on these boards you shouldn't assume that we know game designer speak.  It would be like be talking about objects and design patterns in the field of programming.  You might respond, "I know what an object is..." but you don't in terms of my redefinition of the term.  And yes you'd be using the original usage.  Object existed as a word before programming.  So I'd need to be careful when talking to a non-programmer.



There's no redefinition, here.  You take the straight English word and look at the game and see who and what it focuses on.  

And, like @Aldarc, I play both sides of the fence, here.  The game I'm currently running has no protagonism, although I hope to have some points where the players get to engage in some, that's certainly not guaranteed.  I don't have any problem with this, and play is fun!  Just finished a session last night, which was primarily a dungeon crawl, where the players explored the GM's notes (what's in this room, is this trapped, can I unlock that door, what treasure is there, what monsters are here?), and my players all chimed in at the end to say it was a really fun session.   I'm not at all ashamed about that session, nor do I feel it was in any way lesser for having no protagonism and being about exploring the GM's notes.  That's a great way to have fun!


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though.  Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?



I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.




Knowing how the 'meat is made' is very important to running these games successfully. What people don't like is people insisting on what the recipe is even when we know that isn't the case through experience.


----------



## kenada

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though.  Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?



I suspect the issue is that constructing the alternative word as the negation of protagonism has a poor connotation. It would be like referring to vegans as non-carnivores. It may be technically correct, but it will cause friction and misunderstanding. I’d proffer “experiential” as the dual to protagonistic, but I just made that up right now, and I’m not sure it is universal enough to cover the spread of styles that fall under “non-protagonistic”.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.  A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story.  If play is such that the PC is reacting to the world, then there's a good argument that they aren't the protagonist of the story -- they aren't the lead character because the story doesn't focus on and revolve around them.




I don't understand this line of thinking at all... If not the characters whose decisions, actions, etc we are focusing on then who is the protagonist of the story in your above statement?  As an example Superheroes react to the world, villain plots, loved one's in danger all the time and yet I don't think you would make the argument that say Superman isn't the protagonist of a Superman comic book... would you?  I really am having a hard time grasping this logic. 

EDIT: You are also assuming that the playstyle we are describing is only ever the PC reacting and we've made it clear that in actual play this just isn't a valid or honest assessment of what happens at the table.


Ovinomancer said:


> I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though.  Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?




I can't answer for Ovinomancer but I thing the "need" to claim it for our playstyle (I don't think anyone is speaking for all playstyles) is because claiming it doesn't exist in our playstyle is, in at least how I view protagonism, incorrect and we are correcting you.  It's pretty simple especially when you have to take a word and laden it with qualifiers in order to make your categorization stick.  I don't want to pull out defintions but maybe it would be a good idea for some to actually look at what the word protagonist means.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.




Orrrr... as various posters have stated, it's a mischaracterization.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.  A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story.  If play is such that the PC is reacting to the world, then there's a good argument that they aren't the protagonist of the story -- they aren't the lead character because the story doesn't focus on and revolve around them.



Well with a group of players, I'm assuming you are at least allowing for each party member to be a protagonist even by your definition.   Every work of fiction almost ever though has the hero of the story reacting to events in the world so I don't get why you object on those grounds.  I mean Sauron was threatening the world and seeking the one true ring.   Does that mean Frodo was not a protagonist?



Ovinomancer said:


> I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though.  Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?
> 
> Nope.  Of course there's no protagonism there.  That story doesn't revolve around the character.



I think you've taken protagonism to an extreme and then declared anything not to that extreme is not protagonism.  



Ovinomancer said:


> There's no redefinition, here.  You take the straight English word and look at the game and see who and what it focuses on.



I think there is and you've not really made the case that it is not.  The word protagonism as you use it is not the way protagonism has been used for centuries.  Long before roleplaying games.  Heroes decide to do something about the world they live in.  The Heroe's Journey in fiction very much is about a reluctant hero finally deciding to face a challenge.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, like @Aldarc, I play both sides of the fence, here.  The game I'm currently running has no protagonism, although I hope to have some points where the players get to engage in some, that's certainly not guaranteed.  I don't have any problem with this, and play is fun!  Just finished a session last night, which was primarily a dungeon crawl, where the players explored the GM's notes (what's in this room, is this trapped, can I unlock that door, what treasure is there, what monsters are here?), and my players all chimed in at the end to say it was a really fun session.   I'm not at all ashamed about that session, nor do I feel it was in any way lesser for having no protagonism and being about exploring the GM's notes.  That's a great way to have fun!



I am not taking offense about the term.  I'm just saying that in common use of the language it does not mean what you think it means.  I've given leeway that perhaps there is a group in the game design community that have appropriated the word for a specific type of game.   And to be honest stuff like that happens all the time.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Orrrr... as various posters have stated, it's a mischaracterization.



Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I don't understand this line of thinking at all... If not the characters whose decisions, actions, etc we are focusing on then who is the protagonist of the story in your above statement?  As an example Superheroes react to the world, villain plots, loved one's in danger all the time and yet I don't think you would make the argument that say Superman isn't the protagonist of a Superman comic book... would you?  I really am having a hard time grasping this logic.
> 
> EDIT: You are also assuming that the playstyle we are describing is only ever the PC reacting and we've made it clear that in actual play this just isn't a valid or honest assessment of what happens at the table.



I'll try this again, but it's been well covered.  A protagonist has dramatic needs -- the story featuring a protagonist revolves around the protagonist's drama, not other characters' drama.  When a PC in a game meets a dragon, say, and the GM has already planned out what the dragon's needs and wants are, and what it's doing in the story, then this is divorced from the protagonists needs.  Sure, the PC can make choices about what to do about the dragon, and this is the core of a good game, but the locus of the dramatic need here is on the dragon -- the PC is reacting to what the dragon is about and wants, and then deciding what the PC wants to do with regard to the dragon.  To put it another way, this situation starts with the GM, and (maybe) ends with the PC.  The maybe is there because the player may decide to do something else, in which case the GM will usually play out what they imagined the dragons does, thereby both starting and ending that thread with the GM.

If the game is centered in protagonism, then it would start with the PC -- the only way there'd be a dragon is if it directly ties to the PC's dramatic needs, like say if a PC was created with the goal to be a noted dragon-slayer, then the dragon is in the game because the PC needs a dragon to slay, not for any other reasons.  The player inserts this dragon because it has to be there to deliver on the PC's dramatic need.  Then play will focus on the PC's quest to slay a dragon, and not on what the dragon may want.  Complications will accrue here through play -- most systems that support this play generate complication through the mechanics, thereby charging the situation and discovering what happens on the PC's quest -- not just does the PC slay a dragon, but what the dragon is doing that counters the PC's need, and if, indeed, the PC even succeeds at there need -- note this may be stopping the dragon but failing the need.  Here, the play starts with the PC, but may end with the GM due to failure.


Imaro said:


> I can't answer for Ovinomancer but I thing the "need" to claim it for our playstyle (I don't think anyone is speaking for all playstyles) is because claiming it doesn't exist in our playstyle is, in at least how I view protagonism, incorrect and we are correcting you.  It's pretty simple especially when you have to take a word and laden it with qualifiers in order to make your categorization stick.  I don't want to pull out defintions but maybe it would be a good idea for some to actually look at what the word protagonist means.



I'm not using a single qualifier.  Protagonism is, quite literally, about protagonists.  And protagonists are the center of a story -- the story focuses on that character(s) dramatic need(s).  There's nothing twisted here, no redefinitions.  It's straightfoward.  Instead, what I see is a confusion with letting players make choices about what they do, which is not the same thing.  That's _agency_.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.



I know, right?  I played some D&D with a friend with Basic, and a bit of 1e, but really didn't get into what I'd consider a "real" group until 2e.  And, that campaign features an extremely detailed sandbox game, pretty much exactly as @Emerikol has described their play.  That was my experience for the first decade of play, as I adopted that approach as well.  Then 3e rolled out, and I did that and some large adventures (I have found memories of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, for instance).  I found 4e hard to work with because it seemed to fight this kind of approach, but had some successes there anyway.  It was around this time I tried Burning Wheel and absolutely bounced off of it, hard!  Then 5e came out, and my first game was a Big Plot game, with a well detailed world (I had trade details between countries, even, so I could simulate disruptions) with a primary plot line dealing with an apocalyptic threat.  It wasn't until about 5 years ago that I started to even consider how a game like Burning Wheel might work, and as little at 2-3 years ago that I actually successfully tried Blades in the Dark.  I continue to refine my understanding of how games work.

But, all of this gets dismissed as just the zeal of the  "recently converted," like somehow learning a new thing about RPGs means you forget how other things work, or even stop liking them.


----------



## Fenris-77

A protagonist is, in common usage, the leading character or one the major characters in a fictional text. Setting aside for a moment issues of whether or not an RPG produces a story, that general definition seems to fit the PCs in pretty much any game. By the nature of the endeavor the game revolves around the characters and their choices.


----------



## Campbell

Here's how I have always viewed protagonism in the context of roleplaying games : a shared expectation that players will create characters who have compelling dramatic needs, play them first and foremost with their needs in mind, and that any adversity provided by the GM will be fundamentally honest and played with integrity. At heart is the conceit that the player rather than the GM provides the animating force. Also at heart is the conceit that the GM (and everyone else) is fundamentally a fan of the players' characters. When I talk about protagonism this is what I desire to speak about.

It's not a specific set of techniques, but rather a shared set of goals and expectations. You can have a game with a lot of protagonism in it that involves a lot of prep and world building as long as the focus when we are all that table is on playing these characters with integrity and seeing where their journey takes them. I personally tend to run games with very heavy prep using techniques I mostly have glommed from Sorcerer, OSR games and Apocalypse World.

If you have an issue with the language involved please provide better framing. I would be interested to here it so we can get on actually discussing the role of prep. I'll have more thoughts on some of the ways I approach game prep later tonight.


----------



## Campbell

So I think the framing of *play to find out what happens* is actually much better encapsulated in Monsterhearts' *Keep The Story Fera*l and Justin Alexander's *"Don't prep plots. Prep Situation*". Basically don't come to play with preconceptions on how things should go or what the story should be.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Another distinction is that the first is literal and the second is metaphor. Are you able to give a non-metaphorical version of the second?



Why should he when you've yet to prove that the first is literal?  None of us contesting this with you "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes." If you say it's literal, then it's literally wrong.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> A protagonist is, in common usage, the leading character or one the major characters in a fictional text. Setting aside for a moment issues of whether or not an RPG produces a story, that general definition seems to fit the PCs in pretty much any game. By the nature of the endeavor the game revolves around the characters and their choices.



Yes, the protagonist is who the story is about.  If I create a world that doesn't care about the PCs and then turn them loose in it to see what they uncover/do, is the story actually about those PCs?  Play will focus on the PCs choices, sure, but the drama of the situation is rarely about the PCs.  To use my session from last night, the PCs were raiding a dungeon under the home of a major NPC, all to discover what that NPC because they had been given a job to do just that.  This will lead to further clues and directions on what the next steps in the mystery are.  None of this is about the PCs -- none of it features anything that required any input from the PC or was designed with any given PC in mind.  Yet, play is about the choices they make in navigating this situation.  This isn't protagonism, because they aren't the main characters in this story, just the ones that feature in play (right now, if I kill one, they will be replaced), and what they're doing is reacting to the plans and plots of NPCs.  This means this game is actually about those NPCs, and we're playing to see if the PCs foil their plans.  The game isn't about the dramatic needs of the PCs.

To offer a different example, the first Infinity War movie in the Marvel oeuvre, Thanos is the protagonist, not the Avengers.  Yet the Avengers are clearly major characters and demand the majority of the screen time.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.




We aren't speaking to your experiences... we are speaking to our own and you in turn were not commenting on your own experiences you were speculating on why others think something.


----------



## Fenris-77

The world doesn't need to care. Whether it cares or not the basic recursive action of roleplaying, the conversation back and forth, is about the characters and it's their decisions and actions that shape the diegetic frame and evolving narrative. Sounds like protagonists to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.



No.  We just hate mischaracterizations of our playstyle is all.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> The world doesn't need to care. Whether it cares or not the basic recursive action of roleplaying, the conversation back and forth, is about the characters and it's their decisions and actions that shape the diegetic frame and evolving narrative. Sounds like protagonists to me.



Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> So I think the framing of *play to find out what happens* is actually much better encapsulated in Monsterhearts' *Keep The Story Fera*l and Justin Alexander's *"Don't prep plots. Prep Situation*". Basically don't come to play with preconceptions on how things should go or what the story should be.




This is also something you see in sandbox a lot. You might have a world prepped, you might have your NPCs, but one of the goals is to not think ahead of time how things will play out when the PCs come into contact with that stuff. There are different ways of doing this. A lot of people in my circles draw on the Alexandrian (including the Don't Prep Plots. Prep Situation). There is also the Situational GMing concept that Clash Bowley talked about on his blog: HERE. I discussed similar concepts on my blog as well. This is one of the reasons why I keep bringing up the living adventure concept (end emphasize things like NPC motivations---and using those motivations during play to decide what they do, rather than come up with events or actions the NPC will take in advance)


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?




How?? What characters exist in Monopoly?  There are playing pieces but there are no characters in Monopoly.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.



I don't know you, so I don't know your ability to grasp what is happening with the method, or if you even really ran it.  Your(your side in general) experiences don't really matter to me in this discussion.  I do know my experience with the method. I don't "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes." and saying that it is, is a gross mischaracterization of what it is that I do.  Others here are telling you the same thing.

It's almost as if you "keep ignoring and pretending like we don't have firsthand experience running and playing in these sorts of games..."


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> How?? What characters exist in Monopoly?  There are playing pieces but there are no characters in Monopoly.



I'm perfectly free to put on a silly voice and affect a character while playing Monopoly and interact with other players doing the same.  Just as much as I can treat Bob the Fighter, my PC, as a player piece.  "Character" is doing a lot of work, here, perhaps you can explain what defines a character.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> How?? What characters exist in Monopoly?  There are playing pieces but there are no characters in Monopoly.



I don't know who you are responding to, but I can guess.  Someone else tried the failed Monopoly argument earlier in the thread and I shot it down very quickly.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, the protagonist is who the story is about.  If I create a world that doesn't care about the PCs and then turn them loose in it to see what they uncover/do, is the story actually about those PCs?  Play will focus on the PCs choices, sure, but the drama of the situation is rarely about the PCs.  To use my session from last night, the PCs were raiding a dungeon under the home of a major NPC, all to discover what that NPC because they had been given a job to do just that.  This will lead to further clues and directions on what the next steps in the mystery are.  None of this is about the PCs -- none of it features anything that required any input from the PC or was designed with any given PC in mind.  Yet, play is about the choices they make in navigating this situation.  This isn't protagonism, because they aren't the main characters in this story, just the ones that feature in play (right now, if I kill one, they will be replaced), and what they're doing is reacting to the plans and plots of NPCs.  This means this game is actually about those NPCs, and we're playing to see if the PCs foil their plans.  The game isn't about the dramatic needs of the PCs.
> 
> To offer a different example, the first Infinity War movie in the Marvel oeuvre, Thanos is the protagonist, not the Avengers.  Yet the Avengers are clearly major characters and demand the majority of the screen time.



Honestly and take this in the right spirit.   You are using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means.  I understand your idea and how it works.  You call it protagonism.  I get that.  But protagonism in plain english does not mean what you think it means which is why everyone is opposing you.  They aren't arguing the concept.  They are arguing the term.

You said:
 If I create a world that doesn't care about the PCs and then turn them loose in it to see what they uncover/do, is the story actually about those PCs?

My answer:
Absolutely it is about the PCs.  Yes it is about the PCs.  As you have reminded me so often, what happens off camera is not central to the players playing of their characters.   The real action is with the group.   They are absolutely protagonists in their story.   

What you've done is add a bunch of qualifiers around protagonism that are not at all required.  You needed a name for your game constructs and chose protagonism.  Fine.  Just realize that the raw meaning of the word is absolutely not the definition of that game construct.   If it's gamer speak shorthand that is fine but realize you may need to explain yourself.  You redefine a word and then get upset everyone balks at it.  You don't get to redefine english.   

At this point if you disagree I don't see much further point to continuing the discussion.  We just don't agree with you.   So your use of that word is a stumbling block to the discussion that could be had about your actual style versus word definitions.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?



Monopoly most certainly does not.   I was using _conversation_ there in the way, say, Vincent Baker does in discussing "what is an RPG" at the beginning of Apocalypse World. Action - adjudication - consequence. Even if I weren't tired of facetious arguments about Monopoly or the like being an RPG, it's quite obviously missing the middle bit, so let's not go there. Nor does it have what would commonly be described as a game world. Anyway, These are all things you already know. I guess the friendly question is what exactly are you trying to prove here?

You definition of protagonist above seems limited to a single character, which I find at odds with the normal usage of the word, which can usaully apply to more than one character in a single text. Perhaps there's something I'm missing about your specific usage though. Additionally, my short definition of protagonism would be the state, character or activity of a protagonist. One, is that the definition you're using, and two, what are the stakes of using that instead of just talking about protagonists?


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?



No it doesn't.  I can't drive my monopoly car anywhere I want.  It's a highly restricted mode board game and in no way resembles the freedom in an rpg.  You see being able to do whatever we want as our characters seems to us to be a great amount of control.  To you it seems restrictive.  I get that.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Why should he when you've yet to prove that the first is literal?  None of us contesting this with you "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes." If you say it's literal, then it's literally wrong.




So I think that part of the problem is that any counter to "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" as @pemerton has described it, that has been offered relies on non-literal wording. Now, whether I agree with @pemerton's idea or not, I clearly understand what it is that he is saying.

What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this? 

"Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism. 

What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm perfectly free to put on a silly voice and affect a character while playing Monopoly and interact with other players doing the same.  Just as much as I can treat Bob the Fighter, my PC, as a player piece.  "Character" is doing a lot of work, here, perhaps you can explain what defines a character.




You claimed the game of Monopoly did this... This is not part of the rules of Monopoly.  Are we really at the point where pure fabrications are being used to defend positions?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So I think that part of the problem is that any counter to "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" as @pemerton has described it, that has been offered relies on non-literal wording. Now, whether I agree with @pemerton's idea or not, I clearly understand what it is that he is saying.
> 
> What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?
> 
> "Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.
> 
> What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?



If he wants to re-state his theory in a way that doesn't misrepresent what it is that we do and isn't pejorative, then I'll be happy to examine it. As it is stated, though, it doesn't at all represent the purpose or focus of our play.  Words matter, as @pemerton well knows, since he's quick to remind us of his authority in the area.  If he wanted to foster a real discussion, instead coming across yet again as poopooing on this particular playstyle, he could have done so.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> "Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.




The concept of a living world and how that is achieved has been explained. But if you will only accept answers where the players are doing things like taking on GM powers, I don' think we can have a fruitful discussion because then it is clearly just a style debate, and not really about understanding what we are doing at the table. Also there seems to be this weird paradox where if we answer the question literally (i.e. showing example of not literally going to the notes) we are reprimanded for taking him literally, yet if we answer in a non-literal way, we are told to be more literal. I think we've both answered in terms of higher concept and in terms of nitty gritty what we literally do


----------



## Emerikol

Ovid, I only accuse you of being the newly converted when you attack so hard my own style of gaming.  I have no problem if you like your style.  


For the purposes of discussion, let's get back to discussing the playstyles and away from terms wars.

There is something about starting out in a world that seems to operate independent of the character.  It increases my own sense of verisimilitude when I play.  My play agenda is to make my way in a hostile world using my fantasy powers to overcome challenges and prosper.  Perhaps to feel heroic and get a good feeling about advancing the cause of justice and good along the way.   The satisfaction for me comes from knowing I and my party met real challenges and overcame them.  

I think in a game where the world tends to bend and flow with the PCs is one where that feeling is a lot harder to get.  So the payoff is not there for me.  Now, there may be other payoffs you enjoy and that these games provide.   Personally I've always been skeptical of players who really just want to look heroic without really meeting any challenge for real.  It would give me no satisfaction.  Genuinely outsmarting my opponents vs having everything ultimately catered to my heroic needs is really important to me.   

So not every game is for every person.  It is true that some people do not try the game they ultimately will love the best.  Try different games.  I'm all for it.  It's not true though that a particular style is fun for everyone or that once tried that a particular style of play will be enjoyable for everyone.   I believe I know my own preferences better than I think most people know theirs.  

Hey it may be a bell curve.  Some of you may be in the middle of the curve and like a variety of styles.  Others may be further one way or the other and don't like the opposing style very much.  It's all taste.  Hard to dispute.  When I say that something doesn't give me a certain payoff like verisimilitude or immersion, you may argue it should in your opinion but you can't argue it does.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> @Manbearcat, this reflects my sense of things over the course of these threads; and my point was really about the rhetoric. Where it genuinely feels like no matter how many times we say "No that isn't what we do, you are missing the point of play for us" a lot of people here just plow forward with an analysis that has this level of certainty to it that is not capturing anything we recognize at work within these styles.






Bedrockgames said:


> These are word games. All you are trying to do is take a common tool in pretty much any play  and tie anything that happens to it to force this argument that players are playing to discover the GM's notes.




*Mod Note:*

@Bedrockgames - you have done nothing major wrong here, but I want to use these tidbits as a stepping off point for an observation about the conversation.

There is what I have come to think of as a "dichotomy war".  Edition Wars are an example.  But it can happen with lots of topics - alignment, playstyles, GM authority, fudging dice rolls, and so on.  It isn't a gaming-specific thing, even - you can see dichotomy wars over, say, chili with or without beans, or DC vs Marvel.  

A war occurs when at least one fairly forceful voice in a conversation has no real inclination to give ground, or admit that the other side has a point, or what the other side does might actually be cool (gasp! the horror!).

It is typical for both sides to position themselves as the victim in a dichotomy conflict.  One of them may be, but it is by no means assured.  Obstinate discussion leads to _someone_ saying something that gets read as personal or otherwise rhetorically not cricket (correctly or not).

I hate to tell you all.. but this thread's got a bunch of people who tend to end up in such conflicts.  If you don't want to be part of that, it is best to walk away.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> So I think that part of the problem is that any counter to "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" as @pemerton has described it, that has been offered relies on non-literal wording. Now, whether I agree with @pemerton's idea or not, I clearly understand what it is that he is saying.
> 
> What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?



I do not railroad my players.  I give them a wide open sandbox where they can choose to do whatever they want.  I provide tons of opportunities and make the world rich with possibility.  The players then choose their path in that world.



hawkeyefan said:


> "Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.
> 
> What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?



The problem is that I don't even agree with you on the word protagonism.  I foster protagonism by giving my characters a well realized fantasy world where they can make whatever in character choices they want and thus they become the ultimate protagonists of their story.  Player authoring is not protagonism.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> The concept of a living world and how that is achieved has been explained. But if you will only accept answers where the players are doing things like taking on GM powers, I don' think we can have a fruitful discussion because then it is clearly just a style debate, and not really about understanding what we are doing at the table. Also there seems to be this weird paradox where if we answer the question literally (i.e. showing example of not literally going to the notes) we are reprimanded for taking him literally, yet if we answer in a non-literal way, we are told to be more literal. I think we've both answered in terms of higher concept and in terms of nitty gritty what we literally do




I didn't mention GM powers or anything of the sort. I am asking, for the sake of the conversation moving past this jam, what practices do you use to foster protagonism for the PCs in your game. What actual practices can be used. Actual play examples would be fantastic, but even just general practices.

I'm not on any side here. I just would like to see the conversation move along instead of continually saying that one phrase used is innacurate, or that we start to have to explain to each other how a Top Hat and a Shoe actually could wind up in Jail.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> 
> @Bedrockgames - you have done nothing major wrong here, but I want to use these tidbits as a stepping off point for an observation about the conversation.
> 
> There is what I have come to think of as a "dichotomy war".  Edition Wars are an example.  But it can happen with lots of topics - alignment, playstyles, GM authority, fudging dice rolls, and so on.  It isn't a gaming-specific thing, even - you can see dichotomy wars over, say, chili with or without beans, or DC vs Marvel.
> 
> A war occurs when at least one fairly forceful voice in a conversation has no real inclination to give ground, or admit that the other side has a point, or what the other side does might actually be cool (gasp! the horror!).
> 
> It is typical for both sides to position themselves as the victim in a dichotomy conflict.  One of them may be, but it is by no means assured.  Obstinate discussion leads to _someone_ saying something that gets read as personal or otherwise rhetorically not cricket (correctly or not).
> 
> I hate to tell you all.. but this thread's got a bunch of people who tend to end up in such conflicts.  If you don't want to be part of that, it is best to walk away.



Interesting points but why was it a mod note?  

I agree that we get into disagreements and tend to stand our ground.  Experienced intelligent people often do that when it comes to preferences.   It's hard to prove anyone's experience wrong.

I am academically interested in all of the directions roleplaying has been taken over the years and I think it's healthy for the hobby.  It's a sign of success in a way.   I am happy when people find a way that suits their purposes.   No one should need to invalidate anyone elses play though.   I think even the designers at WoTC are guilty of making pronouncements about gaming styles that come across as absolute truths instead of (maybe) generalized popular approaches.

So I think there is a defensiveness about one's own approaches.  I'm definitely not on a crusade to change any from their style to mine.  I do think when we explain why we like our style it automatically triggers a response.  If I say my style is more immersive, someone will say but my style is immersive too!  Well sure, I guess I should have said, for me my style is more immersive.  Yet even that gets blowback and someone tells me that it isn't even immersion that I care about and that I don't even know my own preferences.  Then we really start having fun.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> I provide tons of opportunities and make the world rich with possibility.




What kind of opportunities? How are they presented? How do you come up with them?

How do you make the world "rich with possibility"? 



Emerikol said:


> The problem is that I don't even agree with you on the word protagonism. I foster protagonism by giving my characters a well realized fantasy world where they can make whatever in character choices they want and thus they become the ultimate protagonists of their story. Player authoring is not protagonism.




I didn't say that protagonism required player authoring. I offered one example of what I do.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn't mention GM powers or anything of the sort. I am asking, for the sake of the conversation moving past this jam, what practices do you use to foster protagonism for the PCs in your game. What actual practices can be used. Actual play examples would be fantastic, but even just general practices.
> 
> I'm not on any side here. I just would like to see the conversation move along instead of continually saying that one phrase used is innacurate, or that we start to have to explain to each other how a Top Hat and a Shoe actually could wind up in Jail.




I would point to Emerikol's answer about not railroading, to my answers about having NPCs with goals, and applying those goals organically during play, so the interaction players have with them are not producing something scripted from notes, but allowing for new stuff in the setting to take shape, doing things like when the players acquire power in the setting, allowing them to use said power, leaning into what I called 'destruction of the scenery/destroying the setting', planning situations, adapting to what the players do, giving serious consideration to anything the players try to do and not trying to fit that into some pre-planned thing you had, making sure you run your NPCs and groups as living characters so they are doing things and pursuing agendas, even while the players are going in some other direction, etc.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> If he wants to re-state his theory in a way that doesn't misrepresent what it is that we do and isn't pejorative, then I'll be happy to examine it. As it is stated, though, it doesn't at all represent the purpose or focus of our play.  Words matter, as @pemerton well knows, since he's quick to remind us of his authority in the area.  If he wanted to foster a real discussion, instead coming across yet again as poopooing on this particular playstyle, he could have done so.




Okay, that's all fine. 

I just asked some questions. You ignored them in favor of complaining about how someone else phrased something. I get that you didn't like how he worded it. That's fine. 

But how about we move past that.....maybe start by replying to what I posted? That'd likely get things moving along again before this all gets shut down for becoming a shouting match.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn't mention GM powers or anything of the sort. I am asking, for the sake of the conversation moving past this jam, what practices do you use to foster protagonism for the PCs in your game. What actual practices can be used. Actual play examples would be fantastic, but even just general practices.
> 
> I'm not on any side here. I just would like to see the conversation move along instead of continually saying that one phrase used is innacurate, or that we start to have to explain to each other how a Top Hat and a Shoe actually could wind up in Jail.



Fair enough, though again we probably don't agree on the term but I will pretend I've accepted your definition for the sake of continuing this discussion.

PCs have backgrounds that they develop before starting the campaign.  Usually they state their desires in vague terms because they don't know the world.  I work with them to make it campaign specific if at all possible.  When rarely it's not possible, we table that idea for the next campaign.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> No it doesn't.  I can't drive my monopoly car anywhere I want.  It's a highly restricted mode board game and in no way resembles the freedom in an rpg.



You can't do anything you want in an RPG, either, you're bound within the rules of the system, the genre constraints, and what the table allows.


Emerikol said:


> You see being able to do whatever we want as our characters seems to us to be a great amount of control.  To you it seems restrictive.  I get that.



I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> Interesting points but why was it a mod note?




*Mod Note:*
Because this is a moderator observation about the dynamic of the conversation so people can choose how they want to proceed.  It is _not_ intended as a matter of discussion or argument.  Normal "don't argue with moderator notes in-thread" applies.


----------



## Manbearcat

I don’t have time to engage in the way I like to but I skimming. I’ll try to tonight if I ca.

Briefly...

Ive written a lot about Protagonistic Play (and how players become Deprotagonized). Just like in movies/theatre/books, the screen time per character isn’t how protagonism is evaluated (not in any critical sense...which Websters or whatever doesn’t engage with).

I wrote a long post that started with how My Life With Master is structured (with respect to Protagonism) which I think has the most explanatory power.  I then wrote a big follow-up. Everyone in this thread was there so I’m assuming they read those words.

I think another way to look at it is “why does the trope of dysfunctional play emerge when ‘the GM’s partner/best friend’ starts playing?” Because suddenly the volitional force of play becomes his/her dramatic need. Troupe play (where Protagonism becomes so backgrounded or so diffuse so as to either not exist or to not become an issue...and everyone is good with that) suddenly shifts to Ars Magica. The other players become Deprotagonized and they know it (it’s impactful even losing extremely diffuse Protagonism or suddenly having a Protagonist - Bit Players relationship constructed when Protagonism was backgrounded beforehand). It’s why there are hard feelings and suddenly things devolve. Everyone witnessing it knows it. It’s why it’s “a thing.”

It’s why Paladins have historically been an issue in the thematically muted and/or neutral troupe play of D&D. Their Protagonism cannot be backgrounded or rendered diffuse. It’s fundamentally foregrounded at every moment of play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Honestly and take this in the right spirit.   You are using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means.  I understand your idea and how it works.  You call it protagonism.  I get that.  But protagonism in plain english does not mean what you think it means which is why everyone is opposing you.  They aren't arguing the concept.  They are arguing the term.
> 
> You said:
> If I create a world that doesn't care about the PCs and then turn them loose in it to see what they uncover/do, is the story actually about those PCs?
> 
> My answer:
> Absolutely it is about the PCs.  Yes it is about the PCs.  As you have reminded me so often, what happens off camera is not central to the players playing of their characters.   The real action is with the group.   They are absolutely protagonists in their story.
> 
> What you've done is add a bunch of qualifiers around protagonism that are not at all required.  You needed a name for your game constructs and chose protagonism.  Fine.  Just realize that the raw meaning of the word is absolutely not the definition of that game construct.   If it's gamer speak shorthand that is fine but realize you may need to explain yourself.  You redefine a word and then get upset everyone balks at it.  You don't get to redefine english.
> 
> At this point if you disagree I don't see much further point to continuing the discussion.  We just don't agree with you.   So your use of that word is a stumbling block to the discussion that could be had about your actual style versus word definitions.



No, I understand what protagonist means.  It means you're the focus of the story.  Pick a story with a protagonist, and it will revolve around that character's dramatic needs.  The issue here is the translation into an RPG, where agency is being confused with protagonism.  I can be free to choose what my character does, but that doesn't mean the story is centered on my character.  These are separate concepts.  There's a case for a high protagonism, low agency form of play, where the game is totally centered on the PC's dramatic needs, but the player has few meaningful choices.  Similarly, there's the case for low protagonism, high agency play, which looks like a Moldvay Dungeon Crawl -- the game isn't about the character's dramatic needs, but about exploring the dungeon created by the GM, but the players have quite a lot of agency in how they do this.

Protagonism isn't about the PCs being able to make choices, it's about what does the game focus on.  If you're writing up things that happen offscreen that the PCs can discover if they do the right things/go the right places, then this is not protagonism.  It can have a lot of agency, though.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> PCs have backgrounds that they develop before starting the campaign. Usually they state their desires in vague terms because they don't know the world. I work with them to make it campaign specific if at all possible. When rarely it's not possible, we table that idea for the next campaign.




I think this may be a good example to discuss. 

Do you see those rare instances when it's not possible to incorporate the player's ideas about their character into the proposed campaign as being a case of not allowing protagonism? And I don't mean this as a challenge or anything....just general questions that come to mind based on this.

Do you regret not being able to figure out a way for this to work? Do you try and find another, more suitable idea/goal/concept for the character? So maybe the idea of a PC as a pirate won't work for this coming campaign, but instead you come up with the idea that he can be a bounty hunter (this is an admittedly rudimentary example, but I hope it suffices), and maybe save the pirate idea for another game where it will maybe be a better fit.

Is the setting more important? If the setting is more important, do you think that says anything about the idea of protagonism in that game? Could the setting be adjusted to fit the character rather than the character to fit the setting? 

Does the presence of multiple players and potentially multiple character concepts with the chance of conflict make this harder? And is there any way to avoid that? Are there ways of taking multiple points of input from different players and making them all work both together and with the setting?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> You claimed the game of Monopoly did this... This is not part of the rules of Monopoly.  Are we really at the point where pure fabrications are being used to defend positions?



It's not part of the rules of (many) RPGs that I have to treat my pawn with any more care than I would in playing a game of Monopoly, either.  

Look the point I was making is that you can smear a term into uselessness quite easily just by ignoring some key points about what it means.  And also that there's a lot of assumptions built into how people approach a term that cause problems.  I see this with protagonism, which has been clearly defined numerous times in this thread, consistent with the dictionary and with clear explanations.  And, yet, people are bringing in other assumptions to attack that definition, like claiming that being able to make choices means protagonism is present, or that since the game focuses on the players that the game then also focuses on the PCs.  This isn't true at all.  Play absolutely focuses on the players, because that's the nature of the game.  A descriptor of the kind of play cannot fall back on that without being useless.  Protagonism doesn't, because it's not about how play focuses on what the players do, but rather on if the game focuses on and around the needs of the PCs.  If you've statted up a dungeon, then you're not focusing on the needs of the PCs, even though the game will absolutely focus on the players navigating the dungeon with their PCs.

Protagonism is, fundamentally, about where the fiction starts.  If it starts with the GM, it's not protagonism -- how could it be?  It must start with the PCs -- by focusing on and generating content based on the PC's dramatic needs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Fair enough, though again we probably don't agree on the term but I will pretend I've accepted your definition for the sake of continuing this discussion.
> 
> PCs have backgrounds that they develop before starting the campaign.  Usually they state their desires in vague terms because they don't know the world.  I work with them to make it campaign specific if at all possible.  When rarely it's not possible, we table that idea for the next campaign.



In protagonism, you'd change the world to work with the backstory.  As it is, you've set the primary locus on the world, and the players have to adapt their concepts of dramatic needs to align with that.  This means they aren't the protagonists of the game, but rather just players in it.


----------



## Aldarc

I get the vague impression that what's at the heart of the discussion is more akin to a geocentric model of play vs. anthrocentric model of play. If we say that play is metaphorically about "players exploring and interacting with the GM's world," then the metaphorical alternative could be envisioned as play being about "the GM exploring and interacting with the PC's drama."


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Protagonism is, fundamentally, about where the fiction starts.  If it starts with the GM, it's not protagonism -- how could it be?  It must start with the PCs -- by focusing on and generating content based on the PC's dramatic needs.




No it's about where the focus is...If the focus during play is on the PC's, the focus of the emergent story is on their actions, choices, etc then they are the protagonists.  The fiction doesn't have to start with them it only needs to focus on them for them to be considered the protagonists.  There is nothing that precludes a prep-heavy game from focusing on the PC's and thus making them the protagonists.  The issue arises because some feel it can only focus on them in a specific way with a specific methodology which just isn't true.


----------



## Manbearcat

Aldarc said:


> I get the vague impression that what's at the heart of the discussion is more akin to a geocentric model of play vs. anthrocentric model of play. If we say that play is metaphorically about "players exploring and interacting with the GM's world," then the metaphorical alternative could be envisioned as play being about "the GM exploring and interacting with the PC's drama."



In the same post I posted above, my two big posts about Player Protagonism and Deprotagonizing, my comparison was exactly that.

The play orbits around PC Dramatic Need and the setting emerges, accretes, and changes with respect to this orbit (even if the orbit is initially centered around “the bad guy” like in My Life With Master where the players create the bad guy and play centers around wresting the volitional force of play from that GM character to one or more of the Minions).


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> In protagonism, you'd change the world to work with the backstory.  As it is, you've set the primary locus on the world, and the players have to adapt their concepts of dramatic needs to align with that.  This means they aren't the protagonists of the game, but rather just players in it.




Wait what?  First let's distinguish between players and PC's.  The players are not the protagonists of the game... their characters are and their characters aren't established until play takes place so if they change their backstory to better fit the world that doesn't suddenly change their characters from protagonist to non-protagonist it means they've become protagonists with different backstory, goals, etc.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> In the same post I posted above, my two big posts about Player Protagonism and Deprotagonizing, my comparison was exactly that.
> 
> The play orbits around PC Dramatic Need and *the setting emerges, accretes, and changes with respect to this orbit*




If the players create goals and dramatic needs that align with the pre-noted setting... is this still necessary for protagonism or can it be achieved without the setting emerging, changing, etc, with respect to this orbit?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay, that's all fine.
> 
> I just asked some questions. You ignored them in favor of complaining about how someone else phrased something. I get that you didn't like how he worded it. That's fine.
> 
> But how about we move past that.....maybe start by replying to what I posted? That'd likely get things moving along again before this all gets shut down for becoming a shouting match.



"What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?"

Which protagonism?  Their side's definition or ours?  If it's the other side's definition, the notes don't help or hinder.  It's simply a matter of different playstyles.  One side allows players to author content, and the other doesn't does so in very limited capacity which is up to individual DMs.  For example, I allow the players to create villages, NPCs, specific monsters, etc. during background creation.  They write up their background, and as long as it's not conflicting with known Forgotten Realm lore or Forgotten Realm lore as created by my prior campaigns, it's all good. 

"What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?" 

Again, if we're talking about the definition the other side uses, very little.  I did an experiment with my group about 4-5 years ago.  I ran a 3.5 campaign where I made each PCs the offspring of a Realms god.  Then I had a lost Imaskari artifact which hadn't been used before their fall, be found and triggered by Imaskari remnants.  The artifact basically locked  the gods out of the Realms and divine magic failed completely, or almost completely.  Each PC, whose parent I rolled randomly and they discovered early in game play, had a direct connection through their blood to their god, so their divine powers worked.  Each PC also had "powers" that matched their parents sphere of influence and I let them know that they could try anything they liked that fit that theme.  For instance, one PC had Talos the Destroyer as his father.  If he came to a door, he could attempt to cause the wood and iron in the door to rot and rust away, destroying it.  I wanted to see how they would react to being able to just create abilities(within the theme) to influence the world, but they did surprisingly little with it.  Most of what they tried, despite my reminding them a number of times that they could get creative, was just duplication spells that were in theme.

If we're talking our definition of protagonism, which is complete control over what their characters do, then my notes don't help or hinder that, either.  The players let me know what kind of campaign they want me to run during session 0, so they have at least that much control.  Then I work on stuff, mostly outlining a story that will go through the world on that theme.  They then usually, since they picked the theme, decide to undertake that story.  However, they will often skip portions of what I have prepared and/or insert their own ideas on how to go about succeeding at their goal.  Often those ideas come out of left field and I have nothing prepared for it, but I'm pretty good at improv so we go in that direction anyway.  Once, they decided that the theme as I prepared it wasn't to their liking and not only did they decide to ignore it, but they went the opposite direction and decided to become pirates.  Sooooooooo, I ran a pirate campaign while the original story ran on without them.  They heard rumors and pieces of what was going on, and because it was world spanning a few of their adventures did touch on the story tangentially, but by and large it happened without them and went much worse than it should have, because no PC group was there to stem the damage.


----------



## Fenris-77

I think this whole idea is better envisioned as a sliding scale rather than a binary. Also, to quickly address @Manbearcat from just above, I think that from the list of emerges, accretes and changes, the word people are going to get stuck on is probably emerges. In a heavy GM prep game where the players don't have input into the setting outside the action-adjudication cycle I think you can still have protagonism, or -ists, or whatever._ Accretes_ and _changes_ are easy to picture and describe in terms of protagonist play, but _emerges_ gets sticky.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> No it's about where the focus is...If the focus during play is on the PC's, the focus of the emergent story is on their actions, choices, etc then they are the protagonists.  The fiction doesn't have to start with them it only needs to focus on them for them to be considered the protagonists.  There is nothing that precludes a prep-heavy game from focusing on the PC's and thus making them the protagonists.  The issue arises because some feel it can only focus on them in a specific way with a specific methodology which just isn't true.



No, else we're back to Monopoly featuring protagonism.  To use my prior example, Infinity Wars features Iron Man making choices, which drive the emergent story, but he is not the protagonist of that film, Thanos is.  That story is entirely about Thanos meeting his dramatic needs, his goals, and the trials and tribulations he faces along the way to realizing them.  Then, he does, and his protagonism ends, and the second Infinity Wars movie switches back to the Avengers being the protagonists.

To leverage this example into RPGs, if the primary thrust of play is for the PCs to decide how they will deal with this or that threat (introduced by the GM), then they aren't the protagonists, but they may have agency in determining how the play will turn out.

The ability to affect the play is about agency.  What the play is about is about protagonism.  If play is about exploring a dungeon the GM thought of and created, then there's no protagonism here, because the play is not about the dramatic needs of the PCs.  This is true even if the player manage to find ways to insert their own desires and wants, and is so because what the GM presents is orthogonal to the players doing this -- it's up to the players to find ways to do this, the game doesn't focus on this.

You keep mixing "the player can do what they want" with what the game is _about_.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I think this whole idea is better envisioned as a sliding scale rather than a binary. Also, to quickly address @Manbearcat from just above, I think that from the list of emerges, accretes and changes, the word people are going to get stuck on is probably emerges. In a heavy GM prep game where the players don't have input into the setting outside the action-adjudication cycle I think you can still have protagonism, or -ists, or whatever._ Accretes_ and _changes_ are easy to picture and describe in terms of protagonist play, but _emerges_ gets sticky.



Okay, let's go with this.  In the example heavy GM prep game you mention, where/how does protagonism emerge?  How does the focus of play become about the PCs dramatic needs?

I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking for you take on it.  I have my own, which I've already presented upthread.  I think that this either requires a player-side reduction in agency to forment the protagonism (ie, the GM tells a story about the PC's dramatic need), or it requires the GM to release part of the setting to accommodate the PCs dramatic goal (ie, the GM allows the player to instantiate some fiction that addresses the PC's dramatic need).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Wait what?  First let's distinguish between players and PC's.  The players are not the protagonists of the game... their characters are and their characters aren't established until play takes place so if they change their backstory to better fit the world that doesn't suddenly change their characters from protagonist to non-protagonist it means they've become protagonists with different backstory, goals, etc.



Yes, I know that, I was specifically referring to the PCs being players in the story, as in referencing players in a play.  I haven't made the mistake of confusing the two, so this isn't a telling vector of critique.

As for your latter point, no, it means that the setting's dramatic needs have a higher priority than the PCs'.  If the PC's backstory, outside of genre conventions or established shared fiction, contradicts something in the GM's notes, and the GM requires it to be changed, then what's in the GM's notes is taking on the protagonist role, here -- the story is about that thing, and the PC has to adapt to this.  If the player chooses a dramatic need that happens to precisely dovetail with the GM's notes such that it is a focus of play, then, sure, you have accidental protagonism.  I'm not talking about accidental or coincidental protagonism, though, I'm speaking to protagonism as a _way to play_.

For instance, in my current 5e game, one of the players presented a backstory about how her family is cursed due to a past deal with a devil (the PC is a tiefling), and that her PC's goal is to confront that devil and end the curse.  Now, it just so happens that a good part of Descent into Avernus is about dealing with devils, so this aligns well.  I don't, however, consider this alignment protagonism, because the player could have chosen something else and _nothing about the setting/AP would have changed_.  The alignment is accidental (and fortuitous), but not protagonism, because the dramatic needs of DiA aren't the PCs, but the NPCs.  It's the NPCs plans and actions that drive the AP, the PCs just react to these and choose how they want to deal with them.  The city of Elturel being dragged into Hell is not about the PCs at all, but play will absolutely be about what these PCs choose to do about it.  This is agency, not protagonism.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, let's go with this.  In the example heavy GM prep game you mention, where/how does protagonism emerge?  How does the focus of play become about the PCs dramatic needs?
> 
> I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking for you take on it.  I have my own, which I've already presented upthread.  I think that this either requires a player-side reduction in agency to forment the protagonism (ie, the GM tells a story about the PC's dramatic need), or it requires the GM to release part of the setting to accommodate the PCs dramatic goal (ie, the GM allows the player to instantiate some fiction that addresses the PC's dramatic need).



Sure, the kind of game I was specifically thinking of there is what I would term (with fondness, not sarcasm) as a purist OSR kind of game. The setting is all GM and the players play entirely within their own character (no meta mechanics, no shared worldbuilding, etc). That game is also quite often the standard people put forth when they want to define a sandbox game. In that game, while the setting is GM notes and GM decisions, it's still entirely a response to player decisions made in-character. The world emerges (from notes perhaps), accretes and changes based on player decision making, and so very much to my mind in keeping with what we are defining as protagonist play. Where that same kind of game deprotagonizes players is when it emerges (especially) but also accretes and changes despite or regardless of player actions, at which point the word railroad probably fits. For dramatic needs, if the players are playing to those needs, and the GM is responding to player actions and decision making, those needs will inevitably take some significant portion of the spotlight.

That's not to say that events in the wider world can't happen at their own pace without deprotagonizing players, that's silly, but so long as player actions drive the game and the the teleos of play _for the characters_ I think protagonist play is the label we're looking for. I don't think you need player agency over the fiction to make that work, although it certain does help in many of the games I enjoy. As for player agency, I don't think you need to remove agency either, at least in terms of decisions made in character. Where we might have some defining to do in the stakes of using or not using some of the meta mechanics and shared worldbuilding that many games use.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, the kind of game I was specifically thinking of there is what I would term (with fondness, not sarcasm) as a purist OSR kind of game. The setting is all GM and the players play entirely within their own character (no meta mechanics, no shared worldbuilding, etc). That game is also quite often the standard people put forth when they want to define a sandbox game. In that game, while the setting is GM notes and GM decisions, it's still entirely a response to player decisions made in-character. The world emerges (from notes perhaps), accretes and changes based on player decision making, and so very much to my mind in keeping with what we are defining as protagonist play.



Okay, let me stop you here.  This doesn't at all align with what the people that introduced the term protagonism have defined it.  It aligns only with those that are defining the term to mean that the PCs have agency. I do not know who "we" is in this statement.

To mean, this is clearly against the definition of protagonism as it was introduced and repeatedly defined -- play does not center on the dramatic needs of the PCs, it instead centers on how the players interact with the setting.  You've defined agency, here, not protagonism.


Fenris-77 said:


> Where that same kind of game deprotagonizes players is when it emerges (especially) but also accretes and changes despite or regardless of player actions, at which point the word railroad probably fits. For dramatic needs, if the players are playing to those needs, and the GM is responding to player actions and decision making, those needs will inevitably take some significant portion of the spotlight.



And here you've defined a reduction in agency.


Fenris-77 said:


> That's not to say that events in the wider world can't happen at their own pace without deprotagonizing players, that's silly, but so long as player actions drive the game and the the teleos of play _for the characters_ I think protagonist play is the label we're looking for. I don't think you need player agency over the fiction to make that work, although it certain does help in many of the games I enjoy. As for player agency, I don't think you need to remove agency either, at least in terms of decisions made in character. Where we might have some defining to do in the stakes of using or not using some of the meta mechanics and shared worldbuilding that many games use.



This is, again, agency.  Protagonism is not about agency, but instead talks to what the game focuses on in terms of dramatic needs.  If I run Keep on the Borderlands, it's not going to be protagonism at all, even as this module features a good deal of potential agency for the players.

In other words, your description of play is about honoring what the players choose to do through their PCs.  It does not speak to how the game is centered on the PCs as characters themselves.  The game you describe would start and play similarly with different PCs althogether -- ie, the play of this game isn't very sensitive to what the PCs are in terms of dramatic needs, but potentially very sensitive to PC builds and player choices.


----------



## Fenris-77

This is an interesting thing to disagree about. I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could *not* be about their dramatic needs. Unless you're positing some sort of arrangement where the players don't make decisions based on those needs but the GM is just supposed to insert them?


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I think this may be a good example to discuss.
> 
> Do you see those rare instances when it's not possible to incorporate the player's ideas about their character into the proposed campaign as being a case of not allowing protagonism? And I don't mean this as a challenge or anything....just general questions that come to mind based on this.



I tend to have session 0 for all games I play now to avoid this thing but that said if it did happen...

No I don't.  "Protagonism" is something explored through your character so until said character is established in the fiction, there is no protagonism to allow.  I would ask does this apply to the other side of the coin as well?  If I have a concept that is totally unsuitable for say a game of Blades in the Dark... is asking me to fall in line with the game an act of not allowing "protagonism"?  



hawkeyefan said:


> Do you regret not being able to figure out a way for this to work? Do you try and find another, more suitable idea/goal/concept for the character? So maybe the idea of a PC as a pirate won't work for this coming campaign, but instead you come up with the idea that he can be a bounty hunter (this is an admittedly rudimentary example, but I hope it suffices), and maybe save the pirate idea for another game where it will maybe be a better fit.




It depends.  If it's blatant disregard of what we discussed in session zero... no I don't regret not accommodating it.  If it's a misunderstanding or we didn't discuss it, I do regret it and I will try my hardest to fit their concept in if not then I will try to come to a compromise we both find acceptable (one of the reasons I like D&D is because it's usually not hard to come to some type of compromise in this area).



hawkeyefan said:


> Is the setting more important? If the setting is more important, do you think that says anything about the idea of protagonism in that game? Could the setting be adjusted to fit the character rather than the character to fit the setting?




The setting is the setting, again session zero this is what we as a group decided to play, and one player bringing an inappropriate concept to play with does not, IMO, mean the setting should be changed to accommodate said concept, especially if you have buy in and aligned concepts from the rest of your group.  Now if the majority of the group does this it's time to have a candid conversation about whether there was a misunderstanding in session zero or if this is the game/setting we really want to play in.  If it's not, then it's time to find something else we are all excited about.  

I don't think a willingness to change the setting based on a players concept speaks to "protagonism"* in the game* at all, I think it speaks to whether expectations and social contracts were set and agreed upon properly.  Again I ask... if I as a player come to BitD with a concept that has nothing to do with criminals in a dark fantasy city does it say anything about in game "protagonism" if the GM doesn't change the setting of BitD to accommodate me? 



hawkeyefan said:


> Does the presence of multiple players and potentially multiple character concepts with the chance of conflict make this harder? And is there any way to avoid that? Are there ways of taking multiple points of input from different players and making them all work both together and with the setting?




I probably sound like a broken record but session zero for the win, this is the time to vet these multiple concepts, goals, dramatic needs, etc to make sure they don't create an unviable situation to run for the GM. Something I've learned from looking at many of the games being specifically touted as promoting "protagonism" is that it's easier to run if one creates an overarching premise that all characters have to be tied into... again examples are BitD (all criminals in a gang together), The Spire (Drow revolutionaires fighting the good fight), Band of Blades (Soldiers in a retreating army trying to make it to safety), DitV (Mormon-esque gunslingers dealing with sin)... and so on.  So I would say creating this overarching premise or theme before character creation would either avoid some of the difficulty or help tremendously with it.    
Of course this is why I have such a hard time with the premise that protagonism is tied into whether a players inappropriate character concept should cause a change to the setting or vice versa.  Most of the games I've seen that are indicated as promoting "protagonism" are very specific in their premise and setting details.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> This is an interesting thing to disagree about. I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could *not* be about their dramatic needs. Unless you're positing some sort of arrangement where the players don't make decisions based on those needs but the GM is just supposed to insert them?



Let's postulate a dungeon.  The play features exploring this dungeon.  Does the fact that one PC has a dramatic need that they want to be the best pit-fighter in the realm have anything at all to do with the dungeon, or would play look largely similar with a completely different dramatic need for that PC?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> This is an interesting thing to disagree about. I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could *not* be about their dramatic needs. Unless you're positing some sort of arrangement where the players don't make decisions based on those needs but the GM is just supposed to insert them?



I think where you might see this is the world not responding or adding by dramatic logic. I think its fuzzy though, it depends on how you define drama. My experience is most sandbox GMs will resist the drama label, and actively avoid engaging drama. Not all of course, but it is worth noting a lot of what makes a given sandbox is the kind of logic the GM applies to deciding what happens in the world. I like doing genre, so for me, I feel drama can be on the table. I think for it to be drama though the bar has to be higher than: I want to take over this city (and some player characters just want to take over a city). At the same time, I've had plenty of campaigns where taking over a city, turned into a drama of human relationships.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's postulate a dungeon.  The play features exploring this dungeon.  Does the fact that one PC has a dramatic need that they want to be the best pit-fighter in the realm have anything at all to do with the dungeon, or would play look largely similar with a completely different dramatic need for that PC?



The pitfighter part has almost nothing to do with the dungeon IMO, it could be a city, or a sunny meadow. If the player is playing to that need, for example, arranging fights tactically to support that idea, or roleplaying it at all really, the GM should be responding in kind. This is much the same as wanting to be the best wizard in the realm, or anything really. If the players end up in a dungeon it will be by their own choice or as a result of their own actions, but the dungeon itself isn't there to support any dramatic needs. The extent to which a particular dramatic need will play in that particular venue will depend on the player and the GM and the usual recursive play cycle. If I'm that GM and your pitfighter is playing to that need I feel like it's my job to make sure it gets spotlight. Any factoin interactions, for example, could very easily involve pitfighting elements. An orc in 10x10 room, not so much.

That said, where that dramatic need might play in more is in what that character might chose to do in the first place. If they're looking for places to pitfight, and playing to that best pitfighter idea, then they should find places and encounters, or parts thereof that help scaffold that need. So perhaps that location ends up having a pitfighting component, who knows. But when you're talking about emergent play it's a little but awkward to just pick a random spot without context and say "well how would that work?"


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> No, else we're back to Monopoly featuring protagonism.  To use my prior example, Infinity Wars features Iron Man making choices, which drive the emergent story, but he is not the protagonist of that film, Thanos is.  That story is entirely about Thanos meeting his dramatic needs, his goals, and the trials and tribulations he faces along the way to realizing them.  Then, he does, and his protagonism ends, and the second Infinity Wars movie switches back to the Avengers being the protagonists.




There can be more than one protagonist in a story... In Infinity War...Thanos is the main antagonist... Iron Man is one of many protagonists


Ovinomancer said:


> To leverage this example into RPGs, if the primary thrust of play is for the PCs to decide how they will deal with this or that threat (introduced by the GM), then they aren't the protagonists, but they may have agency in determining how the play will turn out.




The fact that the emergent story is created from and focused on the decisions the PC's make to deal with this or that threat (introduced by the GM) is what makes them the protagonists of said emergent story.  A Threat alons no matter how well detailed is not in and of itself a story.



Ovinomancer said:


> The ability to affect the play is about agency.  What the play is about is about protagonism.  If play is about exploring a dungeon the GM thought of and created, then there's no protagonism here, because the play is not about the dramatic needs of the PCs.  This is true even if the player manage to find ways to insert their own desires and wants, and is so because what the GM presents is orthogonal to the players doing this -- it's up to the players to find ways to do this, the game doesn't focus on this.



If the players decided to go to that dungeon vs the city of Agrabar is influencing what play is about.  If the dramtic need of the PC is to explore dungeons it doesn't matter if the GM creats it or not his dramatic need is being explored.  

If the game is focused on the decisions and resulting ramifications of the choices the players are making.   They can choose or choose not to make their dramatic needs the focus of play.  The only way they lack protagonism is if this option is taken off the table, otherwise they have protagonism and need only exert it.  



Ovinomancer said:


> You keep mixing "the player can do what they want" with what the game is _about_.




No I'm not I'm clearly stating what the game is about.  You seem to be suggesting that the GM pre-creating something precludes it from being a part of the PC's exploring their dramatic needs and yet I haven't see any evidence to support this conclusion.  The crux of this really seems to be floating around how much authorial control is given vs. whether protagonism is present.  Why not just say this difference in styles is authorial control then?


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> If the players create goals and dramatic needs that align with the pre-noted setting... is this still necessary for protagonism or can it be achieved without the setting emerging, changing, etc, with respect to this orbit?






Fenris-77 said:


> I think this whole idea is better envisioned as a sliding scale rather than a binary. Also, to quickly address @Manbearcat from just above, I think that from the list of emerges, accretes and changes, the word people are going to get stuck on is probably emerges. In a heavy GM prep game where the players don't have input into the setting outside the action-adjudication cycle I think you can still have protagonism, or -ists, or whatever._ Accretes_ and _changes_ are easy to picture and describe in terms of protagonist play, but _emerges_ gets sticky.




Its not an exact binary, but it is absolutely a fine line between players being Protagonized and Deprotagonized. 

Consider Imaro's question above.

My Life With Master is a predefined premise/set-up with specific constraints on the stage for the conflict:


You need a bad guy who everyone creates together (this is the protagonist).
You need a village that is under his/her thumb.
You need pathetic lackeys (the PCs) that do the bad guy's bidding and interact with the village (until they do not).

Now (a) why is this not a Railroad and (b) why is this deeply Protagonistic play.  Its because:

1 - The players dictate the volitional force of the play (which manifests as Dramatic Need...this is NOT the premise of play...premise is something different).

2 - Conflict framing is entirely about the evolution (development or erosion) of this volitional force.

3 - Conflict framing + PC build + decision-point + resolution mechanic + character evolution feedback loop scheme (machinery of play) is set up to test if that volitional force can be wrested.

4 - Through the integration of all of the above, the through line of play is always different, always coherently addresses the premise of play, and always tests volitional force (or Dramatic Need).



So to look at the above @Imaro and answer your question, play will be more or less Protagonizing depending upon the below continuums:

** Players dictate volitional force of play < > Players do not dictate volitional force of play *

* Dramatic Need foregrounded via conflict framing < > Dramatic Need backgrounded via conflict framing *

* The machinery of play transparently evolves the trajectory of play < > Some extra-machinery force transparently or opaquely evolves the trajectory of play *

* Does the integration of all of the above always (i) lead to a dynamic through line of play, (ii) coherently addresses the premise of play, and (iii) tests the dictated volitional force < > little or none of (i), (ii), (iii) **

The further you go toward the left of each of the above 4, the more Protagonizing Play is.  The further you go toward the right of each of the above 4, the more Deprotagonizing Play is. 

Here is an example of maximized Deprotagonizing for reference:

GM:  "We're going to play a D&D game about dragon slaying and saving a kingdom!  Here are your characters <hands over PC sheets randomly>!"

Later, in play (session 3)...

Player:  "My Druid has sworn a vow to end an unnatural menace.  There hasn't been anything unnatural so far.  You said there is a forest fire?  I'll bet the dragon's emissary wizard summoned fire elementals to threaten the kingdom!  I shapechange into a wolf to sprint into the forest and battle the unnatural menace."

GM:  "Nah...remember?...you saw a stroke of lightning hit the forest?  I mean I guess maybe the Wizard _could _have caused that...but the fire brigade has it anyway.  Don't worry about.  Ok, back to parley with the King's Guard."

Later, play...

GM:  <Thinking to themselves> _ Crap, the players took out the dragon so quickly because the combat system is too damn swingy...screw this...and I mean, really...this whole trope was boring 2 sessions ago...  _"Just when it appears that your sword blow has felled the dragon, the beast discorporates to mist which consumes everything around you...the haze lifts and you find yourself and your companions hanging from the rafters, hogtied upside down over a roiling cauldron, a Night Hag leering at you hungrily as she approaches!  You've awaken from a dream!  A stupor she has placed you in!  What do you do!

OPERATION MAXIMUM DEPROTAGONIZATION COMPLETE


----------



## kenada

Aldarc said:


> I get the vague impression that what's at the heart of the discussion is more akin to a geocentric model of play vs. anthrocentric model of play. If we say that play is metaphorically about "players exploring and interacting with the GM's world," then the metaphorical alternative could be envisioned as play being about "the GM exploring and interacting with the PC's drama."



I think this is where I was trying to go with “experiential” versus “protagonistic”, but I like this this framing _much_ more. You’ve preserved the dichotomy, each style of play is defined by what it is does, and the names don’t prejudice the reader to think one way or the other is the default (or “best”) way of playing.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> To mean, this is clearly against the definition of protagonism as it was introduced and repeatedly defined -- play does not center on the dramatic needs of the PCs, it instead centers on how the players interact with the setting.  You've defined agency, here, not protagonism.



You are right.  Some people took a fiction writing term and adopted it to fit their game design perspectives.  Since they are strong advocates for their approach they then immediately said other games lack this quality that they like.   The problem is they took a word with meaning.   I can define the word "hat" to mean "turtle" and we can have a conversation.   The hat has a pretty shell etc...   That doesn't make hat really mean turtle.

So despite repeated attempts to get you to understand this point you refuse.  You are apparently the absolute authority on this term.  You are not.  The word has a meaning.   By every sense of the fictional concept, adventurers who choose to take up an adventure in a sandbox world is absolutely a protagonist.  If I wrote this up as a story, that character would be a protagonist.   

I've tried to help you out by pointing out the term is loaded and perhaps we should avoid it.   Perhaps Dramatic Need Focused play would be a better term.


----------



## innerdude

So I'm fully sympathetic to claims of GMs and players who say that prefabricating campaign content doesn't remove the ability for the players (through their PCs) to set and pursue goals within the fiction. 

If I'm being honest, I think my "ideal" kind of RPG play would be a merging of an interesting, dynamic, realized campaign setting with players/PCs being able to strongly pursue character agendas and goals within the setting. 

And I think it was @Maxperson who talked about how his group's purpose of play isn't to "reveal the GM's notes," it's to pursue their character's agenda. The GM's "notes" merely create the situational framing / genre conventions in which that pursuit takes place.

The issues I always ran into as a GM who was attempting to prefabricate an "interesting, dynamic, and realized" setting, was that too often it felt like that the player goals generally 1) were rather shallow; 2) were only peripherally related to other group pursuits; 3) required a significant amount of negotiation / "Mother-may-I?" or outright "handwavium" to make them the focus of play; 4) the traditional rules of Savage Worlds give zero guidance for how to "make GM moves" that puts the players into tight spots and dynamically flow the downstream effects of what the PCs do within the world.

As a result, as a GM I almost never felt like the players were "protagonists" in their own story, so much as being carried along by the "grace of the GM's whims" toward whatever goal they were pursuing.

Part of the issue too is that despite the ability for the players to set goals and pursue agendas, they were always necessarily limited by the reach of their locus of control. There's one particular Savage Worlds campaign I'm thinking of, where the players ended up interacting with a very limited set of the total prefabricated elements, because they couldn't envision or imagine ways in which their characters could effect change within the framing of those elements. So they just ignored them.

So the question for me became --- how do I better integrate the PCs' dramatic needs into the fictional framing without just full-on asking them, "So, your PC wants to accomplish X. What barriers to that end goal to you foresee as coming to pass? And how will it be fun for you to approach and overcome those challenges from within the space of your character and the fiction?"

That approach felt . . . unsatisfying. It felt dangerously close to violating the Czege Principle. 

But perhaps it wouldn't have been if we had set the challenges in front of us together . . . but then left the pursuit and resolution of those challenges to the play at hand? 

To use an earlier example --- 

"Oh, so you want to become the supreme leader of the barbarian tribes of the north? All righty then, well, to accomplish that, you'll first need to do something profoundly meaningful enough to attract the attention of each tribe's leader---like, say, defeat the frost dragon that haunts the great ice caves, or defeat the great Wyvern, or reclaim the lost spear of Uthganian, or recover enough unobtanium to forge the world's greatest axe, or whatever. Next, you'll need to either sway or eliminate any resisting tribal leaders. Next, you'll need to convince the tribespeople that you do have their best interests at heart. So where do you want to start?"

So I suppose setting up that kind of framing isn't a Czege Principle violation . . . there's still plenty of room for the player to pursue those challenges.

But the longer I look at that list, the more I begin to see how without player-facing resolution mechanics how _hard_ it would be frame those situations. With only basic, traditional, task-resolution mechanics (like Pathfinder or Savage Worlds, which is what I know best), they either have to do it through direct combat prowess---because that's what 90% of the mechanics are focused on---or the GM has to specifically frame some other way to resolve those challenges that isn't just about the party killing whoever/whatever is in front of them.

And then suddenly we're right back where we started---the GM's notes on how these challenges can be resolved are now the controlling factor as to whether a PC can or can't succeed at their stated goal.

So for me, it's a difficult conundrum. Because I _want_ those strongly realized, in-depth campaign settings. They're immensely satisfying to build and watch "come to life" in play. But I don't know that they really give my players as much true control over their characters, but only the illusion of control.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Its not an exact binary, but it is absolutely a fine line between players being Protagonized and Deprotagonized.



Look, I think at least some of us understand the concept.  It is the term we differ about and think you are misusing.  Let's just call what you are talking about "Dramatic Need Focused Play".   I think that better fits what you are talking about.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Manbearcat  Yeah, that's pretty much the sliding scale I was envisioning. I think where this conversation gets sticky is that the a given premise and rules set can be all over that map. I think this is because volitional play/dramatic needs are much more a function of how the GM and players play, via explicit or implicit conventions and agreements than they are of a given rules set. Some rules sets obviously support the idea more than others, but that's not, IMO, the prime mover (not that you said it was). This plays back to @Ovinomancer 's concern above that was conflating agency with dramatic needs, which I'm actually not, I'm subsuming that idea into the idea of agency and of agency-first play. Both because I think that's where it lives, but also because I don't do the one without the other when I run games (YMMV of course). Just to be tranparent about how my personal experiences and style are impacting this discussion.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> There can be more than one protagonist in a story... In Infinity War...Thanos is the main antagonist... Iron Man is one of many protagonists




There's a decent argument that the detail about Thanos is largely there to fulfill Gamora and Nebula's dramatic needs.


----------



## Emerikol

innerdude said:


> So I'm fully sympathetic to claims of GMs and players who say that prefabricating campaign content doesn't remove the ability for the players (through their PCs) to set and pursue goals within the fiction.
> 
> If I'm being honest, I think my "ideal" kind of RPG play would be a merging of an interesting, dynamic, realized campaign setting with players/PCs being able to strongly pursue character agendas and goals within the setting.
> 
> And I think it was @Maxperson who talked about how his group's purpose of play isn't to "reveal the GM's notes," it's to pursue their character's agenda. The GM's "notes" merely create the situational framing / genre conventions in which that pursuit takes place.
> 
> The issues I always ran into as a GM who was attempting to prefabricate an "interesting, dynamic, and realized" setting, was that too often it felt like that the player goals generally 1) were rather shallow; 2) were only peripherally related to other group pursuits; 3) required a significant amount of negotiation / "Mother-may-I?" or outright "handwavium" to make them the focus of play; 4) the traditional rules of Savage Worlds give zero guidance for how to "make GM moves" that puts the players into tight spots and dynamically flow the downstream effects of what the PCs do within the world.



Isn't that a criticism of the players though more than the DM?  Unless the world is poorly designed and nothing is happening and then I'd criticize the DM.   

I mean if a PC said his life goal was to fish in a stream in a quiet hut in the forest what do I do with that?  Make the forest one of the most dangerous places in the world and he has to conquer the forest to get to his hut?

There are certain assumptions when playing heroic fantasy.  You have people who want to be heroes and do fantastical things.  You create a world where heroes are needed.   Where evil forces are afoot.  I make lots of plot threads and the PCs pursue what interests them.   If there was some great disconnect between what the PCs desire and what the DM is creating, then I'd recommend a longer discussion ahead of time about what sort of world the players would like to see.  I don't have that problem but for those that do that is my recommendation.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> You are right.  Some people took a fiction writing term and adopted it to fit their game design perspectives.  Since they are strong advocates for their approach they then immediately said other games lack this quality that they like.   The problem is they took a word with meaning.   I can define the word "hat" to mean "turtle" and we can have a conversation.   The hat has a pretty shell etc...   That doesn't make hat really mean turtle.
> 
> So despite repeated attempts to get you to understand this point you refuse.  You are apparently the absolute authority on this term.  You are not.  The word has a meaning.   By every sense of the fictional concept, adventurers who choose to take up an adventure in a sandbox world is absolutely a protagonist.  If I wrote this up as a story, that character would be a protagonist.
> 
> I've tried to help you out by pointing out the term is loaded and perhaps we should avoid it.   Perhaps Dramatic Need Focused play would be a better term.




If you look at any critical evaluation (any of them...by scholars, screenwriters, actors, etc) of the term Protagonist, it is not about "screen time."  It is always about dramatic need.  And the Antagonist is about obstructing/foiling the dramatic need of the Protagonist.

No Country for Old Men is the perfect encapsulation of this.

You have 3 main characters:

Llewelyn Moss
Anton Chigurh
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell


All 3 of these characters express the themes of the story.
Llewelyn Moss has the most screen time.
Anton Chigurh DIRECTLY opposes Llewelyn.
But *Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (despite lesser screen time) is unequivocally the Protagonist* because of the implications and (both real world and philosophical) fallout of Anton vs Llewelyn, the nature of Anton's existence, the nature of the setting and themes being revealed, Llewelyn's lack of agency (though his perception of his own agency) and his ultimately incidental/unceremonious ending (which the Sheriff aimed to stop).

The world has passed Sheriff Ed Tom Bell by...he is, in fact, overmatched.

Notions of justice, competency, will, and being "the good guy" doesn't matter when fate, dumb luck, and the corrupted powerful conspire against.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell can't stop what's coming...ultimately, no one can (not even Anton).  To pretend otherwise is vanity.  Surrender (retiring) is the same as pressing on.

This is, indeed, No Country for Old Men (and not for young ones either).


----------



## Manbearcat

Umbran said:


> There's a decent argument that the detail about Thanos is largely there to fulfill Gamora and Nebula's dramatic needs.




There is a VERY decent argument that the most compelling conflict and dramatic needs of the story did in fact orbit around these 3 characters.

The reality that the intersection of the collision and resolution of these dramatic needs was backgrounded so deeply and that the story arc didn't give you (and by you I guess I mean me) anything even remotely nearing fulfillment (or even sufficient screen time) is, in my opinion, the primary big failing of those two movies (along with run time, muddled theme/pacing/mood).

I was extremely disappointed in that.  It had amazing moments, but I thought that last movie was profoundly overated (and not in small part because of Gamora and Nebula's conflict/love not being sufficiently centered, relevant, resolved as it collided with their father).


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> There can be more than one protagonist in a story... In Infinity War...Thanos is the main antagonist... Iron Man is one of many protagonists



Well, no. Because a "protagonist" is strictly the primary main character. Beyond that is the deuteragonist and the tritagonist. I think that one can talk of a protagonist, a deuteragonist, or a tritagonist, but once it get's beyond that point, then we are generally speaking about tertiary characters. This is because the number of arcs for a dramatic structure of a fictive text tend to become less coherent and focused. So even in an ensemble cast of characters, there will typically not be more than 1-3 main characters whose actions propel the dramatic narrative towards its climax.

Aang is the protagonist of Avatar the Last Airbender, and Zuko is the deuteragonist. Do the other characters have their own arcs? Sure, but they are not the ones that propel the main narrative arcs: e.g., "As avatar, I must defeat Firelord Ozai" and "As the Crown Prince, I must regain my honor." There are still other prominent characters, such as Katara, Sokka, Toph, etc., but the terms "protagonist" and "deuteragonist" are reserved for the Aang and Zuko, respectively. Likewise, Iron Man is definitely one of the main characters, and a strong case could be made that he is the protagonist of the Avengers' Thanos arc, but saying that he's one of many protagonists is a confusion of terms.

Edit: I imagine that @darkbard is more well-versed about this than I am and can offer greater clarity.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> Look, I think at least some of us understand the concept.  It is the term we differ about and think you are misusing.  Let's just call what you are talking about "Dramatic Need Focused Play".   I think that better fits what you are talking about.




I'm perfectly fine with that, but it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too bulky.  I mean, DNFP would work but the acronym itself is a mouthful.

Which is, again, why I like Protagonist Play.  A player or a set of players in a Ravenloft game that is entirely centered around Strahd's Dramatic Need are the Antagonists to his Protagonism (even if they can't articulate it) regardless of their screen time.  And players knows when they've been Deprotagonized (as mentioned above with the Paladin/partner/friend or my example just upthread replete with Deus Ex Machina and Force).  And they know when conflict framing and resolution foregrounds their dramatic needs to a larger or lesser extent.

This is all Protagonism related.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> ... but saying that he's one of many protagonists is a confusion of terms.




I think it is less a confusion of terms, and more a recognition that the term originates considering simply constructed fictions.  In stories with many characters, built over years, it is possible to not have a single clear protagonist.  If they hand the hat around enough, they are all protagonists in turn.


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> I think it is less a confusion of terms, and more a recognition that the term originates considering simply constructed fictions.  In stories with many characters, built over years, it is possible to not have a single clear protagonist.  If they hand the hat around enough, they are all protagonists in turn.



IMHO, the Avengers' movies are a simply constructed fiction. Each movie has its primary dramatic structure, and I suspect that one could likely identify the dramatic climax of each movie. And at the center we would likely not find anywhere close to the full ensemble of characters, who may have arcs and stories of their own, but to say that they are all protagonists of that movie would be somewhat far-fetched.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Well, no. Because a "protagonist" is strictly the primary main character. Beyond that is the deuteragonist and the tritagonist. I think that one can talk of a protagonist, a deuteragonist, or a tritagonist, but once it get's beyond that point, then we are generally speaking about tertiary characters. This is because the number of arcs for a dramatic structure of a fictive text tend to become less coherent and focused. So even in an ensemble cast of characters, there will typically not be more than 1-3 main characters whose actions propel the dramatic narrative towards its climax.
> 
> Aang is the protagonist of Avatar the Last Airbender, and Zuko is the deuteragonist. Do the other characters have their own arcs? Sure, but they are not the ones that propel the main narrative arcs: e.g., "As avatar, I must defeat Firelord Ozai" and "As the Crown Prince, I must regain my honor." There are still other prominent characters, such as Katara, Sokka, Toph, etc., but the terms "protagonist" and "deuteragonist" are reserved for the Aang and Zuko, respectively. Likewise, Iron Man is definitely one of the main characters, and a strong case could be made that he is the protagonist of the Avengers' Thanos arc, but saying that he's one of many protagonists is a confusion of terms.
> 
> Edit: I imagine that @darkbard is more well-versed about this than I am and can offer greater clarity.



If there are multiple stories within one movie then it is actually possible to have more than one protagonist... but I get your point and (for the most part) agree.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> @Manbearcat  Yeah, that's pretty much the sliding scale I was envisioning. I think *where this conversation gets sticky is that the a given premise and rules set can be all over that ma*p. I think this is because volitional play/dramatic needs are much more a function of how the GM and players play, via explicit or implicit conventions and agreements than they are of a given rules set. Some rules sets obviously support the idea more than others, but that's not, IMO, the prime mover (not that you said it was). This plays back to @Ovinomancer 's concern above that was conflating agency with dramatic needs, which I'm actually not, I'm subsuming that idea into the idea of agency and of agency-first play. Both because I think that's where it lives, but also because I don't do the one without the other when I run games (YMMV of course). Just to be tranparent about how my personal experiences and style are impacting this discussion.




I agree with this.  Some games perpetuate Protagonistic play extraordinarily well.  Some games are at tension with the concept or outright fight it due to some collection of incoherent alignment of incentive structures + procedures + GMing techniques + authority distribution (particularly troupe play where the premise of play is disconnected, or trivially disconnectable, with dramatic need and/or dramatic need is intentionally/incompetently backgrounded or dictated by a 3rd party).  

You definitely know the difference when they're in action!

Social contract helps mitigate the gap (you can build a couple of ramps and make the leap...but you aren't outright making a bridge) between the two for sure...but design/focus differently and you don't have to worry about gaps or mitigating social contract!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> The pitfighter part has almost nothing to do with the dungeon IMO, it could be a city, or a sunny meadow. If the player is playing to that need, for example, arranging fights tactically to support that idea, or roleplaying it at all really, the GM should be responding in kind. This is much the same as wanting to be the best wizard in the realm, or anything really. If the players end up in a dungeon it will be by their own choice or as a result of their own actions, but the dungeon itself isn't there to support any dramatic needs. The extent to which a particular dramatic need will play in that particular venue will depend on the player and the GM and the usual recursive play cycle. If I'm that GM and your pitfighter is playing to that need I feel like it's my job to make sure it gets spotlight. Any factoin interactions, for example, could very easily involve pitfighting elements. An orc in 10x10 room, not so much.
> 
> That said, where that dramatic need might play in more is in what that character might chose to do in the first place. If they're looking for places to pitfight, and playing to that best pitfighter idea, then they should find places and encounters, or parts thereof that help scaffold that need. So perhaps that location ends up having a pitfighting component, who knows. But when you're talking about emergent play it's a little but awkward to just pick a random spot without context and say "well how would that work?"



Yes!  Protagonism occurs when play is about the PCs dramatic needs.  If I've built my world prior to the PC generation, then I'm not protagonizing the PCs in that world -- I'm building a world that doesn't care about the PCs' dramatic needs.  That the player can, within that world, try to make moves that invoke their dramatic need doesn't change that the world is not a protagonistic world.  What this is is agency -- the ability to make choices that matter.  This isn't the same as protagonism, which is about how the entire game is structured and what it focuses on.

After this big point, which I hope we can agree on, there's lots of details about how play is generated even when nominally involving a PC dramatic need.  Again, the key element here is focus.  A good detail here is my example tiefling from my game -- that she will, undoubtedly, seek out the devil responsible for her family's curse, how that fiction is generated is key to evoking protagonism.  For example, it's absolutely true that this devil exists in my game and will be a factor in it solely because of the PC's dramatic need.  However, the adventure then only has a small amount of protagonism because it will still be almost entirely about foiling the NPC's plan which was conceived without any of the PCs in my game being created.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> IMHO, the Avengers' movies are a simply constructed fiction. Each movie has its primary dramatic structure, and I suspect that one could likely identify the dramatic climax of each movie. And at the center we would likely not find anywhere close to the full ensemble of characters, who may have arcs and stories of their own, but to say that they are all protagonists of that movie would be somewhat far-fetched.




But they often have more than one story going on within a single movie...


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> ... to say that they are all protagonists of that movie would be somewhat far-fetched.




You are welcome to your preferred interpretation, for your own consideration.  Your expectations on agreement from others, however, should be limited.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> If there are multiple stories within one movie then it is actually possible to have more than one protagonist... but I get your point and agree.





Imaro said:


> But they often have more than one story going on within a single movie...



I don't think that multiple stories in a movie (or medium) necessarily means that there are multiple protagonists. There are multiple stories in Avatar the Last Airbender, but I would be reluctant to call Katara or Sokka, who each have stories and arcs of their own, "protagonists." We can be reading the Amazing Spider-Man and understand that Harry Osborn, Flash Thompson, and Mary J. Watson have their own stories and arcs in the paneled pages, but would they all be protagonists? I doubt that many would think so. Most people would likely identify Spider-Man/Peter Parker as the protagonist. If we look in literature, we will find similar things.



Umbran said:


> You are welcome to your preferred interpretation, for your own consideration.  Your expectations on agreement from others, however, should be limited.



My main expectation is the generation of further discourse. But if there is a case to be made for multiple protagonists, which I have never really seen presented before this thread, then I'm sure such analytical work has already been done in the respective fields of fiction analysis. I think that if you are dealing with stories with many protagonists, such that one could not easily identify a protagonist, deuteragonist, or tritagonist, then you are likely dealing with a story no protagonist at all.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> There can be more than one protagonist in a story... In Infinity War...Thanos is the main antagonist... Iron Man is one of many protagonists



Nope, reversed.  Infinity War is entirely about the dramatic needs of Thanos.  Heck, the filmmakers tell you this at the end, even, when the splash says that Thanos will return.  This is an intentional design of this film, and has been talked about both in critical analysis and by the filmmakers.  Thanos is the protagonist.


Imaro said:


> The fact that the emergent story is created from and focused on the decisions the PC's make to deal with this or that threat (introduced by the GM) is what makes them the protagonists of said emergent story.  A Threat alons no matter how well detailed is not in and of itself a story.



No, it doesn't, really.  To look at Infinity Way again, the choices that Tony Stark makes absolutely create emergent story (within the conceit that this is an emerging story, of course), but he's not the protagonist -- the things he's doing aren't about his dramatic needs, but instead foiling the dramatic needs of Thanos.  In a D&D game, this can look like a PC taking actions, and having emergent features occur due to them, when attempting to foil the plot of a necromancer trying to take over the kingdom.  The dramatic need in this story is the necromancers -- the game is about his desire to take over the kingdom.  The PCs here are reactionary, they do things to thwart this dramatic need, and, if agency is present, they change the resulting story, hopefully to the point of thwarting and defeating the necromancer's dramatic need.


Imaro said:


> If the players decided to go to that dungeon vs the city of Agrabar is influencing what play is about.  If the dramtic need of the PC is to explore dungeons it doesn't matter if the GM creats it or not his dramatic need is being explored.



This is agency.


Imaro said:


> If the game is focused on the decisions and resulting ramifications of the choices the players are making.   They can choose or choose not to make their dramatic needs the focus of play.  The only way they lack protagonism is if this option is taken off the table, otherwise they have protagonism and need only exert it.



No, this is agency.  For protagonism, the things that are presented must be about the PCs, not just the results of what they decide to do with what's presented.  


Imaro said:


> No I'm not I'm clearly stating what the game is about.  You seem to be suggesting that the GM pre-creating something precludes it from being a part of the PC's exploring their dramatic needs and yet I haven't see any evidence to support this conclusion.  The crux of this really seems to be floating around how much authorial control is given vs. whether protagonism is present.  Why not just say this difference in styles is authorial control then?



Again, if you're making setting details that do not invoke the PCs' dramatic needs, then these are absolutely independent of whatever PC happens to be there, and so are not protagonism.  If play largely features things like this, the protagonism is inhibited or not present.  The AP I'm running right now features no protagonism at all within it's pages -- nothing about that adventure changes based on what PCs are playing it.  The results may change, the path may change, but the AP is otherwise unchanged.  This is because the AP allows for agency (albeit slight, it's a railroad), but doesn't allow for protagonism.

Again, I'm very curious as to why this concept is receiving such pushback.  It's not a negative to not have protagonism -- lots of great games have little to no protagonism.  The very goal of play as stated by @Emerikol is non-protagonism, but I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that he has a blast in his games.  There's no need to have protagonism, it is not a good that improves any game by increasing it's amount or even having it.  It's just an approach to games, which most of the people arguing they have it are also strongly in the camp that they would dislike these games.  Is it just an argument so that a different style that is assumed to be disliked can't have something that your games do?  Very strange, if so, because why else would you dislike those games if not because they have features you dislike?


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> So I'm fully sympathetic to claims of GMs and players who say that prefabricating campaign content doesn't remove the ability for the players (through their PCs) to set and pursue goals within the fiction.
> 
> If I'm being honest, I think my "ideal" kind of RPG play would be a merging of an interesting, dynamic, realized campaign setting with players/PCs being able to strongly pursue character agendas and goals within the setting.
> 
> And I think it was @Maxperson who talked about how his group's purpose of play isn't to "reveal the GM's notes," it's to pursue their character's agenda. The GM's "notes" merely create the situational framing / genre conventions in which that pursuit takes place.



Sometimes they even go outside the notes.  The players are smart and come up with things to do and try that are not always covered.  I love it when that happens.  Keeps me on my toes.


innerdude said:


> The issues I always ran into as a GM who was attempting to prefabricate an "interesting, dynamic, and realized" setting, was that too often it felt like that the player goals generally 1) were rather shallow;



That's up to the players, really.  If they set a goal to go to the bar and get drunk, there's not going to be a tremendous depth to it.  However, if they set the goal to take over the northern Bear tribe and use it to unite all the barbarian clans in order to take over Waterdeep, that's a goal that will have a lot of depth to it.  

It's not the DM's job to set those goals.  It's just his job to react to the players when they let him know what those goals are.


innerdude said:


> 2) were only peripherally related to other group pursuits;



That's why during session 0 I have every player in the group, including myself put in 3-4 campaign ideas.  Now we have 15-20 ideas in the pool.  Each person including myself can outright veto one idea.  That way, ideally, nobody has to play a campaign that they really hate.  Everyone then ranks the remaining 10-15 ideas from 1 to #of ideas.  The top 3 idea point totals get separated out and everyone votes again.  That makes sure that not only is nobody is playing a campaign they hate, but it's one of the ones everyone liked, because a very low total will sink that idea and keep it from top 3.  

Now I have a general campaign goal to work on that is for the entire group of players.  They are on the same page.  The players usually come up with individual goals that relate to that campaign goal.  For example, if the group picked relic(artifact and relic) hunters, one player might write into his background that his father has been imprisoned in an unbreakable crystal and he needs to find an artifact or relic that will break it.  Another might want one to help him become the ruler of his tribe.  And so on.  

The group now has a general goal, and brought together by that commonality, the quest for artifacts and relics, and because of the bonds of companionship, one agrees to help the other free his father and the other agrees to aid Grumak in becoming chief of his tribe.  And so on.  


innerdude said:


> 3) required a significant amount of negotiation / "Mother-may-I?" or outright "handwavium" to make them the focus of play;



The above takes care of this as well.  The goals start from moment one as the focus of play.  However, like I posted in my previous example, the group can decide at any moment that they no longer want to hunt down relics and instead become pirates, using the relics they already have to run ragged over the high seas.  

I don't negotiate with them, play mother may I or hand waive anything.  They simply tell me what they are doing and I react accordingly.  If they tell me that they are going to the port city of Athkatla to steal a ship, that's what they are doing.  When they get there they will let me know how they go about it, and the game world will react to it.


----------



## Manbearcat

I think the nature of troupe play and the concept of "diffuse protagonism" is one that has to be discussed when it comes to TTRPGs.

I think (a) it is definitely a thing in TTRPGs ("diffuse protagonism") that feature it and (b) I think the composition of play tends toward (its not a sure thing...but tends) becoming increasingly muddled and the thematic potency less impactful the more diffuse it is (eg as participants increase).

Which I think trivially explains the autobiographical footnote of the last 15 years of my life with 3 PCs max in all of my games.  That is, unless I'm playing a game that is Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawling (because play intentionally features no Protagonism)...then 4-5 is all good.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> You are right.  Some people took a fiction writing term and adopted it to fit their game design perspectives.  Since they are strong advocates for their approach they then immediately said other games lack this quality that they like.   The problem is they took a word with meaning.   I can define the word "hat" to mean "turtle" and we can have a conversation.   The hat has a pretty shell etc...   That doesn't make hat really mean turtle.



*I am currently running a game that does not feature protagonism.*  I am doing this willingly, because I also enjoy this kind of game.  This should, absolutely, put paid to this very specious statement.  It isn't about defining a term so that it represents my preferred mode of play -- it cannot be this because I'm currently, willingly, playing a game that this term, which I argue for, is not represented at all.

The continued argument is just a veiled ad hom -- you aren't addressing the arguments I've made, but instead cast this as intentional use of a loaded term by someone trying to denigrate your playstyle.  This is absolutely false -- I learned to play in your style, and have fond memories of it.  It isn't a stranger to me, even if I've largely moved on and adopted different play.  I have zero reason to denigrate that play.  I do have reason to promote other approaches, though, which is often characterized by you as denigration of your play, as if other forms of play somehow discount your own.  It's a silly defensive posture you adopt in these discussion, an approach that this is war, and any ground given, even to a term that describes play you dislike because it means you can't use it to describe your play, must be fought without quarter.  It's silly.  Here, people have a term that clearly describes a type of play where the PCs are protagonized in all ways -- the game is entirely focused on the PC's dramatic need, thus maximizing every moment to be about the PCs.  A style of play you've clearly said you dislike.  And yet, you're fighting to have this term defined in a way so that even Monopoly features it (choice made there develop into emergent play, and a story is told).  I mean, cool.

From now on, protagonism on my end will be described as badwrongfunveryterrible play.  Badwrongfunveryterrible play is where the game is focused on the dramatic needs of the PCs.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes!  Protagonism occurs when play is about the PCs dramatic needs.  If I've built my world prior to the PC generation, then I'm not protagonizing the PCs in that world -- I'm building a world that doesn't care about the PCs' dramatic needs.  That the player can, within that world, try to make moves that invoke their dramatic need doesn't change that the world is not a protagonistic world.  What this is is agency -- the ability to make choices that matter.  This isn't the same as protagonism, which is about how the entire game is structured and what it focuses on.
> 
> After this big point, which I hope we can agree on, there's lots of details about how play is generated even when nominally involving a PC dramatic need.  Again, the key element here is focus.  A good detail here is my example tiefling from my game -- that she will, undoubtedly, seek out the devil responsible for her family's curse, how that fiction is generated is key to evoking protagonism.  For example, it's absolutely true that this devil exists in my game and will be a factor in it solely because of the PC's dramatic need.  However, the adventure then only has a small amount of protagonism because it will still be almost entirely about foiling the NPC's plan which was conceived without any of the PCs in my game being created.



I would disagree completely that a world is protagonist or not. Play certainly is, but the world? I dont see a compelling argument there.  I also think that your argument seems to only account for a single PC when that isnt the usual. Dramatic needs have to be worked as a set, not as a single thing taken out of context. I'd agree that game structure is key here, for sure, but that's a seperate thing IMO and something that can be deployed, or not, in many different systems and settings.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> *I am currently running a game that does not feature protagonism.*  I am doing this willingly, because I also enjoy this kind of game.  This should, absolutely, put paid to this very specious statement.  It isn't about defining a term so that it represents my preferred mode of play -- it cannot be this because I'm currently, willingly, playing a game that this term, which I argue for, is not represented at all.



You are so not understanding me that you think this is meaningful.



Ovinomancer said:


> The continued argument is just a veiled ad hom -- you aren't addressing the arguments I've made, but instead cast this as intentional use of a loaded term by someone trying to denigrate your playstyle.  This is absolutely false -- I learned to play in your style, and have fond memories of it.  It isn't a stranger to me, even if I've largely moved on and adopted different play.  I have zero reason to denigrate that play.  I do have reason to promote other approaches, though, which is often characterized by you as denigration of your play, as if other forms of play somehow discount your own.  It's a silly defensive posture you adopt in these discussion, an approach that this is war, and any ground given, even to a term that describes play you dislike because it means you can't use it to describe your play, must be fought without quarter.  It's silly.  Here, people have a term that clearly describes a type of play where the PCs are protagonized in all ways -- the game is entirely focused on the PC's dramatic need, thus maximizing every moment to be about the PCs.  A style of play you've clearly said you dislike.  And yet, you're fighting to have this term defined in a way so that even Monopoly features it (choice made there develop into emergent play, and a story is told).  I mean, cool.
> 
> From now on, protagonism on my end will be described as badwrongfunveryterrible play.  Badwrongfunveryterrible play is where the game is focused on the dramatic needs of the PCs.



There is no ad hominem.  I just think you are abusing a term so if anything the term should be the offended party. ;-)    I've suggested another term and am willing to accept the acronymn.  DNFP.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> My main expectation is the generation of further discourse. But if there is a case to be made for multiple protagonists, which I have never really seen presented before this thread...




Yes, well, that's a problem.  Because, we need to set the lofty authorities aside for a moment and remember the practicalities of a game -  at your table, you have a collection of players, who, broadly speaking, _all deserve to be protatgonists_.  If your definition of "protagonist" only allows for one, then a bunch of people at the table are getting kinda shafted by your model.  

In your Session Zero, do you have the group define who is playing the one single protagonist of the campaign?



> ...then I'm sure such analytical work has already been done in the respective fields of fiction analysis.




You realize that we are not speaking about mathematics, or hard sciences - there is no singular right or wrong.  There are, at best, merely different frameworks of thinking that may illuminate aspects of fiction.  Authority, at best, points us at models that we may find useful.  

I question the utility of a single-protagonist model for general tabletop RPG play.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?



:::: I design the setting and run the game.  Isn't that enough?

My notes, along with the game rules, help me design/build the setting and run the game in a consistent manner.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I would disagree completely that a world is protagonist or not. Play certainly is, but the world? I dont see a compelling argument there.  I also think that your argument seems to only account for a single PC when that isnt the usual. Dramatic needs have to be worked as a set, not as a single thing taken out of context. I'd agree that game structure is key here, for sure, but that's a seperate thing IMO and something that can be deployed, or not, in many different systems and settings.



I've focused on one PC for simplicity of argument.  Having to constantly talk about multiple PCs just inflated word count and confusion and doesn't improve the discussion.  But, yes, you can have multiple PCs worth of dramatic needs -- expand my points to cover this and they don't change.

As for the world, take any of the published settings.  None of them engage protagonism badwrongfunveryterrible play.  Why?  Because they were written entirely without regard to what PCs would be playing in them.  Can a GM make changes to enable badwrongfunveryterrible play?  Sure, but that's a conscious decision to incorporate the PC's dramatic needs into the game.  And if the GM pushes back on a PC dramatic need, other that for reasons it violated established fiction or genre conventions, then the GM is not engaging the PC but asking the PC to change to engage the GM's prepared material.  This is not badwrongfunveryterrible play.  Even if the player can, later, make meaningful choices in play through their PCs.

To put it a different way, it's like the difference between scene framing and resolution.  Protagonism Badwrongfunveryterrible play is about the framing, whereas you're talking about what happens in the resolution.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, that's a problem.  Because, we need to set the lofty authorities aside for a moment and remember the practicalities of a game -  at your table, you have a collection of players, who, broadly speaking, _all deserve to be protatgonists_.  If your definition of "protagonist" only allows for one, then a bunch of people at the table are getting kinda shafted by your model.
> 
> In your Session Zero, do you have the group define who is playing the one single protagonist of the campaign?
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that we are not speaking about mathematics, or hard sciences - there is no singular right or wrong.  There are, at best, merely different frameworks of thinking that may illuminate aspects of fiction.  Authority, at best, points us at models that we may find useful.
> 
> I question the utility of a single-protagonist model for general tabletop RPG play.



I see my arguments that went with simplicity over complexity have resulted in a broader misunderstanding.  Yes, all PCs will have dramatic needs met in a game that features protagonism badwrongfunveryterrible play.  I was using a shorthand to talk about the simplest example to try and get the concept across rather than deal with how independent scene framing techniques are often necessary when you have multiple PCs, or how you can deal with even conflicting dramatic goals among PCs.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> No, else we're back to Monopoly featuring protagonism.  To use my prior example, Infinity Wars features Iron Man making choices, which drive the emergent story, but he is not the protagonist of that film, Thanos is.  That story is entirely about Thanos meeting his dramatic needs, his goals, and the trials and tribulations he faces along the way to realizing them.



Yet even with all that, Thanos is still at all times the ANtagonist; the villain.  Like any good story with a well-rounded villain, Infinity War gives us a good look into his motivations, background etc., but that doesn't make him anything more than a better-fleshed-out antagonist.

A more interesting case is Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.  In the OT, Vader is all antagonist all the time until a final act of redemption at the end.  But in the prequels, Anakin goes from protagonist in TPM to villain (and thus antagonist) in Sith, even though his character is what drives the story. (or one could argue he's an antagonist all the way through, we just don't realize it at first)

Assuming typical heroic-PC play, the PCs are almost always the continuing protagonists and whatever opposition the GM provides are the often-short-lived antagonists.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> You are so not understanding me that you think this is meaningful.



You've tried to cast people using protagonism as 1) strong proponents of a specific approach to play, 2) selecting this term because it represents play they like and is absent from play they don't, and 3) do so specifically because the term is loaded and therefore denigrates the play they aren't strong advocates for.

All of these fail to the simple point that I a) use this term, b) also enjoy and play in a way that this term does not describe.  

Further, the definition of protagonism is the championing of a cause or idea.  Like, say, the championing of the PC's dramatic needs in an RPG?  This would involve making the game about those dramatic needs.


Emerikol said:


> There is no ad hominem.  I just think you are abusing a term so if anything the term should be the offended party. ;-)    I've suggested another term and am willing to accept the acronymn.  DNFP.



You do realize that half of the arguments against protagonism badwrongfunveryterrible play focus directly on the argument that play focuses on PC dramatic needs when they get to try to pursue their own goals, when this is not at all what is being described by protagonism badwrongfunveryterrible play?  Your suggestion of terms _invites _more disagreement than is purports to solve.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, reversed.  Infinity War is entirely about the dramatic needs of Thanos.  Heck, the filmmakers tell you this at the end, even, when the splash says that Thanos will return.  This is an intentional design of this film, and has been talked about both in critical analysis and by the filmmakers.  Thanos is the protagonist.




Absolutely.  

Thanos is the protagonist (just like Strahd).

When every_other_character in the entire movie shares a dramatic need that begins and ends with "We/I need to stop Thanos(!)", you know who your protagonist is (even if you append a "so we/I can..." to the end of that, its irrelevant if its all implied and backgrounded/offscreen entirely).

Now consider the thematic questions/doubts in Thor Ragnarok.

"From where does power come?"

"Where does home reside?"

These were answered emphatically (and beautifully crafted) and they weren't answered via Helga-as-protagonist (she was clearly the antagonist).


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, all PCs will have dramatic needs met in a game that features protagonism badwrongfunveryterrible play.




Thank you.  Good to know.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> Yet even with all that, Thanos is still at all times the ANtagonist; the villain.  Like any good story with a well-rounded villain, Infinity War gives us a good look into his motivations, background etc., but that doesn't make him anything more than a better-fleshed-out antagonist.
> 
> A more interesting case is Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.  In the OT, Vader is all antagonist all the time until a final act of redemption at the end.  But in the prequels, Anakin goes from protagonist in TPM to villain (and thus antagonist) in Sith, even though his character is what drives the story. (or one could argue he's an antagonist all the way through, we just don't realize it at first)
> 
> Assuming typical heroic-PC play, the PCs are almost always the continuing protagonists and whatever opposition the GM provides are the often-short-lived antagonists.



Villain =/= antagonist.  Hero =/= protagonist.  These terms describe the role in the story, not the moral or ethic bents of the characters.  For example, Humbert Humbert is the protagonist of Lolita, and he's an absolutely despicable example of human garbage.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> Yet even with all that, Thanos is still at all times the ANtagonist; the villain.  Like any good story with a well-rounded villain, Infinity War gives us a good look into his motivations, background etc., but that doesn't make him anything more than a better-fleshed-out antagonist.



Protagonist and "good guy" are not synonymous, certainly not in how they're being used in the conversation.


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> I don't negotiate with them, play mother may I or hand waive anything.  They simply tell me what they are doing and I react accordingly.  If they tell me that they are going to the port city of Athkatla to steal a ship, that's what they are doing.  When they get there they will let me know how they go about it, and the game world will react to it.




And this is always my approach to GM-led / "geo"-centric play (to borrower the term used earlier) as well. The situations in which I'd outright deny a player declaration are almost zero. And of course there's always spin-off / downstream consequences for what they do.

But even if they players declare this action, the framing for the "steal the ship" scene is still largely going to be of my devising---unless I wholesale grant the players the ability to do some of the framing themselves.

If I wasn't willing to give the players some of the fictional creation / framing power, I had to do it myself.

What kind of ship are they trying to steal? Who owns it? What's the owner's relationship to other people in power inside the city? Who's guarding it? How well is it guarded? What's on the ship when they steal it? How easy is it to access the dock? Is the party likely to be pursued afterwards? Who will the pursuers be and how will they be engaging in the pursuit? What happens if they're recognized at another port of call? Who recognizes them? <_ad infinitum>_

There's just so much detail that falls out from that single action declaration---"I steal a ship from the harbor."

And so many of the answers to those questions ultimately become "stuff in my (the GM's) notes"---stuff that the players are going to want to have knowledge of. Because players don't like to do stuff without understanding the risks, understanding their potential level of success, whether stealing the ship actually has a net positive or negative outcome on their goals (or fulfills some of the goals while undermining others, etc.). Someone at the game table has to ultimately generate these kinds of details for the fiction / framing around the proposed scene.

If it's all the GM's call to determine these details, then a significant portion of the players' actions are then going to be just what @pemerton described, which is, they're now playing to _find out what's in those notes_ so they know how and when to actually initiate their "steal a ship from the harbor" action declaration.

I'm always willing to pivot and let players pursue new courses of action. But there's a ton of ancillary "note generation" that then goes into it, and those notes have a significant impact on play.

*Edit---this is the kind of thing I was talking about in my earlier post about how making the players the focus of the action "required a significant amount of negotiation / 'Mother-may-I?' or outright 'handwavium' to make them the focus of play." All of this stuff around framing the scene for stealing the boat is stuff that I basically have to generate---and if I-as-GM am the only one creating those notes, then I either have to outright tell those players what I've noted, or the focus of play now becomes figuring out what I put into those notes.

Even with the best of intentions, the ability of the players to successfully carry out their course of action is all based on a GM judgement call of _what did I put into my notes?_

This is what I was trying to communicate to @Emerikol previously, which is that no matter how detailed your initial "prefabrication" is, these types of details around individual scene frames (like "We steal a boat") are not pre-existent when the action declaration is presented, or even if they are, _they're still "notes" that the players have to now retrieve from the GM _before they can realistically make the "I steal a boat" action declaration.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> This is an interesting thing to disagree about. I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could *not* be about their dramatic needs.



That's an easy one: the players (via their PCs) are driving the action yet the PCs haven't been created with dramatic needs as "drama" isn't important to the players.  This would most often be seen in (and as) "pawn stance" play, likely in a pure sandbox.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> I've focused on one PC for simplicity of argument.  Having to constantly talk about multiple PCs just inflated word count and confusion and doesn't improve the discussion.  But, yes, you can have multiple PCs worth of dramatic needs -- expand my points to cover this and they don't change.
> 
> As for the world, take any of the published settings.  None of them engage protagonism badwrongfunveryterrible play.  Why?  Because they were written entirely without regard to what PCs would be playing in them.  Can a GM make changes to enable badwrongfunveryterrible play?  Sure, but that's a conscious decision to incorporate the PC's dramatic needs into the game.  And if the GM pushes back on a PC dramatic need, other that for reasons it violated established fiction or genre conventions, then the GM is not engaging the PC but asking the PC to change to engage the GM's prepared material.  This is not badwrongfunveryterrible play.  Even if the player can, later, make meaningful choices in play through their PCs.
> 
> To put it a different way, it's like the difference between scene framing and resolution.  Protagonism Badwrongfunveryterrible play is about the framing, whereas you're talking about what happens in the resolution.



Well, I think my issue with the way you're framing (har har) this is your assertion there is some inherent need for the setting to support protagonist play, and I disagree completely. I think that can be entirely down to how the GM and the group approach character building and how the GM manages the play cycle and to what extent he responds appropriately to player input. Moreover, I am also _absolutely_ talking about framing, it's essential. What I'm proposing is that framing is something that evolves out of play and in the case of protagonism is very much a GM responding to player inputs in terms of roleplaying and decision making. I suppose what I'm suggesting is that GM framing, by and large, flows from evolving play. What I'm really mitigating against here is the idea (not yours) that character motivation and drive is something that exists on the character sheet. For my part it only matters to the extent that players actually play it.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's postulate a dungeon.  The play features exploring this dungeon.  Does the fact that one PC has a dramatic need that they want to be the best pit-fighter in the realm have anything at all to do with the dungeon, or would play look largely similar with a completely different dramatic need for that PC?



Trap question.

The play for the moment features exploring a dungeon; and in this regard (and for this time) the overall play would look largely similar regardless of any one PCs' dramatic needs or even of which PCs were in the party.  The trap here is that the focus during dungeon exploration is _almost always on the party as a whole_ rather than any one PC, and so asking about focus on one PC in this situation is just bait.

Where the dramatic needs can (and IME do) come to the fore is during downtime between adventures, where focus moves from what the party is doing to what individual PCs are doing.  Here's where your pit-fighter can (try to) shine, and also where your questin carries more relevance.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> You are right.  Some people took a fiction writing term and adopted it to fit their game design perspectives.  Since they are strong advocates for their approach they then immediately said other games lack this quality that they like.   The problem is they took a word with meaning.   I can define the word "hat" to mean "turtle" and we can have a conversation.   The hat has a pretty shell etc...   That doesn't make hat really mean turtle.



And Teenage Mutant Ninja Hats is simply a non-starter... 


Emerikol said:


> I've tried to help you out by pointing out the term is loaded and perhaps we should avoid it.   Perhaps Dramatic Need Focused play would be a better term.



More seriously, @Aldarc 's suggestion upthread of "geocentric" and "anthrocentric" looks pretty good from here.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, I think my issue with the way you're framing (har har) this is your assertion there is some inherent need for the setting to support protagonist play, and I disagree completely. I think that can be entirely down to how the GM and the group approach character building and how the GM manages the play cycle and to what extent he responds appropriately to player input. Moreover, I am also _absolutely_ talking about framing, it's essential. What I'm proposing is that framing is something that evolves out of play and in the case of protagonism is very much a GM responding to player inputs in terms of roleplaying and decision making. *I suppose what I'm suggesting is that GM framing, by and large, flows from evolving play. What I'm really mitigating against here is the idea (not yours) that character motivation and drive is something that exists on the character sheet. For my part it only matters to the extent that players actually play it.*




Ideally they're well-integrated and the incentive structures are aligned.

(For instance) If we're playing Dogs and you having a wonderful Relationship with your horse, but its a d4, I know that (a) I need to be foregrounding your relationship with your horse but (b) the framing needs to be troublesome (because that d4 means "complicated" in play).  But we also, collectively, know that you're apt to get XP/Advancement with horse-related-troubles (because the way Advancement works in the game)!

Well-integrated PC stuff for framing and aligned incentive structures!

Same thing goes with Boldness and Vice.  If you want bold heroes who get themselves in trouble because of their scoundrel-inclinations, have Action Rolls with Desperate Position yield XP and Devil's Bargain's attached to Vice complicating your life (which also yields XP...and may turn into more Desperate Position)!


----------



## Manbearcat

Also...lol at this...



Manbearcat said:


> I don’t have time to engage in the way I like to but I skimming. I’ll try to tonight if I can...




15 posts later.  

I should get lots of xp for engaging with my Vice.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> That's an easy one: the players (via their PCs) are driving the action yet the PCs haven't been created with dramatic needs as "drama" isn't important to the players.  This would most often be seen in (and as) "pawn stance" play, likely in a pure sandbox.



Pure sandbox and pawn stance are not synonymous. You can have characters built with drives and motivations in a 'pure sandbox' that will emerge in and effect play and framing and whatever. Let's use the pitfighter example, just to keep things streamlined. In our sandbox game you say to me I want to play a fighter who wants to be the best pit fighter in the realm. One of two things happen, I either have pitfighters written in somewhere and I can suggest that as a _where you're from_, or I don't and I can say _hmm, well, these places all work, whaddya think? _There's a third option of course, being _this world doesn't have pitfighters,_ which is appropriate, but how often is that actually the case in a fantasy world? All of this is possible in a Gm notes/pure sandbox setting. The dramatic goal of becoming a renowned pitfighter will naturally emerge in play to the extent you as a player use it inform decisions and roleplay and I as a GM use that input to decide on consequences and frame future action. This is true no matter the setting.

I do agree completely that some players have zero interest in 'drama' in any of the forms we've been discussing it, which is completely fine. I'd also agree that in a game populated by players like that, _geocentric_ is a fine descriptor.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Trap question.
> 
> The play for the moment features exploring a dungeon; and in this regard (and for this time) the overall play would look largely similar regardless of any one PCs' dramatic needs or even of which PCs were in the party.




Additionally, it posits that being a pit fighter is the _only_ dramatic need that character has, and that the sequence in the dungeon must be centered on that one character's dramatic need, as opposed to anyone else's.  Moreover, it suggests that the _location_ has to be serving the one need of the one character, and it cannot be something found within the space....

Ashen Stars is a Gumshoe-based game.  Being primarily a mystery/procedural engine, you'd expect that play is going to largely consist, as they say, of play designed for the players to uncover the GM's notes - the mystery or difficulty at hand, and find a solution.  However, the game contains discussion of adventure design, and how to address character needs within the framework of the mystery/procedural. 

A given setting or framework shouldn't be taken as the whole story of meeting needs.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> I do agree completely that some players have zero interest in 'drama' in any of the forms we've been discussing it, which is completely fine. I'd also agree that in a game populated by players like that, _geocentric_ is a fine descriptor.



There's another differentiator that just leaped to mind and on thinking of it I'm surprised someone (including me) hasn't brought it up earlier.

There was talk not far upthread of "emergent" setting, where the setting (to paraphrase a bit) kinda shapes itself around the dramatic needs of the PCs even before play begins and continues to do so as play goes on.

This, however, assumes the PCs' dramatic needs are known ahead of time; that the players are going in to the campaign with these needs already in place and that the campaign will focus on them.

But what about the type of play where the setting's locked in and it's the dramatic needs of the PCs that are emergent as play goes on?  Put another way, this type of play starts as geocentric and then quite possibly takes on a more anthrocentric bent once the PCs become established in their personalities and have interacted with the setting - and each other - to some extent.

An example would be inter-PC relationship dynamics.  Sure, the geocentric dungeon-crawling might be going on almost as a backdrop but the actual drama for two PCs is the developing romance between them.  Or the developing rivalry, or whatever.  Things like this pretty much have to emerge through play, and personally that's the sort of drama I'm looking for, and care about, in a game.

Another example might be on the introduction of and interaction with a heretofore-unknown NPC the emergent drama comes via a PC's ongoing reaction to said NPC (be it positive or negative) and what said PC says and-or does about it.


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, that's a problem.  Because, we need to set the lofty authorities aside for a moment and remember the practicalities of a game -  at your table, you have a collection of players, who, broadly speaking, _all deserve to be protatgonists_.  If your definition of "protagonist" only allows for one, then a bunch of people at the table are getting kinda shafted by your model.
> 
> In your Session Zero, do you have the group define who is playing the one single protagonist of the campaign?





Umbran said:


> You realize that we are not speaking about mathematics, or hard sciences - there is no singular right or wrong.  There are, at best, merely different frameworks of thinking that may illuminate aspects of fiction.  Authority, at best, points us at models that we may find useful.
> 
> I question the utility of a single-protagonist model for general tabletop RPG play.



I think that I can address this with the same point: I have been discussing the term "protagonist" as it's understood in authored fiction, which describes film, comics, television, etc. - the sorts of texts used to talk about "multiple protagonists" - rather than in the interactive trope play of TTRPGs. In the case of TTRPGs, I don't think that we are really dealing with textual notions of "protagonists" at all, though I do think that the players are often advocating on behalf of their PCs as if they were.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> I think that I can address this with the same point: I have been discussing the term "protagonist" as it's understood in authored fiction, which describes film, comics, television, etc. - the sorts of texts used to talk about "multiple protagonists" - rather than in the interactive trope play of TTRPGs.




Which, sure, you're allowed to do.  But, next time, consider whether having such discussions of related words, but unrelated contexts, is actually constructive to the thread as a whole, hm?


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> Which, sure, you're allowed to do.  But, next time, consider whether having such discussions of related words, but unrelated contexts, is actually constructive to the thread as a whole, hm?



It may have escaped your modily notice, which can be easy to do in this mega-thread, but I didn't bring the Avengers into this discussion. I was initially responding to the idea of Iron Man being one protagonist among many in the Avengers Infinity War/Endgame movies. I was responding to a Rubicon long since crossed.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> There's another differentiator that just leaped to mind and on thinking of it I'm surprised someone (including me) hasn't brought it up earlier.
> 
> There was talk not far upthread of "emergent" setting, where the setting (to paraphrase a bit) kinda shapes itself around the dramatic needs of the PCs even before play begins and continues to do so as play goes on.
> 
> This, however, assumes the PCs' dramatic needs are known ahead of time; that the players are going in to the campaign with these needs already in place and that the campaign will focus on them.
> 
> But what about the type of play where the setting's locked in and it's the dramatic needs of the PCs that are emergent as play goes on?  Put another way, this type of play starts as geocentric and then quite possibly takes on a more anthrocentric bent once the PCs become established in their personalities and have interacted with the setting - and each other - to some extent.
> 
> An example would be inter-PC relationship dynamics.  Sure, the geocentric dungeon-crawling might be going on almost as a backdrop but the actual drama for two PCs is the developing romance between them.  Or the developing rivalry, or whatever.  Things like this pretty much have to emerge through play, and personally that's the sort of drama I'm looking for, and care about, in a game.
> 
> Another example might be on the introduction of and interaction with a heretofore-unknown NPC the emergent drama comes via a PC's ongoing reaction to said NPC (be it positive or negative) and what said PC says and-or does about it.



Play can flow both ways. I think it's also important to point out that even heavily developed settings aren't actually all that 'locked in' as regards this issue unless the GM is a jerk.

As for the rest of your post, I agree. All excellent examples of how dramatic need might arise during and out of play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> Trap question.
> 
> The play for the moment features exploring a dungeon; and in this regard (and for this time) the overall play would look largely similar regardless of any one PCs' dramatic needs or even of which PCs were in the party.  The trap here is that the focus during dungeon exploration is _almost always on the party as a whole_ rather than any one PC, and so asking about focus on one PC in this situation is just bait.
> 
> Where the dramatic needs can (and IME do) come to the fore is during downtime between adventures, where focus moves from what the party is doing to what individual PCs are doing.  Here's where your pit-fighter can (try to) shine, and also where your questin carries more relevance.



It's not a trap, because we can easily expand to ask if the dungeon focuses play on any of the PCs.  If you created the dungeon without consideration for the PCs that might explore it, that answer is obviously no.  And this is fine -- I highly enjoy dungeon delving, actually.  That it doesn't address PCs' dramatic goals is _rather the point _-- a dungeon delve really shouldn't, because it's not that kind of play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Additionally, it posits that being a pit fighter is the _only_ dramatic need that character has, and that the sequence in the dungeon must be centered on that one character's dramatic need, as opposed to anyone else's.  Moreover, it suggests that the _location_ has to be serving the one need of the one character, and it cannot be something found within the space....
> 
> Ashen Stars is a Gumshoe-based game.  Being primarily a mystery/procedural engine, you'd expect that play is going to largely consist, as they say, of play designed for the players to uncover the GM's notes - the mystery or difficulty at hand, and find a solution.  However, the game contains discussion of adventure design, and how to address character needs within the framework of the mystery/procedural.
> 
> A given setting or framework shouldn't be taken as the whole story of meeting needs.



Dear god, no it doesn't postulate that.  Toy examples are useful because they illustrate the point cleanly.  I could easily have written up a dozen dramatic needs (although that many is a mess) and the point still stands -- a dungeon written without consideration for those needs will not support badwrongfunveryterrible play.


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> And this is always my approach to GM-led / "geo"-centric play (to borrower the term used earlier) as well. The situations in which I'd outright deny a player declaration are almost zero. And of course there's always spin-off / downstream consequences for what they do.
> 
> But even if they players declare this action, the framing for the "steal the ship" scene is still largely going to be of my devising---unless I wholesale grant the players the ability to do some of the framing themselves.
> 
> If I wasn't willing to give the players some of the fictional creation / framing power, I had to do it myself.
> 
> What kind of ship are they trying to steal? Who owns it? What's the owner's relationship to other people in power inside the city? Who's guarding it? How well is it guarded? What's on the ship when they steal it? How easy is it to access the dock? Is the party likely to be pursued afterwards? Who will the pursuers be and how will they be engaging in the pursuit? What happens if they're recognized at another port of call? Who recognizes them? <_ad infinitum>_
> 
> There's just so much detail that falls out from that single action declaration---"I steal a ship from the harbor."
> 
> And so many of the answers to those questions ultimately become "stuff in my (the GM's) notes"---stuff that the players are going to want to have knowledge of. Because players don't like to do stuff without understanding the risks, understanding their potential level of success, whether stealing the ship actually has a net positive or negative outcome on their goals (or fulfills some of the goals while undermining others, etc.). Someone at the game table has to ultimately generate these kinds of details for the fiction / framing around the proposed scene.
> 
> If it's all the GM's call to determine these details, then a significant portion of the players' actions are then going to be just what @pemerton described, which is, they're now playing to _find out what's in those notes_ so they know how and when to actually initiate their "steal a ship from the harbor" action declaration.
> 
> I'm always willing to pivot and let players pursue new courses of action. But there's a ton of ancillary "note generation" that then goes into it, and those notes have a significant impact on play.
> 
> *Edit---this is the kind of thing I was talking about in my earlier post about how making the players the focus of the action "required a significant amount of negotiation / 'Mother-may-I?' or outright 'handwavium' to make them the focus of play." All of this stuff around framing the scene for stealing the boat is stuff that I basically have to generate---and if I-as-GM am the only one creating those notes, then I either have to outright tell those players what I've noted, or the focus of play now becomes figuring out what I put into those notes.
> 
> Even with the best of intentions, the ability of the players to successfully carry out their course of action is all based on a GM judgement call of _what did I put into my notes?_
> 
> This is what I was trying to communicate to @Emerikol previously, which is that no matter how detailed your initial "prefabrication" is, these types of details around individual scene frames (like "We steal a boat") are not pre-existent when the action declaration is presented, or even if they are, _they're still "notes" that the players have to now retrieve from the GM _before they can realistically make the "I steal a boat" action declaration.



I like that post, but if coming up with information on the fly, such as the name of the boat, who owns it, what's on it, etc.(ie improv) is now note generation, then both playstyles have to fall under, "Playing to find out what's in the DM's notes."  Unless you don't have a DM that puts in any input whatsoever.


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> I like that post, but if coming up with information on the fly, such as the name of the boat, who owns it, what's on it, etc.(ie improv) is now note generation, then both playstyles have to fall under, "Playing to find out what's in the DM's notes."  Unless you don't have a DM that puts in any input whatsoever.




Well, yeah, exactly. The alternative is the _players_ provide the notes. Or the group holds an open discussion about it.

Or does all of the above, while also utilizing a random table / "oracle" content generator. 

Or does one or more of the above and takes the resulting content and runs it through an action resolution system designed to handle player-facing input, and see what follows.

I contributed a basic premise and inciting incident to our current Ironsworn campaign. Beyond that, in our 3 sessions of Ironsworn so far, there have been very, very, few times where I-as-GM have unilaterally instantiated something in the fiction without consulting the players. It's simply not required, nor even desirable for the GM to do so.

I'd be fascinated to hear play reports from people who went out and downloaded the Ironsworn rules for the exorbitant sum of $0.00, and tried doing a 2-hour session of solo mode play---because the principles in the solo mode play directly apply to "guided"/GM play using the same ruleset.


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> Well, yeah, exactly. The alternative is the _players_ provide the notes. Or the group holds an open discussion about it.



From what I've seen described here, even most of the player facing games don't go that far.

I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that the DM coming up with stuff on the fly = "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes."  I also reject the idea that improv = DM's notes.  Those don't jive with my experience and how people on both sides of this issue describe how things work in RPGs.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Things on maps count, to me, as previously locked in: the map shows merely the results of history. Those walls that don't have any secret doors in them were (in the fiction) built long before the PCs started adventuring and as nobody's cut any secret doors through them since, that's what the map shows. Any hills that were once just north of where that swamp now lies were (in the fiction) eroded ages before any of the PCs' ancestors settled this region, and that's what the map shows. And so on.



These dictate the scope of possible future events. That is one function of GM notes, as I stated in the OP.

To pick two very different RPGs, it establishes a clear contrast between the role of GM's notes in Moldvay Basic and Burning Wheel.


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> From what I've seen described here, even most of the player facing games don't go that far.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that the DM coming up with stuff on the fly = "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes."




Oh believe me, it felt very . . . odd, off-putting, cognitively dissonant, maybe . . . when I thought about it the first time too. 

What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my _agenda_ was. I didn't _want_ the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't _want_ play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me. 

But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.

And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc. 

But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.

I do think that "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is a bit of a . . . needlessly negative descriptor for the process, shall we say. But even if I don't necessarily like how the term is couched, it's pretty accurate nonetheless. 

But I think it's very much tuned to the newer zeitgeist of RPG play, which is to "GM from abundance, rather than scarcity." Like, there's this almost perverse need from the "Philosophy of the Old School" to hide information from the players, or only dole out information in a parsimonious fashion. 

Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the _how_ to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat _to see what happens next_? 

And I'm not saying that both of those can't be fun---but I think there's a strong pushback, largely derived from the indie game segment of the market, against the "GM-as-information-miser" trope.




Maxperson said:


> I also reject the idea that improv = DM's notes.  Those don't jive with my experience and how people on both sides of this issue describe how things work in RPGs.




Yeah, this one's weird too. Like, thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation. 

And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.

But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false. 

A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to. 

But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"

In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest." 

Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls." 

Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah." 

Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.

This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.

But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.

The issues most traditional GMs raise with this are 1) that it basically negates GM pacing---the GM can't "draw out" the mystery for too long if the game is forcing them to provide information; and 2) it means the GM can't pre-arrange or sequence the info drop scenes/encounters. For a certain GM style, this probably feels like a punishment to be avoided.


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> Oh believe me, it felt very . . . odd, off-putting, cognitively dissonant, maybe . . . when I thought about it the first time too.
> 
> What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my _agenda_ was. I didn't _want_ the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't _want_ play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me.
> 
> But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.
> 
> And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc.
> 
> But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.
> 
> I do think that "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is a bit of a . . . needlessly negative descriptor for the process, shall we say. But even if I don't necessarily like how the term is couched, it's pretty accurate nonetheless.
> 
> But I think it's very much tuned to the newer zeitgeist of RPG play, which is to "GM from abundance, rather than scarcity." Like, there's this almost perverse need from the "Philosophy of the Old School" to hide information from the players, or only dole out information in a parsimonious fashion.
> 
> Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the _how_ to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat _to see what happens next_?
> 
> And I'm not saying that both of those can't be fun---but I think there's a strong pushback, largely derived from the indie game segment of the market, against the "GM-as-information-miser" trope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this one's weird too. Like, thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.
> 
> And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.
> 
> But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.
> 
> A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.
> 
> But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"
> 
> In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."
> 
> Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."
> 
> Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."
> 
> Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.
> 
> This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.
> 
> But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.
> 
> The issues most traditional GMs raise with this are 1) that it basically negates GM pacing---the GM can't "draw out" the mystery for too long if the game is forcing them to provide information; and 2) it means the GM can't pre-arrange or sequence the info drop scenes/encounters. For a certain GM style, this probably feels like a punishment to be avoided.



Looking at this, the major difference is how the DM's notes are brought into existence and sussed out.  

In your example, instead of the PCs rolling an investigation check and finding out 2 pieces of important information that the DM comes up with, the players roll a different check that shows that they get 2 pieces of information that the DM comes up with.  The rules on how they get there may be different, but the flow and outcome is the same.  Players want to know something, make a roll, get 2 pieces of information from the DM.  

That leads me to believe that either both methods are "Playing to discover what is in the DM's notes." or neither are.  And my 38 years of experience tell me that neither are.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> I was responding to a Rubicon long since crossed.




I think the movies are relevant because, as a _group_, the Avengers make a decent stand-in for a party of adventurers.  It is a popular example we can use for analogy to gaming.

Continuing on about a technical definition of "protagonist" that isn't relevant to the gaming context was a choice.  I'm not sure you can toss that on others and make it stick.


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> Looking at this, the major difference is how the DM's notes are brought into existence and sussed out.
> 
> In your example, instead of the PCs rolling an investigation check and finding out 2 pieces of important information that the DM comes up with, the players roll a different check that shows that they get 2 pieces of information that the DM comes up with.  The rules on how they get there may be different, but the flow and outcome is the same.  Players want to know something, make a roll, get 2 pieces of information from the DM.
> 
> That leads me to believe that either both methods are "Playing to discover what is in the DM's notes." or neither are.  And my 38 years of experience tell me that neither are.




Only if you believe that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM. In Ironsworn, this would never be the baseline assumption.

The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.

Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.

Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.

In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."

I know from where you sit, the end result looks exactly the same. I'm here to tell you that even in the (rare) cases where the outputs are essentially the same, the process of play, the resulting mind space I inhabit as a GM, and the ways in which the group approach the fiction, are very, very different.

Most of the time I'm not even considering "what should happen next" or trying to set up the next set piece, or thinking about, "Hmmm, what would be a cool challenge to throw out here?" The play flows from an organic give-and-take between the shared fictional space and the character interactions and the "moves" they generate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's better than every Savage Worlds campaign I've ever run. I personally had tremendous enjoyment running a campaign in a homebrew fantasy setting that I prefabricated significant portions of the world, its history, and its inhabitants.

But to say that the process is the same---what I'm doing and the internal thought mechanisms in operation when running Ironsworn vs. Savage Worlds---is factually incorrect. They're not remotely the same.

*Edit---in retrospect, I don't know if I properly emphasized---in Ironsworn, the rules constrain the type, value, and relevance of the information gathered in ways that are simply not present in D&D. Even if the GM is forced to create something "off the cuff" (again, not even the baseline assumption for Ironsworn), the nature of the "notes" must fall in line with the rule as presented, or (s)he is just as guilty of breaking the rules as a player would be for adding an extra, unwarranted +1 to every combat roll.


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> Only if you believe that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM. In Ironsworn, this would never be the baseline assumption.
> 
> The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.
> 
> Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.
> 
> Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.
> 
> In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."
> 
> I know from where you sit, the end result looks exactly the same. I'm here to tell you that even in the (rare) cases where the outputs are essentially the same, the process of play, the resulting mind space I inhabit as a GM, and the ways in which the group approach the fiction, are very, very different.
> 
> Most of the time I'm not even considering "what should happen next" or trying to set up the next set piece, or thinking about, "Hmmm, what would be a cool challenge to throw out here?" The play flows from an organic give-and-take between the shared fictional space and the character interactions and the "moves" they generate.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's better than every Savage Worlds campaign I've ever run. I personally had tremendous enjoyment running a campaign in a homebrew fantasy setting that I prefabricated significant portions of the world, its history, and its inhabitants.
> 
> But to say that the process is the same---what I'm doing and the internal thought mechanisms in operation when running Ironsworn vs. Savage Worlds---is factually incorrect. They're not remotely the same.



I'm glad you enjoy those kinds of games, but they just don't sound fun to me at all.  I like to inhabit my character and interact with the world as a separate thing from me.  To have to sit around collaborating with the rest of the group on what information we find out would ruin the game for me. It would take me out of my character and into a collaboration session, then I guess back in for a bit until we want to know something else.  No thanks.


----------



## Emerikol

innerdude said:


> Oh believe me, it felt very . . . odd, off-putting, cognitively dissonant, maybe . . . when I thought about it the first time too.
> 
> What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my _agenda_ was. I didn't _want_ the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't _want_ play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me.



I think there are many DMs who have an agenda but I think a true sandbox DM does not have an agenda.  He has the truth yes but that truth is vast and varied and what the players do with it is up to them.  So the DM is not really trying to get the players to do anything.  He is providing information about what is true in the world.  The players decide what to do from that.   Now it is absolutely true that if the players up and decide to steal and ship and sail it to a non-existent island they won't succeed at finding an island.  They could have just as easily hired on as caravan guards or looked for rumors in the local tavern.   Lots of things are going on in the world.



innerdude said:


> But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.
> 
> And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc.
> 
> But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.



It is part of what I would call skilled play.  Good players do all of that.  Good players also equip resources to accomplish the mission.  So yes there is a payoff to doing things well.  You are far more likely to succeed and the satisfaction of a great plan coming together is very fun.  At least for me.



innerdude said:


> I do think that "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is a bit of a . . . needlessly negative descriptor for the process, shall we say. But even if I don't necessarily like how the term is couched, it's pretty accurate nonetheless.



I think it is a fine descriptor but it is not the primary purpose of the campaign.  Players will set goals and advance those goals by doing actions in the campaign.  Obviously knowledge is power so they will try to gather the knowledge they need to overcome whatever obstacles block their path.   For example, a player may want revenge against the man who murdered his father and usurped the throne forcing his mother into a marriage.   That is a goal that will not be accomplished on day one of a campaign.  But they player will build his strength and one day he will return.   This is fun for a lot of people.



innerdude said:


> But I think it's very much tuned to the newer zeitgeist of RPG play, which is to "GM from abundance, rather than scarcity." Like, there's this almost perverse need from the "Philosophy of the Old School" to hide information from the players, or only dole out information in a parsimonious fashion.
> 
> Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the _how_ to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat _to see what happens next_?
> 
> And I'm not saying that both of those can't be fun---but I think there's a strong pushback, largely derived from the indie game segment of the market, against the "GM-as-information-miser" trope.



I am very much in the campaign where the very best campaign was when I didn't know a single monster in the monster manual and everything was mysterious.   I didn't know all the magic items.  I was truly exploring not only the world but the very creatures within it.  That is hard to maintain after many campaigns but that sense of wonder is the very best to me.  So yeah absolutely I want to maintain a sense of wonder about the game.  It is why I often create my own monsters, spells, and magic items.  Wonder is a big part of the game.



innerdude said:


> Yeah, this one's weird too. Like, thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.
> 
> And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.
> 
> But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.
> 
> A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.
> 
> But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"
> 
> In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."
> 
> Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."
> 
> Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."



Usually, the barkeep is detailed as to his life and those who interacts with on a regular basis.  That knowledge would inform any answers.  Often I have a personality matrix of some sort to guide how he'd interact.  There is some improv here.  I have not yet written an AI that can predetermine every possible answer to every possible question.   I do know though that it rained a lot last week and if the group asks about the weather the barkeep will tell them how the rains have kept business slow or something like that.



innerdude said:


> Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.
> 
> This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.



I am very uncertain that I could assemble any combination of players who play in my campaigns and this turn out well.  The world would go to pot quick.  It would be a mishmash of discordant ideas and fanciful sidepaths.  Note I didn't say that your group would be this way.  I don't doubt that some of you have great groups for this style of play.  I just don't think many around me are pulling it off that I know about.  In fact,  I'm not sure I know of anyone even trying.



innerdude said:


> But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.
> 
> The issues most traditional GMs raise with this are 1) that it basically negates GM pacing---the GM can't "draw out" the mystery for too long if the game is forcing them to provide information; and 2) it means the GM can't pre-arrange or sequence the info drop scenes/encounters. For a certain GM style, this probably feels like a punishment to be avoided.



It's less mystery.  It's more consistency and verisimilitude.  I think you see the GM though controlling the flow of the game far more than I see the GM doing that.  Perhaps you are thinking of a GM who basically just runs APs all the time and uses a world like Golarion.   Nothing wrong with that style either but it is not my style.   I'd find such a style about as much fun as I'd find your style.   Meaning with the right people I'd try it once like I would play most any boardgame once.   A one off is a small commitment.  I don't think though for me I'd want to invest years of my gaming time doing it.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay. You have the following:
> 
> Premise: APs are good training tools for GMs.
> Assumption 1: This is because APs have many flaws and flat scenes.
> Assumption 2: These flaws are usually not visible until play is occurring.
> Conclusion: Ergo, APs are good training tools because they force the GM to react to poor design on the fly.



Why are every single pieces negative? I specifically used both. APs can be reminders of _what works in a game_, just as easily coming across a situation that needs to be fixed during play. That is the point. An AP is not written by the GM, so it might offer a wider variety of situations/circumstances/writing styles/etc. These can be teaching tools, specifically if they happen in game. 


Ovinomancer said:


> I find this to be a flawed argument. Particularly, A2 is doesn't at all apply to me, as I fix things in prep and so don't often encounter the need to correct for bad AP design on the fly.



I would humbly say this again proves my point. You fix things in prep. And presumably, you identify everything. 

I specifically said that earlier on. If you can't accept the fact that:

GMs can miss things or
run things as is/not have time to identify
and thus have to roll with the AP (both positives and negatives) which create learning periods or tricks they may have not known or forgotten

then we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Lanefan

innerdude said:


> Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the _how_ to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat _to see what happens next_?



The figuring out how.

Planning a heist through in detail and then pulling it off is far more interesting than just being told by a die roll that we were (or weren't) able to steal something after saying that's what we're going to try.  I mean, I-as-player could happily spend a whole session just planning out the heist, scouting, info gathering, and all the rest of it.  I mean, if we're gonna steal something big, let's go full-bore Ocean's Eleven on it! 

Playing through the heist itself, once all the planning's done, would likely not take long at all at the table unless we really messed it up somehow.

And _what happens next_ can sit there and wait until we're done stealing this boat, dammit!


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> I think the movies are relevant because, as a _group_, the Avengers make a decent stand-in for a party of adventurers.  It is a popular example we can use for analogy to gaming.



Slight side trek here: it hadn't even occurred to me that yes, once they get going the Avengers do make a decent stand-in; not for a party of adventurers but for a _company_ (or troupe) of adventurers from which smaller parties - sometimes made up of but one character! - go out and do most of the actual field adventuring. The Guardians of the Galaxy are an example of one of these smaller parties. Wonderfully Gygaxian! 

The company only acts as a unit when something really big comes up, a la the final battles in both Infinity War and Endgame.


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> I think the movies are relevant because, as a _group_, the Avengers make a decent stand-in for a party of adventurers.  It is a popular example we can use for analogy to gaming.
> 
> Continuing on about a technical definition of "protagonist" that isn't relevant to the gaming context was a choice.  I'm not sure you can toss that on others and make it stick.



I disagree here, but I doubt that continuing this game of he-said/she-said with you would solve matters any.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Can I ask why this distinction matters?
> 
> EDIT: And the first is not literal since, as so many of us have posted in this thread and you seem to be choosing to continuously ignore, it does not accurately describe the playstyle only a single facet of it. Do you "Play to discover what can be generated by the improv skills of your group"? That's literal and describes what you must as part of the fabricated definition of "protagonism", some in this thread are using, do. Why instead do you call your playstyle "Play to find out what happens"? Isn't that literally what we are all doing to some point or another in numerous playstyles??





Maxperson said:


> Why should he when you've yet to prove that the first is literal? None of us contesting this with you "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes." If you say it's literal, then it's literally wrong.



When I say "literal" I mean that word in its literal meaning ie contrasted with figurative or metaphoric. It may be true or false - @Ovinomancer and @Aldarc both appear to accept it as a description of RPGing they've done, and I know it's true of plenty of RPGing that I've done - but that has no bearing on the fact that it is literal.

As to why the distinction between literal accounts and metaphor matter: because in any field of analysis or criticism, metaphor can tend to obscure. If someone says "I play to explore the GM's world" what are they _actually_ doing at the table? They're not literally exploring a world. The participants are saying things to one another, which is talking about various imaginary things. How do they decide what to say? How does what one person says affect what another person says? What is the actual process of play at that table?



Emerikol said:


> There is something about starting out in a world that seems to operate independent of the character.  It increases my own sense of verisimilitude when I play.  My play agenda is to make my way in a hostile world using my fantasy powers to overcome challenges and prosper.





Emerikol said:


> A living world is designed by the GM and is designed to change.  The events plotted out for the future though are very much able to be impacted by the PCs.  I usually plot out the moves of the NPCs for a good distance in the future and I revisit every so often to adjust.  For most NPCs the PCs don't affect them that much.  For some though it's major changes because the PCs have directly impacted their plans.   Most people's lives in a medieval type setting don't change that much over time.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So if a PC suddenly said they wanted to achieve something in game that would not be possible in that world, yes they are constrained by what I'd call the world's reality.  Just like we are constrained by our reality.  The difference is that the fantasy world has magic so many dreams are more possible than in ours of course.





Emerikol said:


> I think these two things are not the same though for clarification
> 1.  Mutate the world in a way that someone living in a world that really existed could mutate it given the rulesset as the guiding principles on the physics.
> 
> 2.  Mutate the world from the viewpoint of a creator (author) so that their character fulfills challenges and achieves goals in a way that is pleasing to the player.
> 
> The big debate, I think, is that some say #2 is the only sort of thing that gives true protagonism.



I don't think that is the big debate. Which RPGs feature (2) as you describe it? OGL Conan is one. MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic has hints of it. It's not found in Prince Valiant unless an optional rule is used. It's not found in Apocalypse World or Dungeon World unless a small number of the very many player-side moves are chosen.

But consider the following in your post: _the world operates independently of the characters_; _the events plotted out for the future are able to be impacted by the PCs_; _the PCs are constrained by the world's reality_. None of this is literal, because _there are no actual causal processes at work_ that flow from the imagined world to the participants in the game. The world doesn't literally "operate" or "constrain" the outcomes of players' action declarations for their PCs - someone makes decisions about these things. The players action declarations don't literally impact the unfolding of events in the fiction - someone rewrites that fiction having regard to what has happened at the table.

Surely it is possible to describe these things without using metaphor, by talking about who makes what decisions. And as part of that, it should be possible to talk about the role that the GM's notes play.

EDIT: I'm catching up on 8 pages of this thread. I see that @hawkeyefan has also given a good answer along somewhat similar lines to the above. Which is not to say that hawkeyefan is beholden to everything I say! But on this particular point we seem to agree.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could not be about their dramatic needs.



Over the past few years I've GMed two AD&D one-offs: one using X2 Castle Amber, one using random dungeon generation from DMG Appendix A.

In both games the players made choices that drove the action in the sense that (i) those actions moved the PCs on the map and hence (ii) determined who/what the PCs encountered, leading to (iii) player decisions about what to do with those encounters. Neither was a game about the dramatic needs of the PCs. The PCs didn't even have dramatic needs! They had races, classes, names, alignments, a little bit of colour, but otherwise these games were just for fun with a bit of skilled play.

I've played AD&D games in which the GM had pre-authored scenarios, and the players had to choose how their PCs responded to villains, threats, strange situations, etc. In some of those games the PCs had dramatic needs, but the game wasn't about those. They were peripheral to the action of the game as perceived and managed by the GM.

In my Classic Traveller game some of what happens is driven by the dramatic needs of the PCs. But some is not. For instance: when the PCs travelled to the world of Ashar in order to get high-tech medical treatment for one of their number, the motivation was really procedural rather than dramatic. When they took a job from a member of the main Ashar government - determined via the system's random patron mechanic - this spoke to dramatic needs only in the very basic sense that the starship owner needs money to pay for fuel and crew salaries. And in contrast: that job required the PCs to use their orbital laboratory to spy on a neighbouring country, which revealed what seemed to be the spearhead of an Imperial invasion of Ashar, probably motivated by the Imperial policy of suppressing psionics. That spoke to various PC dramatic needs. One of the PCs found herself charged, tried and convicted on Ashar, and subject to banishment as her punishment - she crossed over into the same neighbouring country, when she encountered some fugitives (via the random encounter rules) I connected them into the psionics issue, and she was in due course able to hook up with the other PCs. And the fugitives were then able to tell the PCs where to find a branch of the Psionics Institute.

When I play Burning Wheel, everything is driven by PCs' dramatic needs. That's central to that game. This is a point of contrast with Traveller as my group plays it, and even moreso with the AD&D play that I've described.

Nothing in my knowledge of RPGing makes me think that what I'm describing here, including the posibility of signicant stretches of play in which PCs' dramatic needs are not driving the game, is unique to me.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> Part of the issue too is that despite the ability for the players to set goals and pursue agendas, they were always necessarily limited by the reach of their locus of control.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> With only basic, traditional, task-resolution mechanics (like Pathfinder or Savage Worlds, which is what I know best), they either have to do it through direct combat prowess---because that's what 90% of the mechanics are focused on---or the GM has to specifically frame some other way to resolve those challenges that isn't just about the party killing whoever/whatever is in front of them.
> 
> And then suddenly we're right back where we started---the GM's notes on how these challenges can be resolved are now the controlling factor as to whether a PC can or can't succeed at their stated goal.



This speaks exactly to some of what I have experienced in RPGing.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> The figuring out how.
> 
> Planning a heist through in detail and then pulling it off is far more interesting than just being told by a die roll that we were (or weren't) able to steal something after saying that's what we're going to try.  I mean, I-as-player could happily spend a whole session just planning out the heist, scouting, info gathering, and all the rest of it.  I mean, if we're gonna steal something big, let's go full-bore Ocean's Eleven on it!
> 
> Playing through the heist itself, once all the planning's done, would likely not take long at all at the table unless we really messed it up somehow.
> 
> And _what happens next_ can sit there and wait until we're done stealing this boat, dammit!



Which is exactly why we need various types of games to suit various play styles.  The only game I've ever quit was a game where the other players loved to spend entire sessions just planning and researching their next idea, and it took forever to just actually DO it.  

The best part of narrative type games, for me, is the constant improv-like "Yes, and..." approach, where you just keep doing stuff and don't PLAN so much.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Where the dramatic needs can (and IME do) come to the fore is during downtime between adventures, where focus moves from what the party is doing to what individual PCs are doing.



This seems to be an account of play in which PCs are not protagonists. Because it is only in "downtime" that their dramatic needs matter!

This reminds me of many 1950s/60s Superman stories.

Part of the Marvel revolution in superhero comics was to try and bring dramatic needs _into the superheroic action _rather then having it be peripheral. Chris Claremont perfected this over the course of his run on the X-Men.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> But consider the following in your post: _the world operates independently of the characters_; _the events plotted out for the future are able to be impacted by the PCs_; _the PCs are constrained by the world's reality_. None of this is literal, because _there are no actual causal processes at work_ that flow from the imagined world to the participants in the game. The world doesn't literally "operate" or "constrain" the outcomes of players' action declarations for their PCs - someone makes decisions about these things. The players action declarations don't literally impact the unfolding of events in the fiction - someone rewrites that fiction having regard to what has happened at the table.



The GM or DM, of course is responsible for creating and maintaining world events.  No disputing that.  A good DM is fair and has a good toolset to help him achieve the effect.   The effect being that the players feel like they are in a living breathing world.  It's just like when you are reading a book and really get invested in the characters and the world seems like a real place.   The difference though in roleplaying games is that you can make the decisions for the characters.  You can be the character.   That is the appeal I think for people like myself.  

I want a human being, mainly because there are no sufficiently advanced computers to do it yet, to manage the world because pure randomness ends up feeling fake as well.  Random rolls are a tool and the DM will use them.  Typically, I have a variety of methods to determine the course of action resulting from PC intervention.   First what is the character of the NPC impacted?  Is he a coward?  Is he a fool?  Is he a genius?  From that character I surmise possible courses of action.  If I feel several are likely then I assign them weights and roll for it.

Your assertion that events are not really impacted is true only to the degree that nothing is impacted ever.  If you've made the leap to invest in the world and live in it as a character then you very much can accept that what you are doing impacts the world.  Books aren't real either and don't impact the world in any way but you can still be moved by them.   Being a good DM is an art as well as a science.  Done well though I think a good roleplaying game can be as moving and satisfying as any book.  That is enough for me.

One big problem is there are a LOT of bad practitioners of my playing style.  I'd even go so far as to say they aren't even doing my style but they would at least give lip service to the notion.  Such people have definitely jaded a lot of people on my approach.   For me, done right, my way is a very immersive and rich experience.  I will admit though that I choose to DM more than play because I often feel other DMs are not up to the job.  I won't say none but the good ones are few.   That could be a criticism of my approach but I've overcome that hurdle for myself and I have players who agree.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> Which is exactly why we need various types of games to suit various play styles.  The only game I've ever quit was a game where the other players loved to spend entire sessions just planning and researching their next idea, and it took forever to just actually DO it.
> 
> The best part of narrative type games, for me, is the constant improv-like "Yes, and..." approach, where you just keep doing stuff and don't PLAN so much.



I find in my games there is a good bit of planning and most of the time that part of the game is fun for everyone.   If the group just got their butts kicked and have fallen back to regroup, they will then plan for their next attack with great care.   It very much does fall into the skilled play part of player preferences. 

Now anything can become too much and on occasion the planning has gotten circular but to be honest that is reality.  If your character's life is hanging in the balance, you are going to try to develop a plan.


----------



## Emerikol

Quick Note: 
What I am seeing here are several different things that don't necessarily have to go together.

1.  Skilled play
2.  Detailed World
3.  Sandbox Adventure Approach
4.  Let the dice fall where they fall.  Bad things can happen to PCs.

All are not required to be together.  Perhaps together they represent one style.  Perhaps I'd need a few more items I haven't fully considered to completely represent my style.


----------



## Fenris-77

If the players have dramtic needs for the characters, and engage those in play, a player focused game will reflect those needs in the way it unfolds. Regardless of specific system, although greatly aided by systems that support the idea (like Burning Wheel). That's really all I'm saying.


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> If your character's life is hanging in the balance, you are going to try to develop a plan.



Obviously you've never played with me.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> You can have characters built with drives and motivations in a 'pure sandbox' that will emerge in and effect play and framing and whatever. Let's use the pitfighter example, just to keep things streamlined. In our sandbox game you say to me I want to play a fighter who wants to be the best pit fighter in the realm. One of two things happen, I either have pitfighters written in somewhere and I can suggest that as a _where you're from_, or I don't and I can say _hmm, well, these places all work, whaddya think? _There's a third option of course, being _this world doesn't have pitfighters,_ which is appropriate, but how often is that actually the case in a fantasy world? All of this is possible in a Gm notes/pure sandbox setting. The dramatic goal of becoming a renowned pitfighter will naturally emerge in play to the extent you as a player use it inform decisions and roleplay and I as a GM use that input to decide on consequences and frame future action. This is true no matter the setting.





Fenris-77 said:


> If the players have dramtic needs for the characters, and engage those in play, a player focused game will reflect those needs in the way it unfolds. Regardless of specific system, although greatly aided by systems that support the idea (like Burning Wheel). That's really all I'm saying.



A couple of thoughts:

On your first post, how is the "pure sandbox" you're describing there actually different from PbtA-ish _ask questions and build on the answers_? The GM is now reworking the sandbox in response to player input. That's not objectionable, of course - this is exactly how I use settings like Greyhawk in my RPGing - but I'm not sure it's pure sandbox.

On your second post, isn't some of this about pacing? I've run games that worked very much as you describe, using Rolemaster as the system. Over time, as the game unfolded, the sandbox bent in the direction of PC dramatic needs. Then I read a bit of stuff on the Forge, and realised that I could get to where I was going without the detours via pure sandbox.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> even if they players declare this action, the framing for the "steal the ship" scene is still largely going to be of my devising---unless I wholesale grant the players the ability to do some of the framing themselves.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What kind of ship are they trying to steal? Who owns it? What's the owner's relationship to other people in power inside the city? Who's guarding it? How well is it guarded? What's on the ship when they steal it? How easy is it to access the dock? Is the party likely to be pursued afterwards? Who will the pursuers be and how will they be engaging in the pursuit? What happens if they're recognized at another port of call? Who recognizes them?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And so many of the answers to those questions ultimately become "stuff in my (the GM's) notes"---stuff that the players are going to want to have knowledge of.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Someone at the game table has to ultimately generate these kinds of details for the fiction / framing around the proposed scene.
> 
> If it's all the GM's call to determine these details, then a significant portion of the players' actions are then going to be just what @pemerton described, which is, they're now playing to _find out what's in those notes_ so they know how and when to actually initiate their "steal a ship from the harbor" action declaration.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> All of this stuff around framing the scene for stealing the boat is stuff that I basically have to generate---and if I-as-GM am the only one creating those notes, then I either have to outright tell those players what I've noted, or the focus of play now becomes figuring out what I put into those notes.
> 
> Even with the best of intentions, the ability of the players to successfully carry out their course of action is all based on a GM judgement call of _what did I put into my notes?_
> 
> <snip>
> 
> no matter how detailed your initial "prefabrication" is, these types of details around individual scene frames (like "We steal a boat") are not pre-existent when the action declaration is presented, or even if they are, _they're still "notes" that the players have to now retrieve from the GM _before they can realistically make the "I steal a boat" action declaration.





innerdude said:


> What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my _agenda_ was. I didn't _want_ the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't _want_ play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me.
> 
> But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.
> 
> And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc.
> 
> But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.



This illustrates very well why I think _playing to find out what is in the GM's notes_ is a description of RPGing that has a broader application than might at first seem to be the case.

It also resonates with my post just upthread replying to @Fenris-77: about changing the pacing by avoiding what I called the "detour" and what you call the "tug-of-war".



Maxperson said:


> if coming up with information on the fly, such as the name of the boat, who owns it, what's on it, etc.(ie improv) is now note generation, then both playstyles have to fall under, "Playing to find out what's in the DM's notes."  Unless you don't have a DM that puts in any input whatsoever.





Maxperson said:


> I reject the idea that the DM coming up with stuff on the fly = "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes."  I also reject the idea that improv = DM's notes.  Those don't jive with my experience and how people on both sides of this issue describe how things work in RPGs.





innerdude said:


> The alternative is the _players_ provide the notes. Or the group holds an open discussion about it.
> 
> Or does all of the above, while also utilizing a random table / "oracle" content generator.
> 
> Or does one or more of the above and takes the resulting content and runs it through an action resolution system designed to handle player-facing input, and see what follows.





innerdude said:


> thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.
> 
> And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.
> 
> But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.
> 
> A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.
> 
> But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"
> 
> In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."
> 
> Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."
> 
> Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."
> 
> Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.
> 
> This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.



In these posts @innerdude really clearly sets out some alternatives to the GM deciding all the parameters of the situation which will then determine what is possible and how action declarations will resolve.



Maxperson said:


> Looking at this, the major difference is how the DM's notes are brought into existence and sussed out.
> 
> In your example, instead of the PCs rolling an investigation check and finding out 2 pieces of important information that the DM comes up with, the players roll a different check that shows that they get 2 pieces of information that the DM comes up with.  The rules on how they get there may be different, but the flow and outcome is the same.  Players want to know something, make a roll, get 2 pieces of information from the DM.





Maxperson said:


> I like to inhabit my character and interact with the world as a separate thing from me.  To have to sit around collaborating with the rest of the group on what information we find out would ruin the game for me.



It can't be true _both _that what innerdude is describing is no different from "GM's notes" or "GM decides" _and_ that it's different enough that you wouldn't want to play like that!

In addition, I will assert: there is a big difference between the player making a Gather Information check to oblige the GM to tell the player stuff the GM has already decided or is now making up, _without any constraint on what it is the GM tells the player_, and one in which the GM is obliged, as a result of the check, to tell the player _useful stuff that is established here and now having regard to the current trajectory of play and the player's goals for his/her PC_.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> Obviously you've never played with me.



There are those rare suicidal types even in a fantasy world.   

Joking aside.  I did have one player who could tolerate planning only so long.  As soon as it got laborious, he'd just start the action.   It often got him in trouble with the group but they learned to plan a little quicker.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> On your first post, how is the "pure sandbox" you're describing there actually different from PbtA-ish _ask questions and build on the answers_? The GM is now reworking the sandbox in response to player input. That's not objectionable, of course - this is exactly how I use settings like Greyhawk in my RPGing - but I'm not sure it's pure sandbox.



unless I misunderstand him, Fenris is not saying anything that is counter to Sandbox. It is hard to pin down ‘pure sandbox’ because different GM’s put down different lines but even the most old school sandbox builds on players actions. What you will tend to see in sandboxes is GMs answering questions based on fidelity to the world. But that IS NOT fidelity to the notes. If the players want to be ptfighters and I have no notes about pit fighters in my GM notes, I need to answer the question still. The pure sandbox approach most likely to answer that question based on whether they reasonably ought to exist. Bbut as Fenris points out how many fantasy worlds wouldn’t have that? It’s possible. The GM can decide sone things simply don’t exist (and these decisions can be important for maintaining the setting integrity). Most often stuff like that will be present and the GM then needs to generate that content on the fly (possibly informed by established setting material, possibly not). And this is just the most hard core old school sandbox. A GM like myself might well answer that question based on genre expectations+established setting stuff

also I think one key here is generally sandbox gamers don’t care as much about process. We care about tools, rulings, etc. but it is very important for player GM interactions to be as open and organic as possible. Having a strict process, would hinder the natural exploration of the world and flow of play (a lot of players talking amongst themselves, asking the GM what they know about the world, bringing their existing knowledge to bear on the situations, declaring what they attempt to do). Everything is extremely case by case


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> There are those rare suicidal types even in a fantasy world.
> 
> Joking aside.  I did have one player who could tolerate planning only so long.  As soon as it got laborious, he'd just start the action.   It often got him in trouble with the group but they learned to plan a little quicker.



"Better to ask forgiveness than permission" is one of my play mantras.  For me, generating conflict and drama (in the game, not between players) is the core of playing.  Better to "lose" gloriously than to win easily.


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> unless I misunderstand him, Fenris is not saying anything that is counter to Sandbox. It is hard to pin down ‘pure sandbox’ because different GM’s put down different lines but even the most old school sandbox builds on players actions. What you will tend to see in sandboxes is GMs answering questions based on fidelity to the world. But that IS NOT fidelity to the notes. If the players want to be ptfighters and I have no notes about pit fighters in my GM notes, I need to answer the question still.



I think up front the players know a bit about the sandbox they are going into.  It might even be designed based on desires and wishes expressed in previous campaigns.  So they are buying into the sandbox ground rules.   So I do maintain fidelity to what is in the world but I agree that there is more.   The DM will answer based upon the knowledge of his world even when the answer is not written down.   Some questions are random rolls.  If a player asks a pretty bartender if she likes rabbit stew, I will likely just roll for it as I don't have every tastebud defined.   I will like weight it based on my knowledge of the region.  If people are poor and food is scarce the likelihood of a yes answer is much higher than a no answer.   So decisions are informed by what is known.   A lot is known though in my world and even more inside the sandbox.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> On your first post, how is the "pure sandbox" you're describing there actually different from PbtA-ish _ask questions and build on the answers_? The GM is now reworking the sandbox in response to player input. That's not objectionable, of course - this is exactly how I use settings like Greyhawk in my RPGing - but I'm not sure it's pure sandbox.
> 
> On your second post, isn't some of this about pacing? I've run games that worked very much as you describe, using Rolemaster as the system. Over time, as the game unfolded, the sandbox bent in the direction of PC dramatic needs. Then I read a bit of stuff on the Forge, and realised that I could get to where I was going without the detours via pure sandbox.



Well, the pure OSR sandbox guys I know don't ask questions in the way you mean, not about the setting anyway, nor are players interested in answering them. In those games the sandbox setting is GM notes and random tables with zero player input or reworking based on said input (and that is the way they want it). It's not the way I run sandbox play but it's common in the OSR. To be clear, we are talking about a world in motion where character actions have effects and change things, but the _players_ aren't being asked questions about the setting and adding authorial type content as they are in many PbtA style games.

Yeah, the second part evolved out of some comments upstream about the need for specific things in order to have protagonist play, things about the setting specifically. I don't think that's the case, an opinion to which, upon consideration, I added most specific mechanical support. There are lots of supports that can greatly enhance that kind of play, but it's not necessary.


----------



## cmad1977

Mostly the point of my notes is to remind me of the “images or moments of consequence”. I like to have descriptions of things in the world around the PCs that shows their effect on the world.

Saved the orphanage a couple sessions ago? Happy kids on the streets. 
Rescue the triefling girl and interact with her a bit on the trip home? There she is in town joining the guards.

Stuff like that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> I think up front the players know a bit about the sandbox they are going into.  It might even be designed based on desires and wishes expressed in previous campaigns.  So they are buying into the sandbox ground rules.   So I do maintain fidelity to what is in the world but I agree that there is more.   The DM will answer based upon the knowledge of his world even when the answer is not written down.   Some questions are random rolls.  If a player asks a pretty bartender if she likes rabbit stew, I will likely just roll for it as I don't have every tastebud defined.   I will like weight it based on my knowledge of the region.  If people are poor and food is scarce the likelihood of a yes answer is much higher than a no answer.   So decisions are informed by what is known.   A lot is known though in my world and even more inside the sandbox.




but even then there are always limits to a GMs knowledge of the world, he or she needs to at sone point make a creative decision about what exists exactly in this space that had just opened up due to player actions, questions, etc. in pure sandbox that is usually going to be informed by existing knowledge of the setting (not necessarily notes), may be shaped by random rolls, or simply decided based on what is interesting. Random rolls are just tools, they are not the required mechanism for filling in blank spaces (as are random encounter tables: the GM is always free to side step those if there is a reason for a specific encounter: like a group of NPC bandits have been following them since they left town).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, the pure OSR sandbox guys I know don't ask questions in the way you mean, not about the setting anyway, nor are players interested in answering them. In those games the sandbox setting is GM notes and random tables with zero player input or reworking based on said input (and that is the way they want it). It's not the way I run sandbox play but it's common in the OSR. To be clear, we are talking about a world in motion where character actions have effects and change things, but the _players_ aren't being asked questions about the setting and adding authorial type content as they are in many PbtA style games.




my only quibble here is it isn’t just GM notes and random tables. It can be but I rarely encounter sandbox GMs who are strictly limited to those things. The GMs logic and creativity are expected to play a role as well in answering a question like “is there a cultivation sect or sects in the city” or respond to actions like the players trying to negotiate with the prince for control of recently discovered salt deposits in the desert that they stumbled upon in a recent venture south. and even something like the salt deposits might not have bee. In notes or a map before hand. I usually do like to put down firm geography like that but often on a large scale. I may still have to answer a question specific to a smaller area like ‘are there any natural resources in this hill’ on the fly


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> It can't be true _both _that what innerdude is describing is no different from "GM's notes" or "GM decides" _and_ that it's different enough that you wouldn't want to play like that!



I very specifically didn't say "DM decides."  I said what he was describing was still "DM's notes."  So yes, there is a marked difference and his way as he described it was still DM's notes.  The DM is just bound by different rules for when and how he makes his notes in his game.

Also, he later described the players just sitting around talking discussing what they would "discover"(In quotes, because it's not discovery if you are deciding it) from the barkeep.  THAT is what I described as ruining the game.


----------



## Emerikol

cmad1977 said:


> Mostly the point of my notes is to remind me of the “images or moments of consequence”. I like to have descriptions of things in the world around the PCs that shows their effect on the world.
> 
> Saved the orphanage a couple sessions ago? Happy kids on the streets.
> Rescue the triefling girl and interact with her a bit on the trip home? There she is in town joining the guards.
> 
> Stuff like that.



That is exactly how you build verisimilitude.


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> but even then there are always limits to a GMs knowledge of the world, he or she needs to at sone point make a creative decision about what exists exactly in this space that had just opened up due to player actions, questions, etc. in pure sandbox that is usually going to be informed by existing knowledge of the setting (not necessarily notes), may be shaped by random rolls, or simply decided based on what is interesting. Random rolls are just tools, they are not the required mechanism for filling in blank spaces (as are random encounter tables: the GM is always free to side step those if there is a reason for a specific encounter: like a group of NPC bandits have been following them since they left town).



The reason a sandbox exists at all though is that it's too much work to put in the detail effort for an entire world.  I agree that at some point the DM has to make some creative/improv decisions.  I probably detail more than most DMs though so if it's in the sandbox I probably know everything major that is in that hex.  If they ask if there is a particular tree of some type in a hex then of course I'd probably just say yes if it's common and just roll for how long it will take to find it.  If it's uncommon then I roll for whether it is found etc..   I also agree that roleplaying NPCs and setting reaction DCs is based upon the knowledge of the NPC.  I try to develop my NPCs well especially the significant ones.  A minor NPC though may not get much more than some personality quirks and brief daily life descriptions.  So if the PCs press that NPC with questions, at some point I have to estimate how he'd answer given his persona and personality.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> "Better to ask forgiveness than permission" is one of my play mantras.  For me, generating conflict and drama (in the game, not between players) is the core of playing.  Better to "lose" gloriously than to win easily.



Most of the time even with careful planning it is a near thing.  So there is plenty of glory to go around.  I think if you never plan you would not like my game unless you like constant death and tpks.


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> Most of the time even with careful planning it is a near thing.  So there is plenty of glory to go around.  I think if you never plan you would not like my game unless you like constant death and tpks.



Well, actually....


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> my only quibble here is it isn’t just GM notes and random tables. It can be but I rarely encounter sandbox GMs who are strictly limited to those things. The GMs logic and creativity are expected to play a role as well in answering a question like “is there a cultivation sect or sects in the city” or respond to actions like the players trying to negotiate with the prince for control of recently discovered salt deposits in the desert that they stumbled upon in a recent venture south. and even something like the salt deposits might not have bee. In notes or a map before hand. I usually do like to put down firm geography like that but often on a large scale. I may still have to answer a question specific to a smaller area like ‘are there any natural resources in this hill’ on the fly



For sure, there's no game without logic and creativity. I was just specifically excluding authorial player additions.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Also, he later described the players just sitting around talking discussing what they would "discover"(In quotes, because it's not discovery if you are deciding it) from the barkeep.




So think about this bit here that I've quoted. It sounds like you're saying that discovery can only happen if the GM is the one that has decided. Do you not see how that veers into "playing to find out (discover) what's in the GM's notes"?

I get that you don't like the phrase.....it has a negative connotation that you're not fond of. But I don't think the things you're saying are really arguing against the idea, just the semantics of the words chosen. 

If we were instead to say that you're "playing to discover and explore the fictional world" and also "the fictional world is crafted by the GM" then what is the meaningful difference? 

Again, are you actually disagreeing with the idea of what is being said, or just the words being used to say it? It seems to me more like the latter.

As for discovery, I would disagree that something is not discovery even if you're involved in its creation. It was unknown and then it is known...that's discovery. Would you say that you cannot discover anything about your PC through play just because you decide what's true about your PC? 

I have been involved in plenty of examples of this where it was surprising and dynamic, and set up some engaging play going forward.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So think about this bit here that I've quoted. It sounds like you're saying that discovery can only happen if the GM is the one that has decided. Do you not see how that veers into "playing to find out (discover) what's in the GM's notes"?



No.  "Play to" is the purpose/focus of the play.  If you aren't playing in order to find out the notes or the focus of play isn't the notes, then it's not a "Play to find out what's in the DM's notes." game.

That doesn't mean that the DM's notes aren't important and don't alter game play. It's just not what the focus of the game is.


hawkeyefan said:


> If we were instead to say that you're "playing to discover and explore the fictional world" and also "the fictional world is crafted by the GM" then what is the meaningful difference?



I play to make the world my own.  That doesn't mean conquer it(but it can).  It means that the world is my play thing to support MY goals and MY focus of play.  The notes are secondary to that.


hawkeyefan said:


> Again, are you actually disagreeing with the idea of what is being said, or just the words being used to say it? It seems to me more like the latter.



Both.  I disagree with the idea for the reason above and with the terminology, because it's pejorative.


hawkeyefan said:


> As for discovery, I would disagree that something is not discovery even if you're involved in its creation. It was unknown and then it is known...that's discovery. Would you say that you cannot discover anything about your PC through play just because you decide what's true about your PC?



It's not discovery.  It's creation.


hawkeyefan said:


> I have been involved in plenty of examples of this where it was surprising and dynamic, and set up some engaging play going forward.



The way he described it was the players sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover."  By the time they settle on something, any surprise and discovery is over with.  They know the options and voted for the one they prefer most.


----------



## Campbell

So I think that any meaningful analysis of play is going to include a healthy understanding of what behaviors are socially rewarded at the table. I think it's fair to say that at a fair number of D&D tables players are either socially rewarded for displaying curiosity about the game's setting or hunting for story content the GM has included. The D&D game I am a player in pretty much works this way.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I play to make the world my own. That doesn't mean conquer it(but it can). It means that the world is my play thing to support MY goals and MY focus of play. The notes are secondary to that.




So let's separate character and player. 

What do you do as a player that makes the fiction ("world") your plaything? How much of that fiction is up to you to establish? Are you limited by what your character can do and accomplish? How are these things resolved? 

There probably isn't only one answer. But I would say the more that the answer involves the GM deciding how things go, the more play is in fact shaped by his "notes". 

Which sounds to me like what's expected in your play, based on your other comments.




Maxperson said:


> It's not discovery. It's creation.




It can be both, absolutely. I have discovered lots of things through play. I just last night learned that a PC of mine is a bit of a coward in some ways. Wasn't really what I had in mind for him at the start of the campaign, but it's what I happened during play, and it absolutely was a discovery.



Maxperson said:


> The way he described it was the players sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover." By the time they settle on something, any surprise and discovery is over with. They know the options and voted for the one they prefer most.




So then the only way players can discover is if it's something that the GM has decided, and then they somehow learn of it in play? Is this what you mean?


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> So think about this bit here that I've quoted. It sounds like you're saying that discovery can only happen if the GM is the one that has decided. Do you not see how that veers into "playing to find out (discover) what's in the GM's notes"?
> 
> I get that you don't like the phrase.....it has a negative connotation that you're not fond of. But I don't think the things you're saying are really arguing against the idea, just the semantics of the words chosen.
> 
> If we were instead to say that you're "playing to discover and explore the fictional world" and also "the fictional world is crafted by the GM" then what is the meaningful difference?
> 
> Again, are you actually disagreeing with the idea of what is being said, or just the words being used to say it? It seems to me more like the latter.
> 
> As for discovery, I would disagree that something is not discovery even if you're involved in its creation. It was unknown and then it is known...that's discovery. Would you say that you cannot discover anything about your PC through play just because you decide what's true about your PC?







hawkeyefan said:


> I have been involved in plenty of examples of this where it was surprising and dynamic, and set up some engaging play going forward.



Playing to interact with, explore discover and shape through your character, a world established and played by the GM; is probably much more accurate and far less insulting than ‘playing to discover the GMs notes”. Or you could use our language of playing in a living world (don’t understand why this is too metaphorical while ‘GM’s notes isn’t despite seeming to be used non literally anyways)


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> So I think that any meaningful analysis of play is going to include a healthy understanding of what behaviors are socially rewarded at the table. I think it's fair to say that at a fair number of D&D tables players are either socially rewarded for displaying curiosity about the game's setting or hunting for story content the GM has included. The D&D game I am a player in pretty much works this way.




Obviously I agree with this.  But I think the other thing that would be helpful (and I've expressed it many times across many threads and in this one as well) is if we discussed all forms of play (not just "my" play in "this game") in terms of:


The core play loop
The features of play that make up the significant bulk of the population distribution of all moments of play

Pretend you're trying to articulate the fundamental machinery of play to someone who has never played it.  Read that sentence again.  You won't see the word "experience" in there.  You will see the phrase "fundamental machinery."  If you sub out "fundamental machinery" and sub in "experience", you might answer that sentence differently.  But describing the experience of something doesn't help someone build a thing (for many different reasons, up to and including the fact that neurological diversity and endocrine response can be so extreme).  And focusing on edge/corner cases (and/or saying that there is no such thing as a core play loop because the entirety of your play is edge/corner cases with nothing making up the bulk of moments of play) is just not helpful...and it cannot be true.  It can't be.  Even the most Unstructured Free-Form-ey, Rulings Not Rules experience where you're overwhelmingly "GM decides-ing" you're way through play will have some kind of first principles that undergird the play and some kind of core play loop that the bulk of play persists within.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So let's separate character and player.
> 
> What do you do as a player that makes the fiction ("world") your plaything? How much of that fiction is up to you to establish? Are you limited by what your character can do and accomplish? How are these things resolved?



I make it mine by dictating what my character is going to do and making my goals the focus of the game, not the notes.  And of course I'm limited by what my character can accomplish.  Obviously he's not going to be able to snap his fingers and make mountains vanish, unless I'm playing a god or something.  The resolution is via the rules.

How much fiction I can establish doesn't matter.  Even if I can establish directly as a player zero fiction, it still doesn't put the focus of play on the DM's notes.  The focus of play is still on my and my goals.  I've already said that the notes are an important, but secondary part of the game.


hawkeyefan said:


> It can be both, absolutely. I have discovered lots of things through play. I just last night learned that a PC of mine is a bit of a coward in some ways. Wasn't really what I had in mind for him at the start of the campaign, but it's what I happened during play, and it absolutely was a discovery.
> 
> So then the only way players can discover is if it's something that the GM has decided, and then they somehow learn of it in play? Is this what you mean?



Do discover something, it has to be unknown before you discover it.  If you're sitting around with the group hashing out which of 8 things the innkeeper is going to have as information, none of those are unknowns.  You may not know which of the knowns is going to be picked until the final decision is made, but you do know it will be among those choices.  

And no,  you don't need the DM. It can be done randomly.  The key is that it be unknown before you discover it.


----------



## Emerikol

I guess my core loop is....
1.  Here is what your senses are telling you.
2.  What do you do? 
3.  Player takes actions that may or may not affect the world
4.  If the world is affected then update status of the world including in some cases reactions of the world.
5.  return to 1


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Playing to interact with, explore discover and shape through your character, a world established and played by the GM; is probably much more accurate and far less insulting than ‘playing to discover the GMs notes”. Or you could use our language of playing in a living world (don’t understand why this is too metaphorical while ‘GM’s notes isn’t despite seeming to be used non literally anyways)




I'm simply not insulted by it. I can get why others may be, even if it doesn't bother me, but rather then endlessly talk about how it's insulting, I'd rather talk about what it means. I get what pemerton means when he talks about this, and that's the important thing....arguing his choice of words is just semantics, and after pointing it out once or twice, we should all be able to move on.

"Living world" is useful as a general descriptor. But very often that general descriptor is used to explain itself. 

Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?

A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!

Q: Um....okay, but....how?


This is why I think literal descriptions can come in handy. "I give my NPCs motivations" is much more meaningful to me than "I breathe life into my NPCs". 

What we actually do as players and GMs is what I think is needed when we get into this level of discussion or analysis. When it's more beginning stages or general ideas, like "What kinds of campaigns do you enjoy?" a response like "When I feel like I'm exploring a living world" is perfectly fine. I think we're past that point in this specific conversation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm simply not insulted by it. I can get why others may be, even if it doesn't bother me, but rather then endlessly talk about how it's insulting, I'd rather talk about what it means. I get what pemerton means when he talks about this, and that's the important thing....arguing his choice of words is just semantics, and after pointing it out once or twice, we should all be able to move on.
> 
> "Living world" is useful as a general descriptor. But very often that general descriptor is used to explain itself.
> 
> Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?
> 
> A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!
> 
> Q: Um....okay, but....how?
> 
> 
> This is why I think literal descriptions can come in handy. "I give my NPCs motivations" is much more meaningful to me than "I breathe life into my NPCs".
> 
> What we actually do as players and GMs is what I think is needed when we get into this level of discussion or analysis. When it's more beginning stages or general ideas, like "What kinds of campaigns do you enjoy?" a response like "When I feel like I'm exploring a living world" is perfectly fine. I think we're past that point in this specific conversation.




The problem is it is going to be very hard to talk about what it means if half the people here feel it was coined as an insult to our style or as a way of dismissing it. I am not saying there aren't important distinctions to be explored but this is a case where you really need to figure out the language that is going to be able to carry the discussions. I think my mind, and the minds of many others, really have a hard time with this particular term because it feels so loaded, and it feels like it shifts slightly in a direction that is not accurate enough (it keeps moving us towards the GM's notebook and that isn't the point of play here at all)


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I guess my core loop is....
> 1.  Here is what your senses are telling you.
> 2.  What do you do?
> 3.  Player takes actions that may or may not affect the world
> 4.  If the world is affected then update status of the world including in some cases reactions of the world.
> 5.  return to 1




Awesome. That is helpful.

Now zoom that out to the conflict level.

What does that loop look like?

Now zoom that out to the session level (I know all sessions are different...but the orthodox through line of a session).

What does that loop look like?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> For sure, there's no game without logic and creativity. I was just specifically excluding authorial player additions.




I think this is an important distinction for sure. Whether the players themselves have authorial control or can contribute in that way, versus whether they are limited to doing so through their character, I think is certainly a dividing line between a pure sandbox and something else. That said, as I have said in other threads elsewhere, I think sandbox can contain what you are talking about. It is just a different style of sandbox (and how much players having authorial control could vary a lot). I don't know the best term (story sandbox, narrative sandbox, new school sandbox, player controlled sandbox). But whatever term works, I think the idea of it is sound and should be welcomed into the umbrella of sandbox (I do think distinctions are helpful though---like noting the difference between a wilder lands sandbox and one where players have control). This is why I often call mine a Drama sandbox or Sandbox+Drama. I realize that term can also be misleading because it isn't drama in the sense of say drama system where players have authorial control through their dialogue and scene framing. But it denotes that the GM often makes choices using drama as a guide


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Obviously I agree with this.  But I think the other thing that would be helpful (and I've expressed it many times across many threads and in this one as well) is if we discussed all forms of play (not just "my" play in "this game") in terms of:
> 
> 
> The core play loop
> The features of play that make up the significant bulk of the population distribution of all moments of play
> 
> Pretend you're trying to articulate the fundamental machinery of play to someone who has never played it.  Read that sentence again.  You won't see the word "experience" in there.  You will see the phrase "fundamental machinery."  If you sub out "fundamental machinery" and sub in "experience", you might answer that sentence differently.  But describing the experience of something doesn't help someone build a thing (for many different reasons, up to and including the fact that neurological diversity and endocrine response can be so extreme).  And focusing on edge/corner cases (and/or saying that there is no such thing as a core play loop because the entirety of your play is edge/corner cases with nothing making up the bulk of moments of play) is just not helpful...and it cannot be true.  It can't be.  Even the most Unstructured Free-Form-ey, Rulings Not Rules experience where you're overwhelmingly "GM decides-ing" you're way through play will have some kind of first principles that undergird the play and some kind of core play loop that the bulk of play persists within.




The problem a lot of sandbox, living worlds people have with settling on a core play loop is it seems to be overly reductive and potentially could lead to more constrained play. But I think most sandbox GMs agree the fundamental exchange in play is: player declares what they want to do, know, see, etc; and the GM determines what the result is (often by invoking rules, formulating rulings, or declaring based on what seems most reasonable/exciting/etc). But the exchange is a lot more varied and organic than that breakdown suggests. I think players wandering into a such a session with that set of steps loaded into brain, will actually have more trouble navigating what is going on, because the exchange isn't that A to B all the time. Also a lot is unspoken social dynamic. That is very hard to pin down


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem is it is going to be very hard to talk about what it means if half the people here feel it was coined as an insult to our style or as a way of dismissing it. I am not saying there aren't important distinctions to be explored but this is a case where you really need to figure out the language that is going to be able to carry the discussions. I think my mind, and the minds of many others, really have a hard time with this particular term because it feels so loaded, and it feels like it shifts slightly in a direction that is not accurate enough (it keeps moving us towards the GM's notebook and that isn't the point of play here at all)




If you could distill it to just two-4 words (or something nearing it) _tags_, that would be enormously helpful.

For instance:

Story Now

Skilled Play

No Myth

Those three descriptors of those three play priorities/styles are obviously reductive, but they have enormous explanatory power in both the sensory axis is play and the actual machinery of play in ways that something like “Living World” does not.

Interactive Sandbox

GM Curated

Those two descriptors are helpful.

For instance, if I was going to describe Blades in the Dark, I might say:

Story Now, Interactive Sandbox, Skilled Play

If I was going to describe Dungeon/Apocalypse World, I might say:

No Myth, Story Now

If I was going to describe Classic D&D Sandbox, I might say:

GM Curated, Interactive Sandbox, Skilled Play


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?
> 
> A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!
> 
> Q: Um....okay, but....how?




There is tons of material written on this. The sandbox community has its various blogs, articles, GM advice sections, etc on it. A lot of people have taken the time to write about it. But it is a bit like the early church in the sense that we all came to it from slightly different places and there isn't a 'canonical gospel' on the matter (and I hope there never is one to be honest). A lot of what we are doing is finding the tools that work for us and using them. And Rob Conley does have a step by step guide to making a sandbox. The only issue is that is just an example and it is based on how he personally does it. If I wrote a step by step guide it might look quite different. I think what to keep in mind here is any orientation you see online or in a book to a sandbox is just one GMs take. One problem with that I sometimes see is it sort of becomes gospel for small clusters and then they end up butting heads with people who do it slightly differently. 

Here is Rob's break down (I can't say how much he would have changed his views on sandbox since putting this out though): How to make a Fantasy Sandbox

A lot of people like Jeremy Crawford's discussion of Sandbox. 

If you want procedural breakdowns, the Alexandrian has quite a fe for these styles of games (for me they are probably too procedural but know plenty of people for whom the writings are useful). He did a recent video entry on it: 
My approach revolves more around creating groups and characters with motivations and goals that help serve as fuel, empowering players to take initiative, and rolling with where things go. I don't know that I could provide a step by step guide like Rob. My brain is not as orderly as his is. I have strong beliefs in things like fate being a live factor in play, running the game in a much more wild, emotionally inspired GMing style. Anytime I've tried to lay it out, I think I get it, then when I go back and read something in one of my books or on my blog, I feel like I haven't managed to really get out all the unspoken and unconscious assumptions at play. I think part of that is because it is a constant evolution too.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem a lot of sandbox, living worlds people have with settling on a core play loop is it seems to be overly reductive and potentially could lead to more constrained play. But I think most sandbox GMs agree the fundamental exchange in play is: player declares what they want to do, know, see, etc; and the GM determines what the result is (often by invoking rules, formulating rulings, or declaring based on what seems most reasonable/exciting/etc). But the exchange is a lot more varied and organic than that breakdown suggests. I think players wandering into a such a session with that set of steps loaded into brain, will actually have more trouble navigating what is going on, because the exchange isn't that A to B all the time. Also a lot is unspoken social dynamic._ That is very hard to pin down_




It is.

But my suggestion (same as it has always been) is that we get better at it (pinning it down).

For instance, this might be how one would describe the play loop of a social conflict in a GM Curated, Interactive Sandbox, Skilled Play game:

*SOCIAL CONFLICT*

1) The GM rolls on the NPC Reaction Table for the primary NPC, taking any adjustment for PC Charisma Score or present/past PC activity.  Example:

+2 for lead PC
- 1 for past transgressions against NPC motivations
+1 for decorum in arrangement of meeting.

+ 2 total.

2d6 + 2 = 9.  Hospitable.  NPC considers offer.

2)  GM presents the situation which includes the setting, the relevant NPCs, and the depiction of their orientation of the PC based on the NPC Reaction Roll.

GM roleplays through the NPC, using their motivations, and presents the PCs with the NPC's position on the subject matter at hand.  This should be something to either put the PCs on the defensive or provoke the players to present their own viewpoint through their PCs.

3)  This back-and-forth continues (with a player possibly declaring an action that forces dice to be rolled - History or Insight to develop rapport for instance) until the GM decides that either the players has made the case and the NPC agrees (ending the social conflict), hasn't made the case and the NPC rebuffs them (ending the social conflict), or the GM is unsure if the case has been made.  The GM then sets a DC (with the NPCs orientation as a base and adjusted for the factors of the NPC Reaction Roll and any transgression or well-made point in the course of conversation) and the player then makes a Charisma roll. If this Charisma roll meets or exceeds the DC, the NPC agrees to the PC proposition.  If the Charisma roll does not meet or exceed the DC, the NPC rebuffs the PCs.



That expresses the elements of the play priorities/style pretty clearly.

*GM Curated* (the GM created this NPC and the setting)

*Interactive Sandbox* (the players interact with NPCs and the NPCs respond based on their motivations and resolution mechanics)

*Skilled Play* (the players will be more apt to have success if they build their PCs correctly and declare actions/converse skillfully in the social conflict)


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I think this is an important distinction for sure. Whether the players themselves have authorial control or can contribute in that way, versus whether they are limited to doing so through their character, I think is certainly a dividing line between a pure sandbox and something else. That said, as I have said in other threads elsewhere, I think sandbox can contain what you are talking about. It is just a different style of sandbox (and how much players having authorial control could vary a lot). I don't know the best term (story sandbox, narrative sandbox, new school sandbox, player controlled sandbox). But whatever term works, I think the idea of it is sound and should be welcomed into the umbrella of sandbox (I do think distinctions are helpful though---like noting the difference between a wilder lands sandbox and one where players have control). This is why I often call mine a Drama sandbox or Sandbox+Drama. I realize that term can also be misleading because it isn't drama in the sense of say drama system where players have authorial control through their dialogue and scene framing. But it denotes that the GM often makes choices using drama as a guide



I wasn't attempting to replicate that argument from elsewhere about what a frickin' sandbox is (and I agree with you anyway).   I was just using that particular sandbox, one without authorial permissions, to make a point. Someone else has said you needed something like that in the setting to have protagonist play and I disagreed.


----------



## Manbearcat

@Bedrockgames 

I just listened to the video you linked from Justin Alexander.

Upthread I wrote a list of 4 continuums to evaluate Protagonistic Play.

I hope its clear that:

* "Festooned With Scenario Hooks" with PCs on the uptake is not high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.

* They can also "choose to 'Explore Undermountain' which they can only do if they know Undermountain exists" is not high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.

Meanwhile:

* Don't prep plot, prep situation is very high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.

This is Vincent Baker Dogs in the Vineyard 101 circa 2004 (and he said it before then); How to GM 137-138 (abridged) - Don't play the story > don't play "what's going to happen" > play the town > provoke & react.

What Justin Alexander is depicting above is Dogs in the Vineyard 101 except (I'm assuming given his system and "setting before" proclivities) without:

* the initiating scenes for the PCs (which are seminal and provide anchoring for subsequent play).

* the thematic PC build flags that constrain the GM toward what play should be about (therefore how to build setting/situation - frame 'the town' and how to play 'the town'...how to provoke the players).

* the resolution mechanics that escalate conflict, impose difficult decisions, and forcefully evolve (and advance) PCs.

* the focused premise of Dogs in the Vineyard.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> I wasn't attempting to replicate that argument from elsewhere about what a frickin' sandbox is (and I agree with you anyway).   I was just using that particular sandbox, one without authorial permissions, to make a point. Someone else has said you needed something like that in the setting to have protagonist play and I disagreed.




Going back to the Protagonistic Play continuum.  Look at what I've posted directly above (about Dogs).

I assume you agree that "don't prep plot, prep situation" has its "Protagonistic Play Factor" amplified considerably if all of the stuff I wrote at the bottom (inherent to Dogs) is present in the game?  And the inverse is true as well ("Protagonistic Play" is reduced without it).


----------



## Imaro

Just something I'm musing on and I'm not sure it's totally coherent but here goes... 

Should we be confining ourselves to styles of play or should we be striving for something akin to being styleless.  I would think the single best practice for running any session of a ttrpg game would be to pick and choose what works for you and your table in the moment of play, sort of like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do or the way modern MMA tends to work.  

A modern MMA fighter (at least a good one) doesn't define himself as a striker and then summarily swear off ever learning or using grappling so then why should I seek to purposefully limit what can or cannot be a part of my game by defining a play style or accepting a play style for myself?  Now don't get me wrong being styleless play isn't about accepting and using everything either, if something does not work for you and/or your group you don't use it, plain and simple.  IMO moving in this direction isn't really about accepting and practicing a specific style but instead the discussion, usage and (at times) discarding of specific techniques and what result their usage produces.  I think styleless play would elevate results, real experiences and practicality while discarding or eschewing obscure terminology, rote and pseudo-intellectualism.  It would ask the simple question... If I want to achieve X in my game what are the techniques (in an easily understandable breakdown) that can do this?  It would then be left up to the one asking the question which is the best technique for his or her particular game and the answer they choose would have the fluidity to change at anytime once it either no longer serves it's purpose, a better technique is discovered or the result it produces is no longer desired. 

Eh, maybe I'm being crazy here if so just disregard but this makes more sense to me and is where I believe alot of people (including myself) already are in how they approach their games, they don't adhere to a "style" they pick and choose and bend and adapt and that's why for some these discussions of "styles" are so hard.


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> Going back to the Protagonistic Play continuum.  Look at what I've posted directly above (about Dogs).
> 
> I assume you agree that "don't prep plot, prep situation" has its "Protagonistic Play Factor" amplified considerably if all of the stuff I wrote at the bottom (inherent to Dogs) is present in the game?  And the inverse is true as well ("Protagonistic Play" is reduced without it).



I agree. My point was about possible/not possible rather than degrees of success. There are *lots* of mechanics and play style stuff that can amplify protagonist play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Just something I'm musing on and I'm not sure it's totally coherent but here goes...
> 
> Should we be confining ourselves to styles of play or should we be striving for something akin to being styleless.  I would think the single best practice for running any session of a ttrpg game would be to pick and choose what works for you and your table in the moment of play, sort of like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do or the way modern MMA tends to work.
> 
> A modern MMA fighter (at least a good one) doesn't define himself as a striker and then summarily swear off ever learning or using grappling so then why should I seek to purposefully limit what can or cannot be a part of my game by defining a play style or accepting a play style for myself?  Now don't get me wrong being styleless play isn't about accepting and using everything either, if something does not work for you and/or your group you don't use it, plain and simple.  IMO moving in this direction isn't really about accepting and practicing a specific style but instead the discussion, usage and (at times) discarding of specific techniques and what result their usage produces.  I think styleless play would elevate results, real experiences and practicality while discarding or eschewing obscure terminology, rote and pseudo-intellectualism.  It would ask the simple question... If I want to achieve X in my game what are the techniques (in an easily understandable breakdown) that can do this?  It would then be left up to the one asking the question which is the best technique for his or her particular game and the answer they choose would have the fluidity to change at anytime once it either no longer serves it's purpose, a better technique is discovered or the result it produces is no longer desired.
> 
> Eh, maybe I'm being crazy here if so just disregard but this makes more sense to me and is where I believe alot of people (including myself) already are in how they approach their games, they don't adhere to a "style" they pick and choose and bend and adapt and that's why for some these discussions of "styles" are so hard.



No.  Some approaches are antagonistic towards each other (meaning they drive to divergent play goals and do not work well with each other).  This is a similar argument to System Doesn't Matter, which is really only true if you're using the same approach to play regardless of system, overwriting or ignoring the system when conflicts emerge.

You cannot have a game of Blades in the Dark as it is designed to be played if you prep it like a D&D sandbox.  It just doesn't work.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Just something I'm musing on and I'm not sure it's totally coherent but here goes...
> 
> Should we be confining ourselves to styles of play or should we be striving for something akin to being styleless.  I would think the single best practice for running any session of a ttrpg game would be to pick and choose what works for you and your table in the moment of play, sort of like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do or the way modern MMA tends to work.
> 
> A modern MMA fighter (at least a good one) doesn't define himself as a striker and then summarily swear off ever learning or using grappling so then why should I seek to purposefully limit what can or cannot be a part of my game by defining a play style or accepting a play style for myself?  Now don't get me wrong being styleless play isn't about accepting and using everything either, if something does not work for you and/or your group you don't use it, plain and simple.  IMO moving in this direction isn't really about accepting and practicing a specific style but instead the discussion, usage and (at times) discarding of specific techniques and what result their usage produces.  I think styleless play would elevate results, real experiences and practicality while discarding or eschewing obscure terminology, rote and pseudo-intellectualism.  It would ask the simple question... If I want to achieve X in my game what are the techniques (in an easily understandable breakdown) that can do this?  It would then be left up to the one asking the question which is the best technique for his or her particular game and the answer they choose would have the fluidity to change at anytime once it either no longer serves it's purpose, a better technique is discovered or the result it produces is no longer desired.
> 
> Eh, maybe I'm being crazy here if so just disregard but this makes more sense to me and is where I believe alot of people (including myself) already are in how they approach their games, they don't adhere to a "style" they pick and choose and bend and adapt and that's why for some these discussions of "styles" are so hard.




Its an interesting essay.  But personally, I would say the "Be water..." space has an extremely robust history in TTRPGs in all of the general use games and the "kitchen sink D&D" approach (in genre and technique).

There is definitely value in that, but there is also conceptual and realized threats there (that happen both in MMA and TTRPGs):


Not having a well-developed, focused base/substrate to build from and rely upon when the bullets fly.
Not having strong fundamentals in any given discipline/style because you've spread yourself thin.
Not being able to integrate the disciplines/styles (either because you personally cannot do it...or they aren't practically/efficiently able to be integrated).

I like your essay but mostly because of the inherent danger in the message to both fighting and TTRPGing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> @Bedrockgames
> 
> I just listened to the video you linked from Justin Alexander.
> 
> Upthread I wrote a list of 4 continuums to evaluate Protagonistic Play.
> 
> I hope its clear that:
> 
> * "Festooned With Scenario Hooks" with PCs on the uptake is not high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.
> 
> * They can also "choose to 'Explore Undermountain' which they can only do if they know Undermountain exists" is not high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> * Don't prep plot, prep situation is very high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.
> 
> This is Vincent Baker Dogs in the Vineyard 101 circa 2004 (and he said it before then); How to GM 137-138 (abridged) - Don't play the story > don't play "what's going to happen" > play the town > provoke & react.
> 
> What Justin Alexander is depicting above is Dogs in the Vineyard 101 except (I'm assuming given his system and "setting before" proclivities) without:
> 
> * the initiating scenes for the PCs (which are seminal and provide anchoring for subsequent play).
> 
> * the thematic PC build flags that constrain the GM toward what play should be about (therefore how to build setting/situation - frame 'the town' and how to play 'the town'...how to provoke the players).
> 
> * the resolution mechanics that escalate conflict, impose difficult decisions, and forcefully evolve (and advance) PCs.
> 
> * the focused premise of Dogs in the Vineyard.




i know nothing about dogs in the vineyard so can’t weigh in on that. But your billet list breakdown does not sound like what Justin is describing to me (I could be misunderstanding but a lot of that doesn’t seem like my reading of it). Either way though lots of people in the gaming community have independently arrived at similar places (I arrived at a similar place to sandbox before ever hearing the term). I can’t speak to where dogs in the vineyard is on the spectrum of styles. I think there is more going on with his hooks than meets the eye. I would frame it more as the content is made with an eye toward game ability, but you don’t know how players will sink their teeth into the hooks he is describing or which direction they will go. The synergy he describes is something that most sandbox GM’s cone to understand naturally with tone IMO. And that was just one example of sandbox advice. I included it because Justin has a distinct gaming philosophy and tends to be very precise with language and terms; as well as laying out and breaking down procedures


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> No.  Some approaches are antagonistic towards each other (meaning they drive to divergent play goals and do not work well with each other).  This is a similar argument to System Doesn't Matter, which is really only true if you're using the same approach to play regardless of system, overwriting or ignoring the system when conflicts emerge.
> 
> You cannot have a game of Blades in the Dark as it is designed to be played if you prep it like a D&D sandbox.  It just doesn't work.



I think you totally missed my point.  My post isn't about having a game play out a certain way, if you want that then by all means continue to strictly define your game in terms of playstyles... My post was at a more micro level it is about techniques separated and utilized purely for a specific result.  And no I'm not saying system doesn't matter... I am saying break those systems into individual techniques that are adaptable to achieve the result desired in-game by the group.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I assume you agree that "don't prep plot, prep situation" has its "Protagonistic Play Factor" amplified considerably if all of the stuff I wrote at the bottom (inherent to Dogs) is present in the game?  And the inverse is true as well ("Protagonistic Play" is reduced without it).




Don’t prep plots, prep situations is pretty fundamental to most sandbox style of play. What people mean by situations will vary but there is a focus on not prepping plots in advance and instead allowing for a more adaptable character interaction driven thing to emerge through situations

again clash Boowley (who isn’t strictly sandbox at all) discussed this in his situational GMing advice which I linked earlier: Situational GMing

justin Alexander went into more detail about tgevidea he invoked in the video here: Don’t Prep Plots


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Its an interesting essay.  But personally, I would say the "Be water..." space has an extremely robust history in TTRPGs in all of the general use games and the "kitchen sink D&D" approach (in genre and technique).
> 
> There is definitely value in that, but there is also conceptual and realized threats there (that happen both in MMA and TTRPGs):
> 
> 
> Not having a well-developed, focused base/substrate to build from and rely upon when the bullets fly.
> Not having strong fundamentals in any given discipline/style because you've spread yourself thin.
> Not being able to integrate the disciplines/styles (either because you personally cannot do it...or they aren't practically/efficiently able to be integrated).
> 
> I like your essay but mostly because of the inherent danger in the message to both fighting and TTRPGing.



I don’t think martial arts will illuminate this. There are too many ways of breaking this stuff down and even martial arts experts/mma coaches-experts disagree all the time about this stuff. RPGs are a different animal anyways


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> Its an interesting essay.  But personally, I would say the "Be water..." space has an extremely robust history in TTRPGs in all of the general use games and the "kitchen sink D&D" approach (in genre and technique).
> 
> There is definitely value in that, but there is also conceptual and realized threats there (that happen both in MMA and TTRPGs):
> 
> 
> Not having a well-developed, focused base/substrate to build from and rely upon when the bullets fly.
> Not having strong fundamentals in any given discipline/style because you've spread yourself thin.
> Not being able to integrate the disciplines/styles (either because you personally cannot do it...or they aren't practically/efficiently able to be integrated).
> 
> I like your essay but mostly because of the inherent danger in the message to both fighting and TTRPGing.



But these aren't an inherent weakness in adaptability, if one is learning of the possible techniques and choosing the technique that works best for them, only replacing it when something better, or they no longer wish for it's result, they will build their foundation organically through exposure and selection.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I think you totally missed my point.  My post isn't about having a game play out a certain way, if you want that then by all means continue to strictly define your game in terms of playstyles... My post was at a more micro level it is about techniques separated and utilized purely for a specific result.  And no I'm not saying system doesn't matter... I am saying break those systems into individual techniques that are adaptable to achieve the result desired in-game by the group.



Techniques tend to group, though, and it's a useful shorthand to describe a usually grouped set of techniques with a convenient term, like Story Now, No Myth, and Hexcrawl.  Sure, there's some bleed -- I tend to borrow some aspects of Story Now play when I'm running 5e because it works well within a skill challenge, but I really couldn't/shouldn't do this if the game I'm running is either a Hexcrawl Sandbox or a Skilled Play game.  These approaches are not compatible.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Techniques tend to group, though, and it's a useful shorthand to describe a usually grouped set of techniques with a convenient term, like Story Now, No Myth, and Hexcrawl.  Sure, there's some bleed -- I tend to borrow some aspects of Story Now play when I'm running 5e because it works well within a skill challenge, but I really couldn't/shouldn't do this if the game I'm running is either a Hexcrawl Sandbox or a Skilled Play game.  These approaches are not compatible.




So you're saying that you shouldn't use a technique that works well for you because... Pre-defined categorization of my game says no... this is exactly why I think approaching techniques vs styles is better.  I was spurred by this because I was looking through some pre-pandemic notes I had made for running a game of D&D (It never took off because well...covid) and I realized I was using the clocks from BitD to determine when certain events would happen.  It was a good technique that I adopted for D&D irregardless of what "style" this game was supposed to be.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think martial arts will illuminate this. There are too many ways of breaking this stuff down and even martial arts experts/mma coaches-experts disagree all the time about this stuff. RPGs are a different animal anyways




I think I more agree with @Imaro 's take that it does illuminate though I move in the opposite direction that he does.

I would say that from first principles you can make evaluations that are testable and falsifiable.  For instance, whether or not MMA coaches have reached a consensus or not is irrelevant to the fact that across the generations of MMA, the overwhelming distribution of MMA greats had a devastating grappling substrate.  There can be no question (in no particular order):

Fedor
Jones
Khabib
Silva
Aldo
Couture
Henderson
GSP
Shogun
Hughes
Johnson
DC
Miocic
Gracie
Liddell

The only guys that you could make a case for out of that group is Holloway, McGregor, and Stylebender...but even those three have enormously underappreciated wrestling, clinch-game, and takedown defense.

Develop the foundation and integrate weaponry (meaning everything else works in concert, coherently synergizes...they aren't discrete things) is a first principle that absolutely translates to game design.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> So you're saying that you shouldn't use a technique that works well for you because... Pre-defined categorization of my game says no... this is exactly why I think approaching techniques vs styles is better.  I was spurred by this because I was looking through some pre-pandemic notes I had made for running a game of D&D (It never took off because well...covid) and I realized I was using the clocks from BitD to determine when certain events would happen.  It was a good technique that I adopted for D&D irregardless of what "style" this game was supposed to be.




There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).

However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.  

Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities.  Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem.  The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So you're saying that you shouldn't use a technique that works well for you because... Pre-defined categorization of my game says no... this is exactly why I think approaching techniques vs styles is better.  I was spurred by this because I was looking through some pre-pandemic notes I had made for running a game of D&D (It never took off because well...covid) and I realized I was using the clocks from BitD to determine when certain events would happen.  It was a good technique that I adopted for D&D irregardless of what "style" this game was supposed to be.



You might try, sometime, assuming that the other poster isn't an idiot.  This would reduce how often you make statements like this in response.

I've clearly said that techniques both group naturally, and that different groups can fight against each other.  If you're mixing and matching, then, yes, a technique that may work for you in one grouping will not work in another.  

I am curious, though, how you're using that clock.  Is it player facing, and do they understand what ticks it and what they can do to affect it?  Otherwise, it's really just a countdown timer, and not actually the clock mechanic from Blades.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> i know nothing about dogs in the vineyard so can’t weigh in on that. But your *billet list breakdown does not sound like what Justin is describing to me (I could be misunderstanding but a lot of that doesn’t seem like my reading of it).* Either way though lots of people in the gaming community have independently arrived at similar places (I arrived at a similar place to sandbox before ever hearing the term). I can’t speak to where dogs in the vineyard is on the spectrum of styles. I think there is more going on with his hooks than meets the eye. I would frame it more as the content is made with an eye toward game ability, but you don’t know how players will sink their teeth into the hooks he is describing or which direction they will go. The synergy he describes is something that most sandbox GM’s cone to understand naturally with tone IMO. And that was just one example of sandbox advice. I included it because Justin has a distinct gaming philosophy and tends to be very precise with language and terms; as well as laying out and breaking down procedures




Are you talking about the top bullet list or the bottom?

The top 3 bullets were pulled directly from the video.

The bottom 4 are pulled directly from Dogs in the Vineyard (and are not in the video).

The 3rd bullet point is shared by both.

The point of the post was to contrast the top 2 bullet points (Alexander's) with the bottom 4 bullet points (Baker's) and the implications of the differences between those on the shared, 3rd bullet point and how it pertains to Protagonistic Play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Manbearcat said:


> There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).
> 
> However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.
> 
> Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities.  Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem.  The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.



Great example of how a given technique clashes strongly with some play goals.


----------



## Aldarc

Manbearcat said:


> There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).
> 
> However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.
> 
> Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities.  Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem.  The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.



But I think that in order to incorporate, mix, or hybridize these different "forms," one first has to understand how these different elements work and function in these different styles along with their strengths and limitations. Otherwise you'll be frustrated when bringing over Element 3 from Story Now game Y into your Skilled Play game X or vice versa. One thing that I do appreciate about the indie scene is that there are a number of creators who are clearly cross-pollinating ideas between these different game styles and types, and recombining them to achieve new sorts of games.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> Great example of how a given technique clashes strongly with some play goals.




Thank you.  I figured most everyone on here would agree with it (as almost everyone in this conversation has been involved in conversations in the past where we've discussed the implications of Fail Forward).



Aldarc said:


> But I think that in order to incorporate, mix, or hybridize these different "forms," one first has to understand how these different elements work and function in these different styles along with their strengths and limitations. Otherwise you'll be frustrated when bringing over Element 3 from Story Now game Y into your Skilled Play game X or vice versa. One thing that I do appreciate about the indie scene is that there are a number of creators who are clearly cross-pollinating ideas between these different game styles and types, and recombining them to achieve new sorts of games.




Yessir


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Are you talking about the top bullet list or the bottom?
> 
> The top 3 bullets were pulled directly from the video.
> 
> The bottom 4 are pulled directly from Dogs in the Vineyard (and are not in the video).




I am talking about your commentary after you quote him. I don't think hooks like that or the fact that deciding to explore something is dependent on knowledge of it existing, are low on protagonism (though I may misunderstand what you mean by protagonism). I also think if you observe how he talks about hooks, he sees them as a very adaptable thing in the setting where eventually PCs are also helping to establish hooks of their own by setting agendas for themselves and interaction with the people and organization there


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> The 3rd bullet point is shared by both.



Can you clarify the third that is shared by both so I can make sure I understand before weighing in on that


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> You might try, sometime, assuming that the other poster isn't an idiot.  This would reduce how often you make statements like this in response.
> 
> I've clearly said that techniques both group naturally, and that different groups can fight against each other.  *If you're mixing and matching, then, yes, a technique that may work for you in one grouping will not work in another. *
> 
> I am curious, though, how you're using that clock.  Is it player facing, and do they understand what ticks it and what they can do to affect it?  Otherwise, it's really just a countdown timer, and not actually the clock mechanic from Blades.




Ok, honestly, can you explain to me how the bolded part happens... without me ascribing to a playstyle agenda?  The fact that you use the word grouping when I am approaching individual techniques seems to suggest that you are still approaching it from a play style perspective as opposed to a results driven perspective but I could be wrong.

The clock was going to be player facing, I didn't see a list of how they could affect it but I know me and I would have preferred to have presented that in fiction with clarification taking place OOC if needed.  I would have left the things that could affect it open ended but I would have clearly telegraphed if an action would either through the fiction or again with an OOC offside note.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).
> 
> However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.
> 
> Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities.  Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem.  The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.





But if I am only adopting techniques for the question... how do I get result X... why would I ever adopt a technique that is anathema with how I am playing.  If I want clear cut pass and fail criteria... would I ever be looking for a technique that does the opposite?  On the other hand if I want to have multiple results besides fail and succeed then I would explore that as well as other techniques that accomplish that.  Again you're coming from the stance that I have a defined playstyle that I don't want to violate... I am coming from a stance of hey in my upcoming game I want to do this (X), what are some techniques to accomplish that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I think I more agree with @Imaro 's take that it does illuminate though I move in the opposite direction that he does.
> 
> I would say that from first principles you can make evaluations that are testable and falsifiable.  For instance, whether or not MMA coaches have reached a consensus or not is irrelevant to the fact that across the generations of MMA, the overwhelming distribution of MMA greats had a devastating grappling substrate.  There can be no question (in no particular order):
> 
> Fedor
> Jones
> Khabib
> Silva
> Aldo
> Couture
> Henderson
> GSP
> Shogun
> Hughes
> Johnson
> DC
> Miocic
> Gracie
> Liddell
> 
> The only guys that you could make a case for out of that group is Holloway, McGregor, and Stylebender...but even those three have enormously underappreciated wrestling, clinch-game, and takedown defense.
> 
> Develop the foundation and integrate weaponry (meaning everything else works in concert, coherently synergizes...they aren't discrete things) is a first principle that absolutely translates to game design.




I think these martial arts forays are pretty pointless. But I think it is worth pointing out this isn't a comprehensive list and many on that list have stellar striking skills too (when I think Chuck Liddell the first thing I think of is his striking power----he was a knock out artist). If anything these lists are arguments in favor of blending styles and adapting to the needs of specific sport you are playing (MMA has involved and both grapplers and strikers have had to evolve their training away from the roots and adapt them to the MMA). I have some experience with MMA (more with striking). I can't just take my boxing whole cloth into an MMA fight (and to be clear because it is the internet, I am not nor have I been a fighter, but I have sparred plenty in MMA and I used to compete in other styles). That boxing must be adapted for the specifics of MMA. Same for if you take boxing into Muay Thai, or muay thai into boxing (I've switched between those and the change is always a bit jarring). I agree with you fundamentals are important. But we can also probably agree there were a lot of flawed fundamentals that didn't pan out very well in MMA in those early days. 

But a sport like MMA is pretty objective, you either win or lose the match. People can see what works and what doesn't. They can debate and theorize but at the end of the day this is a sport that has winners and losers. In RPGs, you can take a 'what works at the table approach' (which I do, and I always elevate that over theory), but it is a much more subjective experience as we see in these threads. With martial arts, especially combat sports, there is only so much room for me and you to disagree. At a certain point it has to be acknowledged that a particular fighter knocked out another or didn't win, etc. But in gaming we are not asking "who won" but "who had fun"


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> The point of the post was to contrast the top 2 bullet points (Alexander's) with the bottom 4 bullet points (Baker's) and the implications of the differences between those on the shared, 3rd bullet point and how it pertains to Protagonistic Play.




That is fair. I was honestly having trouble following this aspect of your post (partly because it was bullet pointed and partly because I have zero knowledge of Dogs in the Vineyard). I can't say anything about dogs in the vineyard. In terms of the differences between him and baker you identify, I think there is more going on in Alexander's argument than you've identified. The ideal end state he is guiding people to (remember this is for folks who tried to run a sandbox and bombed, so he is underlying things and exaggerating techniques in order to get the ball rolling: that is at least my reading, I don't want to put words in his mouth): seems to be the sandbox ultimately running itself (which is something me and others have described). And for that to happen, the players need to start taking initiative and almost creating their own hooks (just like he describes where at first the GM has an organization approach the players and ask for something in  exchange for an alliance, then the players understand this is a viable thing to seek out and start doing it themselves proactively). The latter is something I see a lot, it is the wheeling and dealing side of sandbox, especially when you are dealing with power groups and players trying to carve out a space for themselves in the setting. Maybe you identified that in your analysis and I missed it.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> Let's use the pitfighter example, just to keep things streamlined. In our sandbox game you say to me I want to play a fighter who wants to be the best pit fighter in the realm. One of two things happen, I either have pitfighters written in somewhere and I can suggest that as a _where you're from_, or I don't and I can say _hmm, well, these places all work, whaddya think? _There's a third option of course, being _this world doesn't have pitfighters,_ which is appropriate, but how often is that actually the case in a fantasy world? All of this is possible in a Gm notes/pure sandbox setting. The dramatic goal of becoming a renowned pitfighter will naturally emerge in play to the extent you as a player use it inform decisions and roleplay and I as a GM use that input to decide on consequences and frame future action. This is true no matter the setting.





Fenris-77 said:


> Well, the pure OSR sandbox guys I know don't ask questions in the way you mean, not about the setting anyway, nor are players interested in answering them. In those games the sandbox setting is GM notes and random tables with zero player input or reworking based on said input (and that is the way they want it).





Bedrockgames said:


> What you will tend to see in sandboxes is GMs answering questions based on fidelity to the world. But that IS NOT fidelity to the notes. If the players want to be ptfighters and I have no notes about pit fighters in my GM notes, I need to answer the question still. The pure sandbox approach most likely to answer that question based on whether they reasonably ought to exist. Bbut as Fenris points out how many fantasy worlds wouldn’t have that? It’s possible. The GM can decide sone things simply don’t exist (and these decisions can be important for maintaining the setting integrity).



These three quoted passages were posted as part of a discussion about _satisfying PC dramatic needs _in the context of sandbox play. I'm trying to make sense of them. I'm not 100% sure that I have, yet.

I'll keep running with the pitfighter example.

The GM implicitly or expressly invites the player to state a dramatic need for his/her PC. The player says _I am - or I will be - the best pit fighter in the realm_. The GM then either, based on notes, (1) tells the player where the PC is from; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (2) says "You could be from here, or here, or here - whaddya think?"; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (3) says "Sorry, there are no pitfighters in this world".

I'm still not clear how (2) is different from asking questions and building on the answers. The GM has asked a question - _what's your dramatic need?_ And has got a reply, and then built on that with a further question - _whaddya think about being from here, or here, or here?_ And then based on that answer, it is now established that either here, or here, or here, pitfighters are to be found.

If what happens is (1) or (3) instead, then we don't have asking questions and building on the answers. We have GM world building, and in a sense it is "coincidence" that the players PC idea does, or doesn't, fit into that. To the extent that it's not _really _coincidence because the GM has built the world having regard to anticipated and desired PC dramatic needs, then we seem to have an attempt to produce the same sort of outcome as _asking questions and building on the answers _but via anticipation rather than actual exchange. A variation would be moving the asking of questions and building on the answers to "session zero" rather than doing it during play.



Bedrockgames said:


> The GMs logic and creativity are expected to play a role as well in answering a question like “is there a cultivation sect or sects in the city” or respond to actions like the players trying to negotiate with the prince for control of recently discovered salt deposits in the desert that they stumbled upon in a recent venture south. and even something like the salt deposits might not have bee. In notes or a map before hand. I usually do like to put down firm geography like that but often on a large scale. I may still have to answer a question specific to a smaller area like ‘are there any natural resources in this hill’ on the fly





Bedrockgames said:


> there are always limits to a GMs knowledge of the world, he or she needs to at sone point make a creative decision about what exists exactly in this space that had just opened up due to player actions, questions, etc. in pure sandbox that is usually going to be informed by existing knowledge of the setting (not necessarily notes), may be shaped by random rolls, or simply decided based on what is interesting.



To me, this sounds like adding to or building on the GM's notes during play. The difference from _asking questions and building on the answers_ seems to be that only the GM gets to reflect on the fiction so far and extrapolate to new fiction.

As some posters have said (eg @Maxperson, @Emerikol) they prefer to engage with fiction in this fashion. Rather than contributing directly to it themselves. And as @hawkeyefan has said, this seems to be an example of the players learning either (i) what is already in the GM's notes, or (ii) what the GM is extrapolating to and (literally or figuratively) adding to his/her notes.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The way he described it was the players sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover."  By the time they settle on something, any surprise and discovery is over with.  They know the options and voted for the one they prefer most.





Maxperson said:


> he later described the players just sitting around talking discussing what they would "discover"(In quotes, because it's not discovery if you are deciding it) from the barkeep.  THAT is what I described as ruining the game.



In these posts, "he" refers to @innerdude. Maxperson also posts the following, as a paraphrase/reiteration of the above:



Maxperson said:


> To discover something, it has to be unknown before you discover it.  If you're sitting around with the group hashing out which of 8 things the innkeeper is going to have as information, none of those are unknowns.  You may not know which of the knowns is going to be picked until the final decision is made, but you do know it will be among those choices.




Here is what innerdude actually posted:


innerdude said:


> thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.
> 
> And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.
> 
> But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.
> 
> A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.
> 
> But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"
> 
> In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."
> 
> Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."
> 
> Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."
> 
> Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.
> 
> This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.
> 
> But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.





innerdude said:


> In Ironsworn, this [ie that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM] would never be the baseline assumption.
> 
> The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.
> 
> Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.
> 
> Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.
> 
> In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> *Edit---in retrospect, I don't know if I properly emphasized---in Ironsworn, the rules constrain the type, value, and relevance of the information gathered in ways that are simply not present in D&D. Even if the GM is forced to create something "off the cuff" (again, not even the baseline assumption for Ironsworn), the nature of the "notes" must fall in line with the rule as presented, or (s)he is just as guilty of breaking the rules as a player would be for adding an extra, unwarranted +1 to every combat roll.



So notice that @innerdude doesn't say either of the things that @Maxperson attributes to him.

There is no reference to _voting for known options_. Nor is there any reference to _sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover." _What innerdude describes is completely standard PbtA-type stuff: there are action resolution mechanics that establish obligations to narrate new fiction under certain sorts of constraints (eg _2 pieces of useful information_).

What innerdude refers to absolutely permits _discovery_. "Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place." That's discovery! By GM and players. It is the result of applying standard PbtA techniques: all the participants bouncing off the existing fiction to establish new fiction having regard to the constraints that the mechanics establish.

You can do similar things in other systems - eg Classic Traveller or Prince Valiant, just to nominate two I'm familiar with at the moment - although they don't have quite as robust a framework for this as PbtA games.

EDIT: We can also talk about what features of a system permit this sort of thing. There has to be an _absence_ of resolution frameworks that dictate outcomes that get in the way of the PbtA-ish back-and-forth: Rolemaster, with its many interacting components that make tracking ingame time crucial and that require rolls to be made for a large number of somewhat mundane actions undertaken by characters, would be an example of a system that _does_ have frameworks that get in the way.

The game also has to be robust in play without all the fiction being pinned down, precisely so that the back-and-forth can be used to achieve that pinning down. Classic Traveller and Prince Valiant both work very well in this respect (with one exception for Traveller: onworld exploration); contrast Moldvay Basic, which in most of its action resolution rules (movement, exploration, etc) relies upon very detailed fiction already being established (secretly, by the referee) so that it can feed into those action resolution processes.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> So notice that @innerdude doesn't say either of the things that @Maxperson attributes to him.



In one of the posts you quoted...

"*The baseline assumption is that* *the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are*, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves."

So yes, the players are sitting around hashing out what the information will be.  I mean seriously man, people can read.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> As some posters have said (eg @Maxperson, @Emerikol) they prefer to engage with fiction in this fashion. Rather than contributing directly to it themselves. And as @hawkeyefan has said, this seems to be an example of the players learning either (i) what is already in the GM's notes, or (ii)* what the GM is extrapolating to and (literally or figuratively) adding to his/her notes*.



Sure, but 1) The bolded portion means improvising = DM notes, so improv games also involve the DM adding to his notes, and 2) that does not equate to, "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes."


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> These three quoted passages were posted as part of a discussion about _satisfying PC dramatic needs _in the context of sandbox play. I'm trying to make sense of them. I'm not 100% sure that I have, yet.
> 
> I'll keep running with the pitfighter example.
> 
> The GM implicitly or expressly invites the player to state a dramatic need for his/her PC. The player says _I am - or I will be - the best pit fighter in the realm_. The GM then either, based on notes, (1) tells the player where the PC is from; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (2) says "You could be from here, or here, or here - whaddya think?"; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (3) says "Sorry, there are no pitfighters in this world".
> 
> I'm still not clear how (2) is different from asking questions and building on the answers. The GM has asked a question - _what's your dramatic need?_ And has got a reply, and then built on that with a further question - _whaddya think about being from here, or here, or here?_ And then based on that answer, it is now established that either here, or here, or here, pitfighters are to be found.
> 
> If what happens is (1) or (3) instead, then we don't have asking questions and building on the answers. We have GM world building, and in a sense it is "coincidence" that the players PC idea does, or doesn't, fit into that. To the extent that it's not _really _coincidence because the GM has built the world having regard to anticipated and desired PC dramatic needs, then we seem to have an attempt to produce the same sort of outcome as _asking questions and building on the answers _but via anticipation rather than actual exchange. A variation would be moving the asking of questions and building on the answers to "session zero" rather than doing it during play.




Part of it is this isn't as black and white as 'referencing the notes or not referencing the notes'. I think if you are simply saying there are two types of games: ones where the players can contribute to the setting out of character and one where they cannot contribute to the setting out of character. Then I Suppose this is accurate. I don't know that calling it referencing the notes makes sense to me. But I would also point out this is a very limited example. We are talking about the character creation phase. In my experience almost every sandbox GM handles that part of the game differently. Some insult on using pure randomness to generate characters, some allow for back and forth, some allow for mild amounts of setting creation (for example it would be over the line I think in most typical sandboxes for the player to propose a kingdom and for that to now exist in the setting: but proposing a wealthy family of merchants that come from a city in the north, or proposing a neighborhood in one of the GMs cities where the children fought for copper coins in the streets and as a result it has produced a number of skilled pit fighters, those latter examples would probably be okay in a lot of sandbox campaigns, not everyone but a lot). Again this is a pretty organic, group dependent part of the game. I think no matter what style you are playing it is really going to vary. But once play begins, my point about the pit fighters is the players do get to shape the setting through their character, and the focus of play is largely around that energy that arises when the players take initiative. I wouldn't describe that as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. Notes may be relevant and important. But a lot of it is going to be the GM having to come up with and extrapolate answers on the fly in response to the players prodding in different directions (and that is very different from referencing the notes alone because if you were just referencing the notes, your answer would be 'no you don't find anything like that' to anything that doesn't seem to have an answer in the notes. A living world sandbox GM is more likely to be taking the position of "let me think and decide if that is reasonable or fits with the world or campaign concept". Generally the world is coming from the GM, and that is an important distinction in most pure sandboxes. But the you can't just ignore the talk of 'living world' and the world being alive because that is so important to this playstyle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).
> 
> However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.
> 
> Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities.  Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem.  The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.




One problem I've encountered anytime we talk about styles in gaming (and it honestly doesn't matter if one is coming from the perspective of things like  story now or pure sandbox) is most groups don't have a style. Just like most groups of diners don't have a shared palate. GMing, in my opinion is like preparing a red sauce for a family of five: you are going to either have to force feed them your idea of what red sauce should be or you are going to have to adjust the recipe to fit everyone (if Michael doesn't like onions, you might have to lower the amount of onion; if Alexa doesn't like the bitter taste of tomato paste in the sauce, you might have to use no or little tomato paste or balance it out with sugar, honey or shredded carrot, etc). It is great to talk about styles in their platonic ideal. But my experience at the table is a lot of heartache can arise trying to take platonic ideals acquired in forums and bring them to a table of five people with very different tastes. For me, I always adapt to the group I have. If two players really want adventures with structure to them, even though this is a sandbox campaign that doesn't normally feature those, I am going to bring them in to help balance things out. I will say one thing I do like about sandbox in this respect, is it is often a great baseline for a mixed group which you can evolve as you go. By the same token if I have players who desperately love having dramatic things going on with their characters and NPCs, I can accommodate that. It isn't going to kill me to do these things, and I don't think it is wise to get too precious about the underlying structure when different needs are emerging at the table. In terms of how well one has to understand the tools one is using: sure probably. But a lot of this is stuff people do without having a language for and just grasp intuitively at the table. You an learn music theory to make music, but it isn't the only way (and I don't think gaming has anything close to music theory)


----------



## pemerton

In relation to _prepare situations, not plots_:

When the players, via their PCs, confront a situation - (i) how is it decided what is at stake? (ii) how is it decided what will be the consequences of the players' declared actions for their PCs? (iii) how is it decided when the situation is "resolved"?

Different games answer this differently. These different answers, pretty naturally, produce different play experiences.

Here's an example, from Classic Traveller (Book 1, p 16 of the 1977 edition):

The individual [with Vacc Suit skill] has been trained, and has experience, in the use of standard vacuum suits (space suits), including armoured battle dress and suits for use on various planetary surfaces in the presence of exotic, corrosive or insidious atmospheres.

Non-breathable atmospheres or hostile environments can be easily overcome by use of protective equipment, but the danger of minor mishaps becoming fatal is great. A basic throw of 10+ to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual while wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc). DM: +4 per level of expertise.

When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+. DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: −4.​
So if the _situation _includes that the PC is in some sort of vacuum or non-breathable atmosphere, and the player's response is to have his/her PC perform a non-ordinary manoeuvre, then we have a procedure to follow: _first_, check to see if a dangerous situation arises; if it does, then _second_, check to see if the incident is able to be remedied. The details of the dangerous situation (in my experience, at least) will typically be established by the GM and player reflecting on the details of the current fictional circumstances, and what the player is having his/her PC try and do, and then thinking up something that makes sense.

This particular little sequence of play is somewhat comparable to a PbtA-type move.

It can be contrasted with the same sort of fictional situation adjudicated using Space Master. Space Master (1988 edition) has no vacc suit (or similar) skill in its Player Book. There are skills that might be relevant for some of those non-ordinary manoeuvres (Climbing, Hiding, Acrobatics, etc) and there are rules for the affect of various suits on these skills (Manoeuvring in Armour skill is the relevant subystem) but there is no mechanical framework that says how to call for skill checks, how to determine if a failed check causes a possibly life-threatening situation in a vacuum or hostile atmosphere, how such an incident might be remedied, etc. In Space Master this all depends on GM decision-making. A very different play experience results.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> In one of the posts you quoted...
> 
> "*The baseline assumption is that* *the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are*, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves."
> 
> So yes, the players are sitting around hashing out what the information will be.  I mean seriously man, people can read.



Maxperson, have you played these games? Do you know how those decisions are made? What extent of the discussion is in character or out of character? Whether or not _voting_ - a word you used - is relevant?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but 1) The bolded portion means improvising = DM notes, so improv games also involve the DM adding to his notes, and 2) that does not equate to, "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes."



No. There is an obvious difference between _a GM extrapolating from his/her notes to create more "virtual" notes_ and _a player extrapolating from the established fiction at the table to posit a new fictional element_. As @innerdude already posted.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Maxperson, have you played these games? Do you know how those decisions are made? What extent of the discussion is in character or out of character? Whether or not _voting_ - a word you used - is relevant?



I know what "collectively determines" means.  The exact method may vary, but it's still the group figuring it out, so there is no real discovery going on.  He also mentioned random rolls on charts, but that isn't the group determining anything.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> No. There is an obvious difference between _a GM extrapolating from his/her notes to create more "virtual" notes_ and _a player extrapolating from the established fiction at the table to posit a new fictional element_. As @innerdude already posted.



It's the same difference.  If I've pre-determined something, it's established fiction, just like if you've come up with some piece of fiction on the fly and established it.  So we're both starting from the same point.  Established fiction.  Now the players make declarations of actions or the equivalent.  Happens in both styles of games.  We're still paralleling.  Now, the DM comes with an extrapolation based on the established fiction and the players actions and comes up with a result(fictional element).  

The method is different, but the result seems anywhere from similar to the same to me.


----------



## Campbell

@Bedrockgames

I don't see different sorts of roleplaying game styles as platonic ideals anymore than I would see poker, spades, or euchre as some sort of platonic ideal. I find that most people if they are willing to give a game a real shot can enjoy a variety of different play experiences. I can't imagine always playing the same sort of game in the same sort of way with the same people. I honestly think the player type style analysis that pegs players into round little holes we expect them to always conform to does most players a great disservice. 

For me personally some of my worst experiences in gaming have come from a GM attempting to make tonal and style shifts to please players (often me). I can enjoy most games even games I'm not super keen on, but nothing disrupts the experience for me like the game shifting from under me.

Furthermore when I read accounts of playing with people who all interested in these vastly different things it kind of puts me off because it seems like everyone is just there for their own kinks - not really playing a game together. I would much rather play a game that is less than ideal for me that is a shared experience than one built to fulfill individual player desires separately. What's fun for me is not fun if the other people at the table are not into it.


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> It's the same difference.  If I've pre-determined something, it's established fiction, just like if you've come up with some piece of fiction on the fly and established it.  So we're both starting from the same point.  Established fiction.  Now the players make declarations of actions or the equivalent.  Happens in both styles of games.  We're still paralleling.  Now, the DM comes with an extrapolation based on the established fiction and the players actions and comes up with a result(fictional element).
> 
> The method is different, but the result seems anywhere from similar to the same to me.




The big, massive, major difference---in Ironsworn, the GM's notes/prefabrications are not considered privileged, nor are the players expected to bend/shape proposed resolutions such that they fit in to the GM's notes/prefabrications (assuming there are any).

If a player's proposed change to the fiction state is fully consistent with the situation, framing, and mechanical outcome, and the group agrees that this change in the fiction is now true, there is no option for the GM to say, "Hey, whoah whoah whoah --- if what you've just said is true, it will completely invalidate Scene 24 [a smashing scene, in which there aren't any coconuts], will completely ruin what I had planned for NPC McDizzle, and it completely invalidates what was supposed to happen in the city of Cowstantinopleville."

To which Ironsworn's response (assuming a game system could anthropomorphically respond) is, _shrug_ "Eh. Don't care. Play what's in front of you, and make your next move."

Ironsworn then points at the character sheets in front of the players---"See those Iron Vows the players have sworn? _Those_ are what's important in play. Whatever is happening in the game, it's going to focus on those. Always. If what the players are doing doesn't intersect with or totally messes up Cowstantinopleville, that's Cowstantinopleville's problem, not mine."


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> The big, massive, major difference---in Ironsworn, the GM's notes/prefabrications are not considered privileged, nor are the players expected to bend/shape proposed resolutions such that they fit in to the GM's notes/prefabrications (assuming there are any).



What are the limits of the players' ability to do that?  I assume that they can't just sit down and agree that aliens come and beam Cowstantinopleville off planet and then start a farm in the crater.


innerdude said:


> If a player's proposed change to the fiction state is fully consistent with the situation, framing, and mechanical outcome, and the group agrees that this change in the fiction is now true, there is no option for the GM to say*, "Hey, whoah whoah whoah --- if what you've just said is true, it will completely invalidate Scene 24 [a smashing scene, in which there aren't any coconuts], will completely ruin what I had planned for NPC McDizzle, and it completely invalidates what was supposed to happen in the city of Cowstantinopleville."*



So I get that there are major differences in the two styles.  I'm not saying otherwise, but the parts I've bolded above don't happen in my playstyle, either.  Not unless the DM is violating the social contract himself, which is not a playstyle issue. While the DM has the authority to do so, he just plain won't.  If the PCs spoil McDizzle's plans, good on them.  If they stop what was supposed to happen in Cowstantinopleville, then they've put their mark on the world and made it their own like I've been saying.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Ok, honestly, can you explain to me how the bolded part happens... without me ascribing to a playstyle agenda?  The fact that you use the word grouping when I am approaching individual techniques seems to suggest that you are still approaching it from a play style perspective as opposed to a results driven perspective but I could be wrong.
> 
> The clock was going to be player facing, I didn't see a list of how they could affect it but I know me and I would have preferred to have presented that in fiction with clarification taking place OOC if needed.  I would have left the things that could affect it open ended but I would have clearly telegraphed if an action would either through the fiction or again with an OOC offside note.



So, compatible techniques, or ones that serve a play goal, tend to cluster up in groups that are easily described by the playstyles.  There's some blur, sure, but it's not a matter of the playstyles obscuring the tools, but that they're convenient labels for tools that work well together.


----------



## innerdude

I have to add, by the way --- a lot of people have been saying things like, "I wouldn't like your style of game."

This isn't "my" style of game. I'm not beholden to it. I'm trying out Ironsworn because I completely burned out on GM-led "setting tourism" as a player during a friend's Shaintar campaign two years ago.

And what else was I supposed to do other than try something different? Sure, I could have jumped back on the "sandbox" train, come up with some vastly detailed world again, and dropped my players into it. But at some point, I figured I needed to know if this whole player-facing thing actually worked or not. At least know if it was a viable option.

And what do you know, it was really different from what I've tried before. (That was kind of the point). And what do you know, it actually _works_.

Truthfully, this thread has actually spurred a desire to start building another detailed campaign world, just so I can try out a "sandbox" style game and compare the results when we're done with Ironsworn next year. I'm actually quite impressed with the level of fervor posited by those who play GM-led sandboxes, because it makes me want to see if maybe I missed something the last time around, or if it could be done better than what I've either run or played in the past.

My expositions in this thread are mostly to demonstrate my own experience, and to show that a GM who at one time was highly skeptical that a player-facing style of game would work at all is now saying, "Huh, it does work, and it works pretty damn well to boot."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> @Bedrockgames
> 
> I don't see different sorts of roleplaying game styles as platonic ideals anymore than I would see poker, spades, or euchre as some sort of platonic ideal. I find that most people if they are willing to give a game a real shot can enjoy a variety of different play experiences. I can't imagine always playing the same sort of game in the same sort of way with the same people. I honestly think the player type style analysis that pegs players into round little holes we expect them to always conform to does most players a great disservice.
> 
> For me personally some of my worst experiences in gaming have come from a GM attempting to make tonal and style shifts to please players (often me). I can enjoy most games even games I'm not super keen on, but nothing disrupts the experience for me like the game shifting from under me.
> 
> Furthermore when I read accounts of playing with people who all interested in these vastly different things it kind of puts me off because it seems like everyone is just there for their own kinks - not really playing a game together. I would much rather play a game that is less than ideal for me that is a shared experience than one built to fulfill individual player desires separately. What's fun for me is not fun if the other people at the table are not into it.




In some ways we are saying the same thing: the point of having a preference isn't to ruin other peoples' enjoyment. One way to accommodate other peoples preferences is on the player side, with people willing to engage a style that is outside their normal preference, and I see nothing wrong with this. I do that myself a lot. But I also can say from experience play styles can be like straight jackets. I know there is a purity philosophy that can sometimes take hold in a sandbox, and its fine if you happen to have five players who all want a pure sandbox. But my experience is most groups just are not that homogenous and you need to adapt to the needs of the group. Obviously how you adapt is always a potential issue (I can ruin the game for three players by adapting it for one). My point is just, the GM really ought to focus what is happening in real life, at the table, not on some ideal in their head about play styles. There are a lot of ideas that work great in internet discussions and fit neatly into boxes in online dialogue that can break down at a real table. 

Also my preference tends to be for long campaigns with the same group of players. So there may be a difference there (when I play one shots using a hyper focused playstyle, I am a lot less worried about things breaking down because it is a one shot).


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> I have to add, by the way --- a lot of people have been saying things like, "I wouldn't like your style of game."
> 
> This isn't "my" style of game. I'm not beholden to it. I'm trying out Ironsworn because I completely burned out on GM-led "setting tourism" as a player during a friend's Shaintar campaign two years ago.
> 
> And what else was I supposed to do other than try something different? Sure, I could have jumped back on the "sandbox" train, come up with some vastly detailed world again, and dropped my players into it. But at some point, I figured I needed to know if this whole player-facing thing actually worked or not. At least know if it was a viable option.
> 
> And what do you know, it was really different from what I've tried before. (That was kind of the point). And what do you know, it actually _works_.
> 
> Truthfully, this thread has actually spurred a desire to start building another detailed campaign world, just so I can try out a "sandbox" style game and compare the results when we're done with Ironsworn next year. I'm actually quite impressed with the level of fervor posited by those who play GM-led sandboxes, because it makes me want to see if maybe I missed something the last time around, or if it could be done better than what I've either run or played in the past.
> 
> My expositions in this thread are mostly to demonstrate my own experience, and to show that a GM who at one time was highly skeptical that a player-facing style of game would work at all is now saying, "Huh, it does work, and it works pretty damn well to boot."



That was a very good post.  The only think that stands out to me is "Setting tourism."  That smacks of a DM who is too tight on the reigns and that leads to bad experiences.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton  Given that what I was trying to illustrate is the very possibility of protagonist play in a solely GM-built world I don't find your reading odd. My point about the world is that it doesn't need to be built with the players dramatic needs in mind, or at least that dramatic needs can be present and lead to protagonist play even when that isn't the case. Sure, some of that, depending on prep, is very much asking questions and building on answers. However, that pit fighter player doesn't have to have any authorial control over where pit fighting happens, or anything pitfighter-related in terms of world building, in order to take on that dramatic need and have it resolved in play.

Something to keep at the forefront here is that most GM built worlds don't have enough granularity to really get in the way of this anyway. Pit fighting, for example, is something that could be present in some fashion just about anywhere, and in those cases GM creativity will find a home for it. A 'pure sandbox' isn't any different in this regard. My actual point about dramatic needs and protagonist play is that the primary tool needed to have it in a game is Gm-player agreement and some attention to bringing it to the fore in terms of roleplaying and framing (respectively). Here is where asking questions and building on the answers is indeed a primary tool. However, those questions and answers to not have to be in terms of authorial control over setting details in order to work. This can work in a 'GM notes only' world just fine. In this case they will work at the level of driving character actions, both in terms of individual (call it tactical) action declaration and also in terms of the characters broader interactions with the diegetic frame.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> That was a very good post.  The only think that stands out to me is "Setting tourism."  That smacks of a DM who is too tight on the reigns and that leads to bad experiences.




Setting tourism is definitely something I feel I strive to avoid (just like I threw my hands up and said "might as well just hand the players my notes" when I got sick of linear adventures, this would be a similar exclamation of frustration I think for a sandbox that isn't really doing what it should). The synergy in a sandbox really is at the core of it and if you aren't having players actively engaging and helping the shape the direction of things through their characters then it is a sandbox with no fuel and it probably can just start to become setting tourism


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> What are the limits of the players' ability to do that?  I assume that they can't just sit down and agree that aliens come and beam Cowstantinopleville off planet and then start a farm in the crater.




Well, yeah, obviously. Principled PbtA play doesn't allow players to completely run off the rails in changing established fiction. 

It's actually been quite surprising, really, just how careful my players have been about really shaping the results of their "moves" into the fiction. It's been refreshing, and gratifying, and collaborative, and very much harmonious. The players themselves are keenly interested in helping the other players have fun, and push the fiction towards things that address the characters' respective dramatic needs (aka, Iron Vows). 

In these instances, really, the GM's role is kind of like the role of the Vice-President of the U.S. in relation to the Senate. (S)he doesn't have a vote on any actual proposed legislation, but can act as a tie-breaker in a deadlock.

Occasional I drop into "senator mode" and propose certain resolutions/additions to fiction, just as a matter of course, but I'm really just an equal among peers, and all ideas are considered.




Maxperson said:


> So I get that there are major differences in the two styles.  I'm not saying otherwise, but the parts I've bolded above don't happen in my playstyle, either.  Not unless the DM is violating the social contract himself, which is not a playstyle issue. While the DM has the authority to do so, he just plain won't.  If the PCs spoil McDizzle's plans, good on them.  If they stop what was supposed to happen in Cowstantinopleville, then they've put their mark on the world and made it their own like I've been saying.




I see what you're saying; I think in Ironsworn it just goes a step further, which is, don't lament or celebrate the fact that McDizzle's plans and Cowstantinopleville's plot line have been counteracted. 

Rather, don't have things to be counteracted in the first place.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> So, compatible techniques, or ones that serve a play goal, tend to cluster up in groups that are easily described by the playstyles.  There's some blur, sure, but it's not a matter of the playstyles obscuring the tools, but that they're convenient labels for tools that work well together.



I'd rather be the judge of what does or doesn't work in what combination at my table.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Over the past few years I've GMed two AD&D one-offs: one using X2 Castle Amber, one using random dungeon generation from DMG Appendix A.
> 
> In both games the players made choices that drove the action in the sense that (i) those actions moved the PCs on the map and hence (ii) determined who/what the PCs encountered, leading to (iii) player decisions about what to do with those encounters. Neither was a game about the dramatic needs of the PCs. The PCs didn't even have dramatic needs! They had races, classes, names, alignments, a little bit of colour, but otherwise these games were just for fun with a bit of skilled play.



This is somewhat self-fulfilling, though, in that if it's known going in that these are to be just one-offs there's not much reason for the players to bother developing any sort of dramatic arcs, nor is there really enough time for any to develop during play.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I know what "collectively determines" means.  The exact method may vary, but it's still the group figuring it out, so there is no real discovery going on.  He also mentioned random rolls on charts, but that isn't the group determining anything.



Re random charts: look at the actual system @innerdude is referring to. It's the Ironsworn Oracles. These require interpretation and application. You can learn more about them by downloading the system for free from DTRPG, like I did.

Re collective decision-making: of course there can be discovery. I work through ideas with groups of people all the time. (Including in RPGing.) And discovery is one frequent outcome of doing that.



Maxperson said:


> If I've pre-determined something, it's established fiction, just like if you've come up with some piece of fiction on the fly and established it.  So we're both starting from the same point.  Established fiction.  Now the players make declarations of actions or the equivalent.  Happens in both styles of games.  We're still paralleling.  Now, the DM comes with an extrapolation based on the established fiction and the players actions and comes up with a result(fictional element).



The fact that both processes result in established fiction doesn't make them the same process.

Whether I buy a cake or make a cake, I end up with a cake. But the process and experiences are different. Whether I sing a song or put on a record, I and my family and housemates get to hear a song. The process and experiences are different.

RPGing is also a creative endeavour that has some resemblance to both those examples.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Setting tourism is definitely something I feel I strive to avoid (just like I threw my hands up and said "might as well just hand the players my notes" when I got sick of linear adventures, this would be a similar exclamation of frustration I think for a sandbox that isn't really doing what it should). The synergy in a sandbox really is at the core of it and if you aren't having players actively engaging and helping the shape the direction of things through their characters then it is a sandbox with no fuel and it probably can just start to become setting tourism



Absolutely.  Proactive players are a must for a Sandbox.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The fact that both processes result in established fiction doesn't make them the same process.



I never claimed it was the same process.  But there are a lot of similarities as I just showed. 


pemerton said:


> Whether I buy a cake or make a cake, I end up with a cake. But the process and experiences are different. Whether I sing a song or put on a record, I and my family and housemates get to hear a song. The process and experiences are different.



Yep, but in this case we're both making cake with many similar ingredients.  We just have different flavors and frostings, and you put cherries in yours. Maybe you mix yours by hand and I use a mixer.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> This is somewhat self-fulfilling, though, in that if it's known going in that these are to be just one-offs there's not much reason for the players to bother developing any sort of dramatic arcs, nor is there really enough time for any to develop during play.



And yet our one-off sessions of Cthulhu Dark and Wuthering Heights have had dramatic arcs aplenty.

So did our first session of Prince Valiant - and at that point we didn't know whether or not it would be a one-off.

The reason there was no dramatic need for those PCs in the AD&D games was because AD&D - especially played via X2 or Appendix A - simply does not make these any sort of priority for play. And as I've posted, Classic Traveller does not foreground them in the way that Burning Wheel does. Classic Traveller has quite a bit of procedural play as part of its overall package.


----------



## pemerton

On collaborative creativity and discovery:

Humans tend to find it easy to tell stories, and imagine more things happening than came out expressly in the story. We can speculate about "what happens next" after the end of a film or book. We can debate about what the events of a story tell us about the personality of a character from it, and thereby debate about how that character would respond in some other situation that was not part of the story and hence has never been authored.

Sometimes those ideas are arrived at through reasoning. Sometimes they occur spontaneously.

The way that the sort of play @innerdude is describing works is by drawing upon, and deploying, these human tendencies and capacities. So the dice are rolled and the result dictates that the barkeep knows two useful things. And so then everyone at the table wonders, _what might those things be?_ And one player says "Didn't we learn last session that the barkeep's cousin once fought in the shadow wars? And just before you (the GM) mentioned something the barkeep seemed to be keeping hidden under the bar. It's probably the cousin's sword or armour from their time as a warrior!" Of course, when the GM mentioned the barkeep's furtive glances to something under the bar she may, or may not, have had some idea about what it might be. But that's not established fiction and so doesn't matter at this point.

And then someone else says something, and at the same time the GM says "The barkeep reaches under the bar and pulls out something long and wrapped in oiled cloth. . . ." And so the conversation goes on. And all the participants experienced a revelation: the mechanically-generated obligation to add new fiction satisfying a particular requirement has led some throwaway or off-the-cuff remarks from a session ago, or 5 minutes ago, to crystallise into this new thing. But no one sat down and self-consciously authored it. They spun it out of what was already there, and the trajectories and possibilities it suggested, because _that's what people do when they encounter stories and set their imagination to work_.

The sort of thing I've just described happens all the time in my games, with players introducing new fiction because _that's obviously how it is _given what's already been established, and what seems to be implied by what came before. Sometimes as GM I will step in and throttle it back a bit if it seems to contradict something established or some part of the framing; but most of the time I just run with it.

As a player, it's pretty different from being told by the GM what s/he extrapolates from his/her notes. As a GM, it's pretty different from working with notes or extrapolations therefrom.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Sometimes those ideas are arrived at through reasoning. Sometimes they occur spontaneously.
> 
> The way that the sort of play @innerdude is describing works is by drawing upon, and deploying, these human tendencies and capacities. So the dice are rolled and the result dictates that the barkeep knows two useful things. And so then everyone at the table wonders, _what might those things be?_ And one player says "Didn't we learn last session that the barkeep's cousin once fought in the shadow wars? And just before you (the GM) mentioned something the barkeep seemed to be keeping hidden under the bar. It's probably the cousin's sword or armour from their time as a warrior!" Of course, when the GM mentioned the barkeep's furtive glances to something under the bar she may, or may not, have had some idea about what it might be. But that's not established fiction and so doesn't matter at this point.
> 
> And then someone else says something, and at the same time the GM says "The barkeep reaches under the bar and pulls out something long and wrapped in oiled cloth. . . ." And so the conversation goes on. And all the participants experienced a revelation: the mechanically-generated obligation to add new fiction satisfying a particular requirement has led some throwaway or off-the-cuff remarks from a session ago, or 5 minutes ago, to crystallise into this new thing. But no one sat down and self-consciously authored it. They spun it out of what was already there, and the trajectories and possibilities it suggested, because _that's what people do when they encounter stories and set their imagination to work_.



The only difference between that and me as DM remembering his cousin fighting in the shadow wars and having him pull the sword in the oil cloth in response to their investigation(or whatever) roll, is that I did it instead of it being collaborative.  The rest of the process is the same.  It was founded on pre-established fiction and I created it in response to the players actions.


pemerton said:


> As a player, it's pretty different from being told by the GM what s/he extrapolates from his/her notes. As a GM, it's pretty different from working with notes or extrapolations therefrom.



It is different.  All of you created the notes instead of the DM.  That's pretty much it.  Otherwise what you describe also happens outside of that style of play.  It may not happen in every sandbox, because each DM is different, but for those like me who don't have time to prep every detail, we improv small things like that all the time.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> The way that the sort of play @innerdude is describing works is by drawing upon, and deploying, these human tendencies and capacities. So the dice are rolled and the result dictates that the barkeep knows two useful things. And so then everyone at the table wonders, _what might those things be?_ And one player says "Didn't we learn last session that the barkeep's cousin once fought in the shadow wars? And just before you (the GM) mentioned something the barkeep seemed to be keeping hidden under the bar. It's probably the cousin's sword or armour from their time as a warrior!" Of course, when the GM mentioned the barkeep's furtive glances to something under the bar she may, or may not, have had some idea about what it might be. But that's not established fiction and so doesn't matter at this point.
> 
> And then someone else says something, and at the same time the GM says "The barkeep reaches under the bar and pulls out something long and wrapped in oiled cloth. . . ." And so the conversation goes on. And all the participants experienced a revelation: the mechanically-generated obligation to add new fiction satisfying a particular requirement has led some throwaway or off-the-cuff remarks from a session ago, or 5 minutes ago, to crystallise into this new thing. But no one sat down and self-consciously authored it. They spun it out of what was already there, and the trajectories and possibilities it suggested, because _that's what people do when they encounter stories and set their imagination to work_.
> 
> The sort of thing I've just described happens all the time in my games, with players introducing new fiction because _that's obviously how it is _given what's already been established, and what seems to be implied by what came before. Sometimes as GM I will step in and throttle it back a bit if it seems to contradict something established or some part of the framing; but most of the time I just run with it.



This in large part how my 5E games run (though working out the properties of the sword in your example might need some out-of-band time) which I believe is ... not how you'd expect either from how you've tended to describe 5E or how you've tended to describe your understanding of my preferred playstyle. More broadly, there's no irreconcilable difference between the GM working things out beforehand and the table (as a whole) improvising things in actual play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton  Given that what I was trying to illustrate is the very possibility of protagonist play in a solely GM-built world I don't find your reading odd. My point about the world is that it doesn't need to be built with the players dramatic needs in mind, or at least that dramatic needs can be present and lead to protagonist play even when that isn't the case. Sure, some of that, depending on prep, is very much asking questions and building on answers. However, that pit fighter player doesn't have to have any authorial control over where pit fighting happens, or anything pitfighter-related in terms of world building, in order to take on that dramatic need and have it resolved in play.



So, this is a well made statement that goes to one of the points that seems to be being missed:  protagonism isn't the meeting of a PC's dramatic needs, it's the _focus upon them_.  The point you're making here is that a PC might have some dramatic need(s), and that in a GM curated world that PC might still be able to, either with or without GM assistance, fulfill those needs.  This is absolutely true.  However, the point of protagonism isn't that a dramatic need is fulfilled, else that would just be talked about as fulfilling dramatic needs.  Instead, the point has been that protagonism is where the game's point, it's focus, what it does in almost every moment, is about the dramatic needs of the PCs.  It's not "did you fulfill your character's personal quest," but rather, "was play focused entirely on your character's personal quest?"

This is really why it's been strange, to me, to see people claiming that they have protagonism in their games, because PCs can pursue personal goals or dramatic needs, because this isn't really what defines protagonism -- it is necessary, but not sufficient.  Instead, the kind of play that protagonism engenders is specifically the kind of play that many of these posters have clearly said they dislike or do not want to try.  So, thanks for this clear statement, because it really goes to the heart, I think, of this confusion.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> This in large part how my 5E games run (though working out the properties of the sword in your example might need some out-of-band time) which I believe is ... not how you'd expect either from how you've tended to describe 5E or how you've tended to describe your understanding of my preferred playstyle. More broadly, there's no irreconcilable difference between the GM working things out beforehand and the table (as a whole) improvising things in actual play.



I think there's some pretty big differences.  Again, if you're talking about trying to tell those differences from the fiction that is generated only, then, sure, it's very hard to discern any difference.  However, in action, at the table, there's pretty large differences in how it actually happens.  And these lend very different feels to the game.  I try to be very open to player input when I run, largely due to influences from other games, and I can say, as a GM, these feel very different in practice.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I think there's some pretty big differences.  Again, if you're talking about trying to tell those differences from the fiction that is generated only, then, sure, it's very hard to discern any difference.  However, in action, at the table, there's pretty large differences in how it actually happens.  And these lend very different feels to the game.  I try to be very open to player input when I run, largely due to influences from other games, and I can say, as a GM, these feel very different in practice.



One of the reasons I strongly prefer gaming as close to around-a-table as possible is that I listen to what the players are saying, and I react to it. Sometimes they have good ideas that surprise me, and they happen; sometimes they have ideas that inspire me to have good ideas, and those happen. It's not formalized or mechanical, but I think it leads to a similar place.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> One of the reasons I strongly prefer gaming as close to around-a-table as possible is that I listen to what the players are saying, and I react to it. Sometimes they have good ideas that surprise me, and they happen; sometimes they have ideas that inspire me to have good ideas, and those happen. It's not formalized or mechanical, but I think it leads to a similar place.



Right, 110% with you on this.  But, there's a pretty big difference between you as the GM taking something player puts out there and running with it how you want to and being constrained by it via the procedures of play.  I think there's quite a bit of daylight between using players as an input to what I, the GM, thinks is happening and being required to.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> So, this is a well made statement that goes to one of the points that seems to be being missed:  protagonism isn't the meeting of a PC's dramatic needs, it's the _focus upon them_.  The point you're making here is that a PC might have some dramatic need(s), and that in a GM curated world that PC might still be able to, either with or without GM assistance, fulfill those needs.  This is absolutely true.  However, the point of protagonism isn't that a dramatic need is fulfilled, else that would just be talked about as fulfilling dramatic needs.  Instead, the point has been that protagonism is where the game's point, it's focus, what it does in almost every moment, is about the dramatic needs of the PCs.  It's not "did you fulfill your character's personal quest," but rather, "was play focused entirely on your character's personal quest?"
> 
> This is really why it's been strange, to me, to see people claiming that they have protagonism in their games, because PCs can pursue personal goals or dramatic needs, because this isn't really what defines protagonism -- it is necessary, but not sufficient.  Instead, the kind of play that protagonism engenders is specifically the kind of play that many of these posters have clearly said they dislike or do not want to try.  So, thanks for this clear statement, because it really goes to the heart, I think, of this confusion.



I agree. My point was more about how the focus on dramatic needs isn't necessarily dependent on system or setting, as much as those can both scaffold it. It can be accomplished strictly through the focus of play, as you describe. I would be the first person to say that in some of the examples I've given protagonist play might not be the natural or even likely game state, but _could_ be if that's what the table wanted.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The only difference between that and me as DM remembering his cousin fighting in the shadow wars and having him pull the sword in the oil cloth in response to their investigation(or whatever) roll, is that I did it instead of it being collaborative.



Yes. Who is disagreeing with this? But that difference is pretty fundamental, given that (i) it is a difference in who creates the shared fiction, and (ii) most RPGing has creation of and participation in a shared fiction as a core component.



Maxperson said:


> It is different.  All of you created the notes instead of the DM.  That's pretty much it.  Otherwise what you describe also happens outside of that style of play.



"That style of play" - ie what @innerdude is describing, which is a contribution to the discussion about protagonism and the role of the GM's notes - is entirely about _everyone _rather than _just the GM_ establishing the fiction. There are all sorts of ways of doing this, and I just described one in my post - trying to elaborate on what @innerdude had described in his posts. Other ways include questions from GM to player (eg "He seems angry at you. What did you do last time you were here that p*ssed him off?"); or player contributions in PC building (eg "My bond is to my mother who still lives on our ancestral estate"); or, etc.

Saying "that's pretty much it" seems not to be taking seriously what is a fundamental point of difference in approaches to RPGing.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Awesome. That is helpful.
> 
> Now zoom that out to the conflict level.
> 
> What does that loop look like?
> 
> Now zoom that out to the session level (I know all sessions are different...but the orthodox through line of a session).
> 
> What does that loop look like?



Well, when designing the world, and especially the sandbox which as you know is a small far more detailed chunk of the overall world,  I create a place with a lot of problems.  Evil sorts of all kinds are about doing their wicked things.  There are also long buried lost dungeons and tombs on occasion as well.  I also have types who are not perhaps outright evil in the big E sense but are shady or self serving.   I like ACKS definition for Law, Chaos, or Neutral.   Law if fighting for what you view as civilization.  Chaos are those trying to tear it down.   Neutrals are those who serve themselves and give lip service to Law while gladly living under its protection.

I have a calendar of their activities usually planned out for some time in the future.  It's not as complicated as you might think but it's there.

The players then start interacting with the world and choose who or what they will interfere with as they go about their lives.  There really is no session concept.  We stop, at a good spot when we can but not always, and we start again later.   It's continuous.   

Conflict occurs when the PCs start interfering with bad guys plans or start making plans that naturally run afoul of the bad guys.  So PCs may check around looking for adventure and there may be some legends the local populace knows.   There may be rumors in the tavern.  On occasion they may encounter the outcome of some evil guy's work and decide to oppose him.  The players just do whatever they want and we see what happens.  

I think a lot of the way you frame games is an outcome of your playstyle but it's not natural to me.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> As some posters have said (eg @Maxperson, @Emerikol) they prefer to engage with fiction in this fashion. Rather than contributing directly to it themselves. And as @hawkeyefan has said, this seems to be an example of the players learning either (i) what is already in the GM's notes, or (ii) what the GM is extrapolating to and (literally or figuratively) adding to his/her notes.



I know what you mean but in both games the PCs are contributing to the fiction in the sense they are changing the world.

So here is an observation.  One big facet of my style is character viewpoint and decision making.  Roleplaying to me to becoming your character.  You make decisions like you are that character.  You seek knowledge from the world the same way I would seek knowledge in this world.  We just want to play another role in a make believe world.  But we want to play a role.  

We don't want to cooperatively write a story with someone else which is more what your style of play seems to be to me.   I mean in both cases a story emerges and as memories go that can be enjoyable regardless.  But the joy of the story for me was that I was that character and I overcome those challenges which were real challenges and triumphed.   That means that sometimes when I play the game I die or don't triumph.  It's necessary for there to be triumph on occasion as well.


----------



## Emerikol

I think one big disconnect here is the very concept of a roleplaying game.  I feel like the ironsworn crowd are playing a game but are they playing a roleplaying game?   It's how far apart the two ideas are in terms of how the game is approached.

I've always thought roleplaying was playing a role which of necessity means you aren't doing anything else because being in character means you aren't making out of character decisions.   So your character is not a piece in a game.   Your character is you.   The GM's job is to convey what your senses are perceiving, and adjudicate your actions as a result.   So the GM is neutral in that sense.   The GM is stepping into and out of NPCs because he is not roleplaying in the same sense the others are roleplaying.  He is assisting them to roleplay.  

I've very much in the "you are the character" viewpoint mode.  It is also why I don't like dissociative mechanics.   Making metagame decisions is not being "in character"


----------



## Ovinomancer

@Emerikol 

Your last two posts show a deep ignorance of the games you're describing.  Like, fundamentally deep.  It's verging on not even wrong.

You can dislike these games all you want -- no issues, no problems.  But, your description of them in these last two posts is laughably incorrect.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> @Emerikol
> 
> Your last two posts show a deep ignorance of the games you're describing.  Like, fundamentally deep.  It's verging on not even wrong.
> 
> You can dislike these games all you want -- no issues, no problems.  But, your description of them in these last two posts is laughably incorrect.



It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character.  The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.   Perhaps instead of ridiculing me you might explain your position.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Perhaps what is needed (and maybe it has already been done to death in this thread, I suspect) is to run through 2 examples of play and how differently they would be handled in each system but particularly an example where substantial player-driven fiction is established. Also understanding the limitations that may be placed on the player generated fiction.

What I mean by the last part.
Situation: PC's brother was kidnapped.
Player input, attend town market square and ask around to determine if  
(1) someone saw x; 
(2) someone saw that my brother was taken by person x; or
(3) someone saw that my brother was taken to location x.

Can the player generate any of the above? Can the DC be raised depending on the fictional content generated i.e will a DM increase the DC for (3) as opposed to (1) - will this be communicated to the PC beforehand to curb his content or is this all done behind a screen...etc
I'm obviously suspecting that the reason for the roll would be to determine if there is a complication and the level thereof.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character.  The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.   Perhaps instead of ridiculing me you might explain your position.



There are tons of ways, but let me pluck the low hanging fruit. First, in a game with the authorial permission we're talking about a player can, for example, speak in character about new facts related to their background. So a fighter might say _the gladiatorial schools in Omnia are brutal, especially the House of Grinnell, they whip their slaves with a barbed lash_ if that fact is something that the character might know even in cases where the GM had nothing written about those schools or their character. This kind of thing often happens by GM invitation in games where it's common, with phrases like_ tell me how your character might know this_.

Second, and perhaps more important for your understanding of how these games work, is that much of this talk actually happens out of character. RPGs focus in and out of full in-character play and this kind of new fact often gets discussed during what we might broadly call downtime, where the focus zooms out a little and the players (and GM) talk about the game but only partially or even not at all in character.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character.  The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.   Perhaps instead of ridiculing me you might explain your position.



"Barkeep, a flagon of your best ale," says Bob the Fighter's player.  
GM:  Sure, the barkeep busies himself with a small tun next to the main keg, and brings you a frothy mug, saying, "that'll be 5 silver."
Player:  When he passes me the mug, I'll grab his wrist, drop a 10 gp on the bartop, and say, "and also any information you have on the whereabouts of NotBob the Vile."

This is in character, right?  Fiction is generated, right?  The difference in games is that in a GM curated game, what happens next is according to what the GM thinks should happen next.  This might be in their notes -- they might have a note that says the barkeep knows something, and so they pass that on.  Or, they might ad lib it, and say, sure, he's knows something, and pull out their notes about NotBob and pick a juicy tidbit.  Or, they might decide this barkeep knows nothing, or lies, or calls for the bouncer... the point being that whatever happens, it does so according to what the GM thinks should happen, up to and include calling for a check and what the stakes for that check are.

In the games you're mistaken about, the above happens exactly the same way, but the GM cannot say no, they can only either say yes or go to the mechanics.  On a failure, the GM is required to make the situation worse for the players -- no soft pedaling here.  Something goes wrong.  On a success, the GM is required to have the barkeep know something about NotBob, and it must be useful.  Most of these games have a success with cost outcome as well, where the player gets something they want, but also something they don't want.  The point being, the mechanics directly flow from the fiction, and the players can be as in character as they can be in other games.

Here's what this would look like in Blades:

GM:  okay, that sounds pretty easy, so I'd consider it a Controlled action.  However, that's a lot of coin for this area, and there are seedy types around, so let's bump that to Risky -- things could go sideways.  But, since that is a lot of coin, let's say the Effect is Great -- you succeed and that coin will go a long way.  What are you rolling?
Player:  I'm rolling Sway, I have 2 dice, but this is important, so I'll push for a third.  <rolls>  A six!
GM:  Great!  The barkeep makes the coin disappear in a smooth motion, leans in, and says, "NotBob is in the private dining room through that door.  He has 2 other guys with him, but they left about 10 minutes ago, don't know where, so he's by himself.  You pay for damages." and he goes to the other end of the bar and ignores you.

The mechanical bits here really aren't any more intrusive that in a D&D game, where the GM calls for a CHA(diplomacy) check.  The biggest difference is that the stakes are made clear, which I recommend for D&D games as well.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> "Barkeep, a flagon of your best ale," says Bob the Fighter's player.
> GM:  Sure, the barkeep busies himself with a small tun next to the main keg, and brings you a frothy mug, saying, "that'll be 5 silver."
> Player:  When he passes me the mug, I'll grab his wrist, drop a 10 gp on the bartop, and say, "and also any information you have on the whereabouts of NotBob the Vile."



This is so internally inconsistent and dissociated.

(A) NotBob is NOT vile (anyone who’s been around NotBob for even a minute knows he’s a swell dude...this just feels made up...and not in a good way) and (B) grabbing wrists requires an attack roll...so PCs can now just grapple whenever/whatever they want because their player says they do?

Ok, “I GRAB THE MOON MR GM...WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?!”


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> "Barkeep, a flagon of your best ale," says Bob the Fighter's player.
> GM:  Sure, the barkeep busies himself with a small tun next to the main keg, and brings you a frothy mug, saying, "that'll be 5 silver."
> Player:  When he passes me the mug, I'll grab his wrist, drop a 10 gp on the bartop, and say, "and also any information you have on the whereabouts of NotBob the Vile."
> 
> This is in character, right?  Fiction is generated, right?  The difference in games is that in a GM curated game, what happens next is according to what the GM thinks should happen next.  This might be in their notes -- they might have a note that says the barkeep knows something, and so they pass that on.  Or, they might ad lib it, and say, sure, he's knows something, and pull out their notes about NotBob and pick a juicy tidbit.  Or, they might decide this barkeep knows nothing, or lies, or calls for the bouncer... the point being that whatever happens, it does so according to what the GM thinks should happen, up to and include calling for a check and what the stakes for that check are.



I don't see the fiction generated in your example at that point.  The fiction is generated when the GM rolls and determines a result.

So in a game with a predefined reality,  
1.  The GM would first no if the barkeep knows NotBob the Vile.  So a roll very much could be made depending on the value of the coin in hand and the barkeeps fear of NotBob and fear of the PC.   
2.  if the roll is successful, the information known to the barkeep would be given and if not successful the barkeep would likely lie.

The difference would be whether there exists a relationship between the barkeep and NotBob the Vile.  In your games, you are establishing a relationship by die roll.  If the die is successful, then the knowledge that the barkeep knows something becomes game knowledge.  In theory it would matter who I talked to in the bar or which barkeep I talked to because the reality will be established by die roll.  That would not be the case in my games.   One barkeep might know a lot more than another.   Now if the DM is out of his element and has to dice for knowledge of the barkeep then the situation would be more similar.  I'd try in most cases in my game to avoid getting in such a situation but I'm sure plenty in my style of gaming do that do to limits on their prep.

I'm primarily focused though on the situation where the PC establishes fiction.  For example, the PC says I am from the great city of Arbigal.   The DM would immediately know that such a city does not exist.  Now, prior to campaign start, the player might say to the DM that he wants to be from the greatest city in the world so the DM gives him the name.   I tend to establish background prior to starting the campaign.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> This is so internally inconsistent and dissociated.
> 
> (A) NotBob is NOT vile (anyone who’s been around NotBob for even a minute knows he’s a swell dude...this just feels made up...and not in a good way) and (B) grabbing wrists requires an attack roll...so PCs can now just grapple whenever/whatever they want because their player says they do?
> 
> Ok, “I GRAB THE MOON MR GM...WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?!”



To the degree I felt grabbing the barkeep was something that would be doubt when it comes to success, I'd require a roll.  In some instances when dealing with a zero level type, a PC might very easily pull this off and it's handwaved.   As DM, I might secretly roll behind the screen and only on a 1 in 20 might I worry about it.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> Well, when designing the world, and especially the sandbox which as you know is a small far more detailed chunk of the overall world,  I create a place with a lot of problems.  Evil sorts of all kinds are about doing their wicked things.  There are also long buried lost dungeons and tombs on occasion as well.  I also have types who are not perhaps outright evil in the big E sense but are shady or self serving.   I like ACKS definition for Law, Chaos, or Neutral.   Law if fighting for what you view as civilization.  Chaos are those trying to tear it down.   Neutrals are those who serve themselves and give lip service to Law while gladly living under its protection.
> 
> I have a calendar of their activities usually planned out for some time in the future.  It's not as complicated as you might think but it's there.
> 
> The players then start interacting with the world and choose who or what they will interfere with as they go about their lives.  There really is no session concept.  We stop, at a good spot when we can but not always, and we start again later.   It's continuous.
> 
> Conflict occurs when the PCs start interfering with bad guys plans or start making plans that naturally run afoul of the bad guys.  So PCs may check around looking for adventure and there may be some legends the local populace knows.   There may be rumors in the tavern.  On occasion they may encounter the outcome of some evil guy's work and decide to oppose him.  The players just do whatever they want and we see what happens.
> 
> *I think a lot of the way you frame games is an outcome of your playstyle but it's not natural to me.*



Thanks for the follow up.

I’ll respond with more later. Just wanted to address the bottom part.

I don’t have a singular play style.

It’s true, I run a lot of Story Now games, but the bulk of my play since ‘84 has either been Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawling (Moldvay) or Classic D&D hexcrawling via BECMI/RC or my hacked AD&D.

It’s probably a 30/30/40 split with the largest % being in your style (though subtly different than the way you do it...certainly more stance pivoting than you).


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> To the degree I felt grabbing the barkeep was something that would be doubt when it comes to success, I'd require a roll.  In some instances when dealing with a zero level type, a PC might very easily pull this off and it's handwaved.   As DM, I might secretly roll behind the screen and only on a 1 in 20 might I worry about it.



I was just being silly


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> There are tons of ways, but let me pluck the low hanging fruit. First, in a game with the authorial permission we're talking about a player can, for example, speak in character about new facts related to their background. So a fighter might say _the gladiatorial schools in Omnia are brutal, especially the House of Grinnell, they whip their slaves with a barbed lash_ if that fact is something that the character might know even in cases where the GM had nothing written about those schools or their character. This kind of thing often happens by GM invitation in games where it's common, with phrases like_ tell me how your character might know this_.



Well when developing a character prior to campaign start, I work with players to come up with a backstory.  A backstory that fits the world.  The conflict would be if there were no gladiatorial schools.  Maybe it's a frontier campaign without even cities.  So developing a backstory is collaborative.  Typically on names and such it's from the GM but on other details the GM will work those in if at all possible.

Now if this happens in game and comes completely out of nowhere, I don't believe your player is acting in character at that moment unless what he is telling the group is some delusion the character has developed that is not true.   The DM may allow it of course but such a declaration is leaving character mode and entering authorial mode.  So it's not in-character.   A character cannot invent a real backstory for himself.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> It’s probably a 30/30/40 split with the largest % being in your style (though subtly different than the way you do it...certainly more stance pivoting than you).



It's not surprising at all as lots of people play lots of games in different ways.  No one is limited to a single style.  I've even said I would try anything for a one shot with friends.  I just don't want to invest a long term campaign in an approach that I don't like nearly as well as I do the one I've defended here.

I actually downloaded ironsworn and looked it over in the last day.  I enjoy studying rules.  I like some of the dice tricks these games use even if I don't like their approach overall.  I love a lot of things about Fate but I can't get past the dissociative mechanics.  I haven't bought cortex plus but again I know the 1's being special things players use later would bug me.   I'm just really a strong advocate of character stance as one of my play priorities.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> Well when developing a character prior to campaign start, I work with players to come up with a backstory.  A backstory that fits the world.  The conflict would be if there were no gladiatorial schools.  Maybe it's a frontier campaign without even cities.  So developing a backstory is collaborative.  Typically on names and such it's from the GM but on other details the GM will work those in if at all possible.
> 
> Now if this happens in game and comes completely out of nowhere, I don't believe your player is acting in character at that moment unless what he is telling the group is some delusion the character has developed that is not true.   The DM may allow it of course but such a declaration is leaving character mode and entering authorial mode.  So it's not in-character.   A character cannot invent a real backstory for himself.



Except it's happening in a game where exactly this sort of thing is not only allowed but expected. And yes, the character very much do exactly that, I play in lots of games where not only does that happen but it works beautifully.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I don't see the fiction generated in your example at that point.  The fiction is generated when the GM rolls and determines a result.



So Bob didn't ask for a mug of ale, and didn't ask for info on NotBob?  This doesn't happen at all until the GM determines the results of the ask that didn't happen?

My answers to my rhetorical questions:  Of course that happened, and it's in the fiction now, else the GM wouldn't have anything to adjudicate.


Emerikol said:


> So in a game with a predefined reality,
> 1.  The GM would first no if the barkeep knows NotBob the Vile.  So a roll very much could be made depending on the value of the coin in hand and the barkeeps fear of NotBob and fear of the PC.
> 2.  if the roll is successful, the information known to the barkeep would be given and if not successful the barkeep would likely lie.



Yes, this is understood.  This is how it works when I run 5e.


Emerikol said:


> The difference would be whether there exists a relationship between the barkeep and NotBob the Vile.  In your games, you are establishing a relationship by die roll.  If the die is successful, then the knowledge that the barkeep knows something becomes game knowledge.  In theory it would matter who I talked to in the bar or which barkeep I talked to because the reality will be established by die roll.  That would not be the case in my games.   One barkeep might know a lot more than another.   Now if the DM is out of his element and has to dice for knowledge of the barkeep then the situation would be more similar.  I'd try in most cases in my game to avoid getting in such a situation but I'm sure plenty in my style of gaming do that do to limits on their prep.



The complaint was about being in character.  How things come to be doesn't affect being in character.  The play, in both games, is the same -- the player makes the action declaration, the GM adjudicates the action, the results are presented, and the player can make more action declarations.  The difference is in the adjudication.  You've moved your complaint for "in character" to "how things are determined."  


Emerikol said:


> I'm primarily focused though on the situation where the PC establishes fiction.  For example, the PC says I am from the great city of Arbigal.   The DM would immediately know that such a city does not exist.  Now, prior to campaign start, the player might say to the DM that he wants to be from the greatest city in the world so the DM gives him the name.   I tend to establish background prior to starting the campaign.



Yes, in a game where the GM has fully established all of the fiction, this is the case.  It's also the case in these other games, if such fiction has been established at the table.  There's nothing that says I can't put a map out and say, "this is where the game takes place."  If, at that time, there isn't a discussion about adding a major landmark like a new city to the map, and the table agrees this is the map, then a player cannot later claim a new landmark because that fiction has been established.  If, however, there's lots of empty spots on the map, or the claimed city is from far away (and doesn't contradict established fiction), then, sure, why not?  I think you're misunderstanding that there are constraints on the player introduction of material just as there are on the GM's introduction of material -- they must be consistent with established fiction and genre appropriate (no laser pistols in a medieval romance, for instance).


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Yes. Who is disagreeing with this? But that difference is pretty fundamental, given that (i) it is a difference in who creates the shared fiction, and (ii) most RPGing has creation of and participation in a shared fiction as a core component.



The point is that notes are being created and used in both playstyles.  Your method just substitutes how you go about "Playing to discover what is in the notes."  The "notes" are a big so what.  And still pejorative the way you use it.  And still wrong.  We do not "Play to discover the DM's notes." no matter how many times you want to repeat it or how badly you want it to be true.


pemerton said:


> "That style of play" - ie what @innerdude is describing, which is a contribution to the discussion about protagonism and the role of the GM's notes - is entirely about _everyone _rather than _just the GM_ establishing the fiction. There are all sorts of ways of doing this, and I just described one in my post - trying to elaborate on what @innerdude had described in his posts. Other ways include questions from GM to player (eg "He seems angry at you. What did you do last time you were here that p*ssed him off?"); or player contributions in PC building (eg "My bond is to my mother who still lives on our ancestral estate"); or, etc.
> 
> Saying "that's pretty much it" seems not to be taking seriously what is a fundamental point of difference in approaches to RPGing.



No.  It isn't that I'm not taking it seriously.  I'm saying that it still involves finding out and building off of notes, just like my playstyle does.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> I think one big disconnect here is the very concept of a roleplaying game.  I feel like the ironsworn crowd are playing a game but are they playing a roleplaying game?   It's how far apart the two ideas are in terms of how the game is approached.
> 
> I've always thought roleplaying was playing a role which of necessity means you aren't doing anything else because being in character means you aren't making out of character decisions.   So your character is not a piece in a game.   Your character is you.   The GM's job is to convey what your senses are perceiving, and adjudicate your actions as a result.   So the GM is neutral in that sense.   The GM is stepping into and out of NPCs because he is not roleplaying in the same sense the others are roleplaying.  He is assisting them to roleplay.
> 
> I've very much in the "you are the character" viewpoint mode.  It is also why I don't like dissociative mechanics.   Making metagame decisions is not being "in character"



I don't think we need an overly narrow definition of roleplaying.  If you are playing a role, then you are still roleplaying and it is a roleplaying game, even if you have other hats on.  As the DM, I guarantee you that even though I have many different hats on, I'm still roleplaying in a roleplaying game, because I take on the roles of various NPCs and monsters.


----------



## innerdude

So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.

There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.

However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer

innerdude said:


> So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.
> 
> There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.
> 
> However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.



I agree, this is a different play agenda from sandbox -- one doesn't require the other.  I think, though, the reason you see them together is that "playing through your character's viewpoint" has an element of the GM adjudicating what's allowable for a character to now.  This goes to being able to have elements of the game be a "mystery" to the PCs, when it isn't really a mystery to the players and also to controlling the flow of information so that planned challenges remain challenging and don't get trivialized by having too much info too soon.  These seem to align to the notions of heavy prep.

Now, this isn't a dig at this approach -- I use info portioning when I run 5e, although I'm can be very loose with it.  I've adopted a stance of overproviding info and just making my design not be sensitive in challenge to having knowledge of it.  To give an example from last weekend's session, the tiefling ranger was confronted by a horned devil, which I gave a visual description of.  However, I didn't know, given this PCs background of wanting to end their family's devilish origin curse, what the PC actually knew about devils -- it makes sense to me that they may know things, so, I asked the player, "Does Orianna know anything about devils?"  The player thought about this, and said, "you know, I don't think she knows much at all, just that one cursed her family."  Okey-dokey, play proceeded without any additional info on the horned devil.  Had the player answered otherwise, then she could tell me what she knows and add it to her backstory, and I'd have provided some details based on that.  I don't see any need to hide such things behind dice -- I'm excited to talk about the horrible monsters that the PCs face!


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.
> 
> There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.
> 
> However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.



This is definitely a key aspect of sandbox. It isn't universal but it is pretty fundamental to how many approach it. But I think they would definitely eschew the actor stance label (it doesn't quite fit because there is room within this style of sandbox for essentially playing yourself and using knowledge your character doesn't have : I think the hard line is about only being able to impact the setting through your character's actions and words.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> No.  It isn't that I'm not taking it seriously.  I'm saying that it still involves finding out and building off of notes, just like my playstyle does.



There does seem to be a flaw in the logic of it is GMs notes when the GM in all these instances. I mean why is it GMs notes when the GM improvises and ads something new, but if players are allowed to do that, it becomes something other than notes


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree, this is a different play agenda from sandbox -- one doesn't require the other.  I think, though, the reason you see them together is that "playing through your character's viewpoint" has an element of the GM adjudicating what's allowable for a character to now.  This goes to being able to have elements of the game be a "mystery" to the PCs, when it isn't really a mystery to the players and also to controlling the flow of information so that planned challenges remain challenging and don't get trivialized by having too much info too soon.  These seem to align to the notions of heavy prep.
> 
> Now, this isn't a dig at this approach -- I use info portioning when I run 5e, although I'm can be very loose with it.  I've adopted a stance of overproviding info and just making my design not be sensitive in challenge to having knowledge of it.  To give an example from last weekend's session, the tiefling ranger was confronted by a horned devil, which I gave a visual description of.  However, I didn't know, given this PCs background of wanting to end their family's devilish origin curse, what the PC actually knew about devils -- it makes sense to me that they may know things, so, I asked the player, "Does Orianna know anything about devils?"  The player thought about this, and said, "you know, I don't think she knows much at all, just that one cursed her family."  Okey-dokey, play proceeded without any additional info on the horned devil.  Had the player answered otherwise, then she could tell me what she knows and add it to her backstory, and I'd have provided some details based on that.  I don't see any need to hide such things behind dice -- I'm excited to talk about the horrible monsters that the PCs face!



Even sandbox gaming does not own the idea of GM created in game reality.  People doing APs for example so sure there are a group if concepts I hold dear to my gaming.  I listed them off.  They aren't interconnected necessarily.   I do though think when you allow players to introduce new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character that at least temporarily you are stepping out of the character viewpoint.   

I've listed these before but I will again for reference.  
1.  Sandbox world.  GM provides a lot of detailed areas and the PCs do as they will inside the sandbox.

2.  Skilled Play.  Meaning prep, strategy, and tactics matter.   My players have often spent time discussing the equipment they will take on a particular journey.   They also plot strategy against certain really tough monsters especially if defeated on their first encounter.   If you don't search for a secret door, you may not get what's behind the door and if your search skill is not good enough you may not get it.  

3.  Character Viewpoint - Some might call this Actor stance and they may be right but I don't want to defend every aspect of it if I've misjudged it's usage.  I'm leery of loaded terms with you guys.   Basically you can only do what your character could do.   You perceive the world via description from the GM.

4.  DM neutrality and fairness in adjudication.  Let the dice fall where they fall.

All of the above are things I consider pretty important.  

I do think though that those wanting a character viewpoint will of necessity want a GM based reality world.  The reverse is not necessarily true.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> There are tons of ways, but let me pluck the low hanging fruit. First, in a game with the authorial permission we're talking about a player can, for example, speak in character about new facts related to their background. So a fighter might say _the gladiatorial schools in Omnia are brutal, especially the House of Grinnell, they whip their slaves with a barbed lash_ if that fact is something that the character might know even in cases where the GM had nothing written about those schools or their character. This kind of thing often happens by GM invitation in games where it's common, with phrases like_ tell me how your character might know this_.
> 
> Second, and perhaps more important for your understanding of how these games work, is that much of this talk actually happens out of character. RPGs focus in and out of full in-character play and this kind of new fact often gets discussed during what we might broadly call downtime, where the focus zooms out a little and the players (and GM) talk about the game but only partially or even not at all in character.



I totally get that these sorts of things can be mixed in together in various ways.  If you don't care that much about what I prioritize then mixing and matching to the degree you care makes sense.   My limit is I try to establish non-character decisions by the player to pre-campaign.   So I work with them to create a backstory that fits the world.   So if he has an abstract idea about being the lost orphan of a famous pirate, I check my world for places pirates exist and go from there.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Even sandbox gaming does not own the idea of GM created in game reality.  People doing APs for example so sure there are a group if concepts I hold dear to my gaming.  I listed them off.  They aren't interconnected necessarily.   I do though think when you allow players to introduce new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character that at least temporarily you are stepping out of the character viewpoint.



The example here was the character asking a bartender for information.  Whether or not that bartender has information, or what information the bartender has, isn't generated by the player, so the player isn't asked to step out of their character at all.  What's happening is that the player declares an action for their character, and play follows that to see what happens.  Recall, there's a chance that asking the bartended ends up badly for the character, with not information gained, or that they do get some info but there's an unwanted complication.  Regardless, the player isn't doing any of these things -- they're having their character ask the bartender for information.

The only difference between the Blades example of play I gave and the one I think you have in mind is how the result of this action declaration is determined.  You clearly like to look at your prep, either because this is already prepped or that prep will provide you a structure for answering.  This is perfectly cromulent.  But, doing this doesn't increase or decrease players playing in character over the Blades approach.


Emerikol said:


> I've listed these before but I will again for reference.
> 1.  Sandbox world.  GM provides a lot of detailed areas and the PCs do as they will inside the sandbox.
> 
> 2.  Skilled Play.  Meaning prep, strategy, and tactics matter.   My players have often spent time discussing the equipment they will take on a particular journey.   They also plot strategy against certain really tough monsters especially if defeated on their first encounter.   If you don't search for a secret door, you may not get what's behind the door and if your search skill is not good enough you may not get it.
> 
> 3.  Character Viewpoint - Some might call this Actor stance and they may be right but I don't want to defend every aspect of it if I've misjudged it's usage.  I'm leery of loaded terms with you guys.   Basically you can only do what your character could do.   You perceive the world via description from the GM.
> 
> 4.  DM neutrality and fairness in adjudication.  Let the dice fall where they fall.
> 
> All of the above are things I consider pretty important.



Cool.  No issues.


Emerikol said:


> I do think though that those wanting a character viewpoint will of necessity want a GM based reality world.  The reverse is not necessarily true.



Nope, and this statement is part of what comes across as very uninformed when you say things like this.  What you presented as "character view" above is exactly how it works in Blades in the Dark.  The example I gave was exactly in line with this -- your only objection was to how the GM-side played, not the PC side.


----------



## TwoSix

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, and this statement is part of what comes across as very uninformed when you say things like this.  What you presented as "character view" above is exactly how it works in Blades in the Dark.  The example I gave was exactly in line with this -- your only objection was to how the GM-side played, not the PC side.



This.  @Emirikol seems to be saying that player authorship is fundamentally incompatible with immersion.  I don't really agree with that, but let's accept it as a premise.

Even accepting that, player authorship isn't _required_ for the GM to frame a note-free, full-improv world that responds to player declaration and resolution mechanics only.  The players can stay totally in character, only framing situations that they know in-character to be likely (no making up cities or geography or anything).  And the GM responds to that, taking responsibility to frame necessary situational information as becomes relevant.

Whether or not the GM has a 450 page binder full of notes for every hex on their map, or is making it up all on the fly is a significant play style difference to the _GM_, but will be invisible to the players unless the players are actively evaluating the GM's process of generation and trying to gauge if the GM is actually making stuff up.  It seems to be a pretty important aesthetic criterion for a lot of people(!), but  doesn't say anything about the validity of various styles, merely in people's reaction to that style.  

Ultimately, if you're judging the GM for not prepping enough despite the fact the game runs perfectly fine, that's on you for deciding that extra burden on the GM is a necessary condition of play.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> The example here was the character asking a bartender for information.  Whether or not that bartender has information, or what information the bartender has, isn't generated by the player, so the player isn't asked to step out of their character at all.  What's happening is that the player declares an action for their character, and play follows that to see what happens.  Recall, there's a chance that asking the bartended ends up badly for the character, with not information gained, or that they do get some info but there's an unwanted complication.  Regardless, the player isn't doing any of these things -- they're having their character ask the bartender for information.



So... is the player authoring anything in this context?  And if so, what exactly?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So... is the player authoring anything in this context?  And if so, what exactly?



Yup.  They authored that they asked the barkeep for ale and info, and provided 10 gold coins as a sweetner.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup.  They authored that they asked the barkeep for ale and info, and provided 10 gold coins as a sweetner.




So action declarations are authoring fiction?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The point is that notes are being created and used in both playstyles





Bedrockgames said:


> There does seem to be a flaw in the logic of it is GMs notes when the GM in all these instances. I mean why is it GMs notes when the GM improvises and ads something new, but if players are allowed to do that, it becomes something other than notes



These two things are pretty different:

* the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​​* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​
I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So action declarations are authoring fiction?



Did these things happen in the game or not?  I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at.


----------



## innerdude

Imaro said:


> So action declarations are authoring fiction?




By definition, yes. The only determining factor is if the "truthiness" of the declaration is in dispute. 

If so, consult the rules and adjudicate, or consult whatever alternative table authority has the power to decide if it's true or not.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> @Emerikol
> 
> Your last two posts show a deep ignorance of the games you're describing.  Like, fundamentally deep.  It's verging on not even wrong.
> 
> You can dislike these games all you want -- no issues, no problems.  But, your description of them in these last two posts is laughably incorrect.



There is some truth to this claim.



Emerikol said:


> It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character.  The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.





Emerikol said:


> I know what you mean but in both games the PCs are contributing to the fiction in the sense they are changing the world.



@Emerikol, in the second of these quoted passages you say that in your preferred sandbox game the PCs change the world. Now _changing the world _is a metaphor - what is literally happening is that fiction is being created. You even describe it yourself as _contributing to the fiction_.

Who is playing the PCs? Presumably the players. So you have the players authoring fiction. Creating fiction. Contributing to the fiction. Yet presumably, in your sandbox game, they are doing this while also acting in character.



Emerikol said:


> I do though think when you allow players to introduce new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character that at least temporarily you are stepping out of the character viewpoint.



There are two things here:

* _introducing new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character_ is not a synonym for _the player authoring/creating/contributing to the shared fiction_;

* there are many parts of a setting that are _within the purview_ of a character, assuming the character has the normal sensory and cognitive capacities of a person.​
@Fenris-77 has given an example that illustrates the second point: a character will know where s/he came from, who his/her family are, etc and so the player playing in character and talking about that stuff does not fall outside of the purview of the character.



Emerikol said:


> I've always thought roleplaying was playing a role which of necessity means you aren't doing anything else because being in character means you aren't making out of character decisions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I've very much in the "you are the character" viewpoint mode.





Emerikol said:


> One big facet of my style is character viewpoint and decision making.  Roleplaying to me to becoming your character.  You make decisions like you are that character.  You seek knowledge from the world the same way I would seek knowledge in this world.



I suspect you first sentence in the first of these two quotes is exaggerated - I'd be really surprised if in your sandbox game you've never filled out character inventory simply by reference to equipment lists in the PHB and gold piece tallies on the PC sheet, without actually playing your character as a shopper purchasing goods from vendors played by the GM.

The rest of these quotes - _you are the character_ - describes my preferred approach to play. The most visceral game I personally know of for this sort of RPGing is Burning Wheel.



Emerikol said:


> We don't want to cooperatively write a story with someone else which is more what your style of play seems to be to me.



This is not an accurate description of any RPG that I GM. If you want to know how they play, I'd encourage you to read some of my actual play posts.

@Ovinomancer's description of action declaration and action resolution from BitD play is also close enough to my play experience. Notice how _there is no hint of cooperatively writing a story_. What there is is resolution of action declarations _using processes that DO NOT take GM's pre-prepared notes as an input_.



Emerikol said:


> I've listed these before but I will again for reference.
> Character Viewpoint - Some might call this Actor stance and they may be right but I don't want to defend every aspect of it if I've misjudged it's usage.  I'm leery of loaded terms with you guys.   Basically you can only do what your character could do.   You perceive the world via description from the GM.



I don't agree with your description, here, of _character viewpoint_. Having all my character's cognitive access to his/her life, his/her knowledge, his/her world mediated via GM description is radically non-immersive. Just to give a really clear example: my PC is in his/her home town. The GM narrates a NPC. If I have to ask the GM things like _Do I know this person? Do I love this person? Did we part on good or bad terms last time we met?_ that is not immersive to me. It actually creates a radical dissociation from the fiction, and makes me feel like my PC is a space alien or visitor from another world.


----------



## Manbearcat

innerdude said:


> So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.
> 
> There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.
> 
> However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.




This is true. They’re distinct priorities.

As I mentioned upthread, the bulk of my play in TTRPGs has featured Sandbox (or Hexcrawl) play whether it’s RC, Dogs, AW/DW, or even Blades. Each of those are subtly (or more) different from each other.

However, one unifying aspect of all of them is that “stance pivoting” is a prominent feature of my games.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> These two things are pretty different:
> 
> * the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​​* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​
> I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.




This is definitely a 'distinction without a difference' as well as an oversimplification of what the GM is doing. At a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes enough that you'd concede he or she isn't still tethered to them (or is anything the GM does if notes are in play always ultimately 'notes'). I don't know. We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play, but there is a vast gray area that seems to be getting excluded, and I think my side has adequately explained why extrapolation, synergy and player's shaping things through their characters do not constitute 'playing to discover the GMs notes'.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> These two things are pretty different:
> 
> * the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​​* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​
> I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is definitely a 'distinction without a difference' as well as an oversimplification of what the GM is doing. At a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes enough that you'd concede he or she isn't still tethered to them (or is anything the GM does if notes are in play always ultimately 'notes'). I don't know. We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play, but there is a vast gray area that seems to be getting excluded, and I think my side has adequately explained why extrapolation, synergy and player's shaping things through their characters do not constitute 'playing to discover the GMs notes'.
Click to expand...


What is your basis for saying _this is a distinction without a difference_? Especially as you go on to say _We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play._ Do you agree that I have identified a difference, or not?

I also don't understand what you think the difference is between _the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he has written in advance and that only s/he knows_ and _at a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes_.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> What is your basis for saying _this is a distinction without a difference_? Especially as you go on to say _We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play._ Do you agree that I have identified a difference, or not?
> 
> I also don't understand what you think the difference is between _the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he has written in advance and that only s/he knows_ and _at a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes_.




The distinction that makes one note and one fiction is simply whether it comes from the player or the GM. There is a distinction between games where the players can add content out of character to the setting/story, versus ones where they must do so through their character. But I fail to see why when the GM is the one establishing and facilitating setting content its 'notes' but when a player is given this ability it is suddenly fiction. Again we just keep having this concept of notes forced onto the situation when people have loudly said this is not what is going on for them  (and argued well against your points)


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The distinction that makes one note and one fiction is simply whether it comes from the player or the GM. There is a distinction between games where the players can add content out of character to the setting/story, versus ones where they must do so through their character. But I fail to see why when the GM is the one establishing and facilitating setting content its 'notes' but when a player is given this ability it is suddenly fiction. Again we just keep having this concept of notes forced onto the situation when people have loudly said this is not what is going on for them  (and argued well against your points)



The difference is between _stuff only the GM knows because it's in his/her notes_ and _stuff that the GM makes up by extrapolating from those notes_ and _stuff that a participant in the game (player, or GM) extrapolates from the shared fiction which has (ipso facto, given it's shared) been established at the table in the course of play_.

The difference is brought out clearly in @Ovinomancer's post not far upthread, which sets out an imagined example of a player, in character, asking a barkeep about NotBob the Vile.

One possibility: the GM answers by referring to his/her notes, or extrapolating from them.

Another possibility: the GM answers by fist having the player make a Streetwise (or Barkeep-wise, or NotBob the Vile-wise, or <whatever is appropriate>) check, and then if that succeeds narrating the barkeep's helpful answer that leads to the PC to NotBob the Vile, or if that fails narrating some appropriate complication or obstacle that flows from the established fiction.

Only the first possibility constrains the outcomes of action declarations by reference to material that only the GM is privy to. This is one function that GM's notes can serve, and I think it's a pretty well-known function. It produces a different RPG experience from RPGing (such as @innerdude was describing upthread) where there is no such use of GM's notes, and other techniques are used to determine the outcomes of action declarations.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The difference is between _stuff only the GM knows because it's in his/her notes_ and _stuff that the GM makes up by extrapolating from those notes_ and _stuff that a participant in the game (player, or GM) extrapolates from the shared fiction which has (ipso facto, given it's shared) been established at the table in the course of play_.
> 
> The difference is brought out clearly in @Ovinomacer's post not far upthread, which sets out an imagined example of a player, in character, asking a barkeep about NotBob the Vile.
> 
> One possibility: the GM answers by referring to his/her notes, or extrapolating from them.
> 
> Another possibility: the GM answers by fist having the player make a Streetwise (or Barkeep-wise, or NotBob the Vile-wise, or <whatever is appropriate>) check, and then if that succeeds narrating the barkeep's helpful answer that leads to the PC to NotBob the Vile, or if that fails narrating some appropriate complication or obstacle that flows from the established fiction.
> 
> Only the first possibility constrains the outcomes of action declarations by reference to material that only the GM is privy to. This is one function that GM's notes can serve, and I think it's a pretty well-known function. It produces a different RPG experience from RPGing (such as @innerdude was describing upthread) where there is no such use of GM's notes, and other techniques are used to determine the outcomes of action declarations.




But it is the same thing, just distributed among players now. If I am adding to the story as a player, well then I am just doing what the GM does, and I am working off my 'notes' being the only one who knows in that moment what the note is. So I just don't see how these are really different in terms of one being labeled notes and one fiction. I think if you replaced the term 'notes' with 'setting' you would honestly get a lot less push back on this concept. Playing to discover the GM's world, is at least a more accurate assessment of what is going on. Playing to discover the GM's notes, as I've said many times, is dismissive and insulting as a characterization.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> The difference is between _stuff only the GM knows because it's in his/her notes_ and _stuff that the GM makes up by extrapolating from those notes_ and _stuff that a participant in the game (player, or GM) extrapolates from the shared fiction which has (ipso facto, given it's shared) been established at the table in the course of play_.
> 
> The difference is brought out clearly in @Ovinomacer's post not far upthread, which sets out an imagined example of a player, in character, asking a barkeep about NotBob the Vile.
> 
> One possibility: the GM answers by referring to his/her notes, or extrapolating from them.
> 
> Another possibility: the GM answers by fist having the player make a Streetwise (or Barkeep-wise, or NotBob the Vile-wise, or <whatever is appropriate>) check, and then if that succeeds narrating the barkeep's helpful answer that leads to the PC to NotBob the Vile, or if that fails narrating some appropriate complication or obstacle that flows from the established fiction.
> 
> Only the first possibility constrains the outcomes of action declarations by reference to material that only the GM is privy to. This is one function that GM's notes can serve, and I think it's a pretty well-known function. It produces a different RPG experience from RPGing (such as @innerdude was describing upthread) where there is no such use of GM's notes, and other techniques are used to determine the outcomes of action declarations.



I think that the whole "GM's notes" thing can be simplified a bit into just "GM decides."  This mode of play is where the GM is the arbiter of what happens in the fiction, so play occurs according to the GM's understanding of the game world and the fiction.  

Now, within this scope, there's shades of difference, one of which is very much dependent on the GM's notes, or, rather, that the GM has pre-established in a largely fixed way a large amount of the game fiction.  The play is then to determine what is in the GM's pre-conception of the game fiction.  This is where Skilled Play a la Moldvay dungeon crawls situates itself.  It's still under the auspice of GM Decides, but it's a subset.

Another version of this is where the GM has few or almost no notes, but is still the source of how things come about in play.  This is what's usually referred to as improv or ad-lib play by posters unfamiliar with systems built to generate content during play.  This is what a D&D game with a "loosey-goosey" GM looks like.

To contrast "GM Decides" you have systems where the GM is tightly constrained, usually by having no pre-conception of the fiction, only the fiction as introduced, and with rules that state that actions cannot be blocked, only allowed to succeed or be challenged with the mechanics.  They also have mechanical systems that allow for both player and GM input, and tight constraints on the outcomes.  These are the Burning Wheel, PbtA, FitD style games.

Somewhere in the middle of both of these are systems that can swing either way, depending on the GM.  FATE, despite my not grasping how it can be a GM decides game and work at all, is apparently one given play reports.  D&D 4e is another.  From how @pemerton describes Traveler, I'd say it fits as well.


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> I think if you replaced the term 'notes' with 'setting' you would honestly get a lot less push back on this concept. Playing to discover the GM's world, is at least a more accurate assessment of what is going on. Playing to discover the GM's notes, as I've said many times, is dismissive and insulting as a characterization.



The "GM's world" is a metaphor, the "GM's notes" is the literal item behind the metaphor.  Unless someone's built a holodeck or a Matrix world, every GM's world consists entirely of their generated notes and their personal headcanon.  

The only exception are published worlds like Golarion or the Realms, in which case the "world" is the distributed published notes and every user's own headcanon.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> The "GM's world" is a metaphor, the "GM's notes" is the literal item behind the metaphor.  Unless someone's built a holodeck or a Matrix world, every GM's world consists entirely of their generated notes and their personal headcanon.
> 
> The only exception are published worlds like Golarion or the Realms, in which case the "world" is the distributed published notes and every user's own headcanon.



Actually the notes aren’t literal either. The world can exist in notes, in the GM’s head, as a gut reaction the GM has to something the players do. Dismissing the world as metaphor misses the whole point of play (which is decidedly not exploration of the GMs notebook)


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> Actually the notes aren’t literal either. The world can exist in notes, in the GM’s head, as a gut reaction the GM has to something the players do. Dismissing the world as metaphor misses the whole point of play (which is decidedly not exploration of the GMs notebook)



It's not a dismissal.  No setting is real.  Calling a fictional setting a "world" is a metaphor.  

You can't "explore the world" in a RPG anymore than you can "conquer the world" in Risk; it's merely a fictional conceit that overlays what the players are actually doing at the table, which is declaring actions and rolling dice to see how they turn out.  The GM merely acts as an arbiter to allow for a wider declaration of possible actions.  A module or a pre-defined setting is a tool that many DMs use to help them arbitrate these choices.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> It's not a dismissal.  No setting is real.  Calling a fictional setting a "world" is a metaphor.
> 
> You can't "explore the world" in a RPG anymore than you can "conquer the world" in Risk; it's merely a fictional conceit that overlays what the players are actually doing at the table, which is declaring actions and rolling dice to see how they turn out.  The GM merely acts as an arbiter to allow for a wider declaration of possible actions.  A module or a pre-defined setting is a tool that many DMs use to help them make arbitrate these choices.



It is dismissive because it is pejorative (it arose as “just discovering the GM’s notes” in a debate between these two styles of play). What you are exploring is the world the GM is imagining. Notes are simply a tool for tracking the world. And you are also exploring a world that is shaped by player actions in the game as well and the synergy between this and living NPCs and groups the GM is running


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> It is dismissive because it is pejorative (it arose as “just discovering the GM’s notes” in a debate between these two styles of play). What you are exploring is the world the GM is imagining. Notes are simply a tool for tracking the world. And you are also exploring a world that is shaped by player actions in the game as well and the synergy between this and living NPCs and groups the GM is running



It's tough for me to view describing _my own_ play as pejorative, as I'm not that much of a masochist.  I certainly allow for a bunch of player input, but I pre-author a bunch of stuff as well, generally.

And yes, the players in my own game are discovering my notes, and we're generating a fiction around that activity.  I don't think that makes me a bad DM.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> These two things are pretty different:
> 
> * the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​​* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​
> I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.



Different avenues to the same notes.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> But it is the same thing, just distributed among players now. If I am adding to the story as a player, well then I am just doing what the GM does, and I am working off my 'notes' being the only one who knows in that moment what the note is.



No. There is no RPG I'm aware of where a _player_ can constrain the outcomes of action resolution by reference to, or extrapolation from, material that s/he pre-authored.

Also, you say "just distributed among players" as if that's a small thing. Whereas what we're talking about is a social activity, of playing a game, in which an important part of that activity is producing a shared fiction. So the distribution of power and responsibility in relation to generating that fiction goes to the very heart of the activity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Also, you say "just distributed among players" as if that's a small thing. Whereas what we're talking about is a social activity, of playing a game, in which an important part of that activity is producing a shared fiction. So the distribution of power and responsibility in relation to generating that fiction goes to the very heart of the activity.




I am not saying it is a small thing. I am pointing out it is in essence the same thing as the GM is doing, just distributed among the players. But that makes a big difference in how the game plays and feels. I just think it undermines the whole notion that the GM is simply running a game where the players are discovering what's in his or her notes.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> No. There is no RPG I'm aware of where a _player_ can constrain the outcomes of action resolution by reference to, or extrapolation from, material that s/he pre-authored.




You pointed to games where players can contribute to the setting/fiction out of character as an alternative to 'discovering the GM's notes". I am not particularly invested in the parameters of those kinds of games, I am just going by what you and others are asserting. Though I will say, pre-authored material does factor into a game like Hillfolk based on my experience playing it, and that can be a reason to invoke rules that constrain players framing scenes certain ways. No expert in that game, but I've played it a bit. 

Either way, I pointed out the GM isn't always working from notes, the GM is often extrapolating, inventing whole cloth, even ignoring or rejecting note content, because the aim is what is imagined in the GM's  mind as the world, not what is one the page in the notes. You maintained this is still just the notes. I am saying why is all this magically discovering the GM's notes, yet when players engage in these things, it is creating fiction? By the way I am not saying players aren't creating fiction when they do that. But I think it would be highly reductive to say players are discovering one another's notes, just as it is highly reductive to say players are discovering the GMs notes in the case of the sort of sandbox people are describing.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character.  The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.



They're kind of not, really, or not as much as you think.

The difference is mostly that in those types of games what you see as your character can become the fiction if you put it there, because before you do so there might be nothing there at all.

For example, for whatever reason you or another player has pulled the party into a scene at an outdoor market.  You, in-character, decide that while you're here you're going to check out the lute-maker's stall to see if she's got anything particularly fine today.  Congratulations - you just added a lute-maker's stall to this fictional marketplace by simply assuming its presence (you can do this as there's no obvious reason why such a stall would not exist in that place and thus no reason for any sort of roll) and declaring your action.  Oh, and by the way you also just added the lute-maker herself and made her female.  Carry on. 

In the sort of game you or I might play, the GM would either know up-front whether or not there's such a stall in this particular market or would roll to determine on the fly if one exists.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> Well when developing a character prior to campaign start, I work with players to come up with a backstory.  A backstory that fits the world.  The conflict would be if there were no gladiatorial schools.  Maybe it's a frontier campaign without even cities.  So developing a backstory is collaborative.  Typically on names and such it's from the GM but on other details the GM will work those in if at all possible.
> 
> Now if this happens in game and comes completely out of nowhere, I don't believe your player is acting in character at that moment unless what he is telling the group is some delusion the character has developed that is not true.   The DM may allow it of course but such a declaration is leaving character mode and entering authorial mode.  So it's not in-character.   A character cannot invent a real backstory for himself.



I disagree a little here.  A character can't invent a backstory out of nothing, I'll give you that, but once there's a framework of a backstory I have no problem with the player fleshing it out.

An example: a PC I play has, as part of her DM-plus-random-determined background, done some time in the (Roman-equivalent) legions.  That's all I got to work with; but I-as-player then expanded on that to say which legions she was in, who the commanders were, what rank I achieved (and how I then lost it!) and what my role was, and the vague timing around all this.  All subject to DM veto, of course, but as yet he hasn't vetoed any of it and it sometimes gives me a nice foundation to roleplay from.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Did these things happen in the game or not?  I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at.



I'm not trying to get at anything, I am genuinely surprised this is considered authoring fiction since players in D&D make action declarations all the time and I was under the impression it was not viewed as a game where players had authorial control...


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I'm not trying to get at anything, I am genuinely surprised this is considered authoring fiction since players in D&D make action declarations all the time and I was under the impression it was not viewed as a game where players had authorial control...



Over anything except action declarations, yes.  This has been a point so often that it's often elided -- the only authority a typical D&D player has is over their character build and their action declarations, but even this is subject to GM veto or override.  Build choices are constrained by what the GM will allow, and action declarations often are policed for "metagaming" in many typical D&D games, so even this is no where near absolute.

But, yes, the players are putting things into the fiction with PC action declarations.  Of course they are.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> I think that the whole "GM's notes" thing can be simplified a bit into just "GM decides."  This mode of play is where the GM is the arbiter of what happens in the fiction, so play occurs according to the GM's understanding of the game world and the fiction.
> 
> Now, within this scope, there's shades of difference, one of which is very much dependent on the GM's notes, or, rather, that the GM has pre-established in a largely fixed way a large amount of the game fiction.  The play is then to determine what is in the GM's pre-conception of the game fiction.  This is where Skilled Play a la Moldvay dungeon crawls situates itself.  It's still under the auspice of GM Decides, but it's a subset.
> 
> Another version of this is where the GM has few or almost no notes, but is still the source of how things come about in play.  This is what's usually referred to as improv or ad-lib play by posters unfamiliar with systems built to generate content during play.  This is what a D&D game with a "loosey-goosey" GM looks like.



I can see this. And if the topic of the thread is drifting in the direction you set out here, that's fine with me.

I had started the thread about _GM's notes_ rather than _GM decides_ because the two don't overlap completely (in logic, at least; if we surveyed actual play at actual tables the degree of overlap is probably quite high). The notes in a PbtA-ish system, for instance, provide a resource for GM moves in various contexts but I'm pretty sure you're not wanting to include those within the scope of _GM decides_. (And I would agree with you in that respect.)

The "loosey-goosey" GMing is what Lewis Pulsipher was pretty critical of back in the day. He distinguished "realism" RPGing (C&S was the example he pointed to; some approaches to RQ are probably similar; we might now call that process-simulations) from "wargame" RPGing (classic skilled-play D&D is the exemplar) from "lottery" RPGing (a lot of T&T can look like this) from "GM as novelist/storyteller" RPGing (his least favourite, I think, and what you're calling "loose goosey"). His reason for favouring wargame play is that it maximises the roll of player skill. When surveying the state of the art when he was writing, I think he was correct about the descriptive part of that claim, ie that player skill is of little importance in lottery and loose-goosey play, and of reduced importance in process-sim play because the processes take over.

I think there are innovations in RPG technique since the early 80s that change some of the parameters, though, as you point to in your post: as well as _systems built to generate content during play _I would mention closed-scene resolution, and also a richer understanding of how narration can be structured around action declaration both at the point of framing and when establishing consequences.



Ovinomancer said:


> To contrast "GM Decides" you have systems where the GM is tightly constrained, usually by having no pre-conception of the fiction, only the fiction as introduced, and with rules that state that actions cannot be blocked, only allowed to succeed or be challenged with the mechanics.  They also have mechanical systems that allow for both player and GM input, and tight constraints on the outcomes.  These are the Burning Wheel, PbtA, FitD style games.



Yes.



Ovinomancer said:


> Somewhere in the middle of both of these are systems that can swing either way, depending on the GM.  FATE, despite my not grasping how it can be a GM decides game and work at all, is apparently one given play reports.  D&D 4e is another.  From how @pemerton describes Traveler, I'd say it fits as well.



I have no Fate experience, but on rpg.net I have seen discussions which say that it can be used for GM-curated play in a way that Burning Wheel just can't.

Classic Traveller is a very interesting design because it has the baroque subsystems one associates with process-sim, but mostly these end up being little pockets of closed scene resolution. It has resources for generating content via random rolls which - because of the closed scene features of the subsystems - can be used in real time during play and will work smoothly in a way that is trickier (in my experience) when doing Appendix A random dungeoneering. To try and give a simple explanation, Appendix A can fairly easily produce "Why did the Orcs in this room we just rolled not respond when we trashed the fire beetles in that room next door that we rolled up first, given that there is only a door and not even a corridor between the two rooms?" and similar sorts of oddities that push against the coherence of the fiction. Whereas the basic conceits of Traveller together with the ways its very subsystems unfold and interact mean that random content generation is (or at least seems, in my experience) not to produce very much of this.

A lot has been posted over the years about 4e D&D so I won't add anything to that here.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Different avenues to the same notes.





Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying it is a small thing. I am pointing out it is in essence the same thing as the GM is doing, just distributed among the players. But that makes a big difference in how the game plays and feels. I just think it undermines the whole notion that the GM is simply running a game where the players are discovering what's in his or her notes.



If establishing the fiction is distributed, and even verging on symmetrically multilateral, then it makes no sense to say that anyone is discovering anyone else's notes.

What about when establishing the fiction is heavily concentrated in one participant, why a high degree of asymmetry verging on unilateral authorship? If you don't like to describe how the other participants gain cognitive access to the fiction as _learning what is in the GM's notes_, what alternative description would you suggest for this sort of scenario? One that adequately captures its asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character?



Bedrockgames said:


> I pointed out the GM isn't always working from notes, the GM is often extrapolating, inventing whole cloth, even ignoring or rejecting note content, because the aim is what is imagined in the GM's  mind as the world, not what is one the page in the notes. You maintained this is still just the notes. I am saying why is all this magically discovering the GM's notes, yet when players engage in these things, it is creating fiction? By the way I am not saying players aren't creating fiction when they do that. But I think it would be highly reductive to say players are discovering one another's notes, just as it is highly reductive to say players are discovering the GMs notes in the case of the sort of sandbox people are describing.



You seem to be focusing very heavily on the word _notes_. You seem to suppose that I am contrasting _notes_ with fiction. I am not. I am using _notes_ as a shorthand to do two things: (1) contrast with the _shared fiction_ - the essence of GM's notes made in preparation is that they are not shared; and (2) emphasise the asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character of the process whereby _what is imagined in the GM's mind _becomes shared fiction.

If you want to suggest an alternative shorthand I'm all ears. But the shorthand would have to adequately convey both (1) and (2).



Bedrockgames said:


> You pointed to games where players can contribute to the setting/fiction out of character as an alternative to 'discovering the GM's notes".



No I didn't. I actually posted explaining why it is an incorrect description of (say) Burning Wheel as I play it to say that the player contributes to the setting/fiction out of character.

I also want to emphasise something which I am not sure that you are aware of: it is possible to have _players contributing to the setting/fiction in character_ in ways that do not require an _asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral-from-the-GM_ process for establishing the shared fiction. Games that I'm aware of that illustrate this fact include Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> This has been a point so often that it's often elided -- the only authority a typical D&D player has is over their character build and their action declarations, but even this is subject to GM veto or override.  Build choices are constrained by what the GM will allow, and action declarations often are policed for "metagaming" in many typical D&D games, so even this is no where near absolute.
> 
> But, yes, the players are putting things into the fiction with PC action declarations.  Of course they are.



Just a side point: I have seen some posters on this board assert that a player's action declaration does not establish anything in the fiction until the GM incorporates it. I would characterise play done this way as the player's making _suggestions _to the GM via the process of declaring actions, which the GM is at liberty to take up or decline as seems to fit the GM's conception of the fiction.

I've also seen posters on this board say things that _imply _the above even though it hasn't been outright asserted. Examples include "You wouldn't do that, would you? You're Lawful Good." (I can see it might be argued that breaking alignment is a type of metagaming and so perhaps is captured already in what you posted.) A weaker version, but one that I have noticed a fair bit, is "Make a INT check" or "Make a WIS check" with the result of the check being a trigger for the GM to soft-veto the action on the grounds of the adverse consequence it would produce.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> If establishing the fiction is distributed, and even verging on symmetrically multilateral, then it makes no sense to say that anyone is discovering anyone else's notes.



It doesn't make any sense to call anything that isn't written down and pre-determined, notes.  But you are doing it anyway.  If made up on the fly = notes, then it applies to the players as well as the DM.


pemerton said:


> What about when establishing the fiction is heavily concentrated in one participant, why a high degree of asymmetry verging on unilateral authorship? If you don't like to describe how the other participants gain cognitive access to the fiction as _learning what is in the GM's notes_, what alternative description would you suggest for this sort of scenario? One that adequately captures its asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character?



Anything the DM does that builds off of player input(ie declarations, roleplay, etc.) isn't unilateral authorship.  The players are contributing, even if it is unequal and/or the DM has final say.


pemerton said:


> You seem to be focusing very heavily on the word _notes_. You seem to suppose that I am contrasting _notes_ with fiction. I am not. I am using _notes_ as a shorthand to do two things: (1) contrast with the _shared fiction_ - the essence of GM's notes made in preparation is that they are not shared; and (2) emphasise the asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character of the process whereby _what is imagined in the GM's mind _becomes shared fiction.



As far as (1) goes, improv is not preparation, though, and you are still calling those notes.  As far as (2) goes, it's not what is imagined in the DM's mined that becomes shared fiction.  It's what is imagined the DM and player(s) minds that becomes shared fiction. Player imagined input in the form of actions and roleplay are part of that shared fiction being created. The DM simply has a greater amount of input and/or final say.


pemerton said:


> If you want to suggest an alternative shorthand I'm all ears. But the shorthand would have to adequately convey both (1) and (2).



Both (1) and (2) are not accurate, though.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> You can't "explore the world" in a RPG anymore than you can "conquer the world" in Risk; it's merely a fictional conceit that overlays what the players are actually doing at the table, which is declaring actions and rolling dice to see how they turn out.  The GM merely acts as an arbiter to allow for a wider declaration of possible actions.  A module or a pre-defined setting is a tool that many DMs use to help them arbitrate these choices.



To elaborate a bit on this (and I think also pick up on an earlier discussion in this thread), consider two ways a map can be used at a RPG table:

(1) The map is secret to the GM and used to adjudicate action declarations made by the players for their PCs. The players don't have access to the geography and/or architecture as _input_ into their action declarations until it has been told to them by the GM as the _output_ of a prior action declaration (which might include things like "We go up to the corner and look around" as well as more elaborate things like "We lift the rug and search the floor for secret trapdoors").

(2) The map is public information at the table which the GM and players use together to frame checks, and to establish who is where and able to do what. When the checks are resolved, the constraints imposed by the imagined geography and architecture are already factored in by everyone at the table.​
I think that (2) is pretty different from (1) _even if the GM is the one who provides the map_.

Recently I've used a couple of old Traveller scenarios in my Classic Traveller game: Annic Nova, and Shadows, both from Double Adventure 1. Both have maps. In both cases I've laid the map out, and pointed to it to tell the players where they (ie their PCs) are. In the case of Annic Nova, the interest was not in the map per se but the Aliens (capitalisation intended) on board: the players didn't know their disposition or precise number. Having the map to make it visually very clear how the PCs were separated from one another over the four decks of the starship they were exploring seemed to me to enhance play, and also make it easier to adjudicate in a fair and transparent way who could get where to help whom in time.

In the case of Shadows, what was interesting was the contents of some of the rooms, and piecing together the puzzle they revealed about the fate of the alien civilisation that had built the complex 2 billion years earlier.

In both cases, there were various moments at which the players had more information than their PCs did about the architecture of the places they were in. This didn't seem to have any significant consequences for play, because (as I've already said) the focus was on the content of the places and not the architecture per se.


----------



## pemerton

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames

Here is a paragraph from Paul Czege and another one from Eero Tuovinen that helps explain my use of the word _notes:_

although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​​_Dungeons & Dragons_ involves clear and strong backstory authority as a crucial part of the game: the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play, the GM refers to his notes or imagination and decides what should be in the chest.​
Those _unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about_, the _GMs notes and imagination_, are what I'm referring to.

Now supposed instead of _notes_ I used the word _conception_ - and hence referred to _playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction_, would that satisfy you? The key feature of _the GM's conception of the shared fiction _is that it is asymmetrical and close to unilateral. For instance, if in the GM's conception of the shared fiction there is no secret trapdoor under the rug, then the PC will not find one know matter how confidently the player declares that his/her PC is searching. That is a very typical illustration of the asymmetry-verging-on-unilateralism that I am pointing to when I use the phrase _playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction_.



Maxperson said:


> Anything the DM does that builds off of player input(ie declarations, roleplay, etc.) isn't unilateral authorship.  The players are contributing, even if it is unequal and/or the DM has final say.



This is why I use the qualifying phrase _verging on_.

For instance, and to allude to the quote from Tuovinen: the GM may not have thought about what is in the chest, or what is under the rug, until a player declares that his/her PC has a look. If the GM at that point decides _there is nothing in the chest _or _there is nothing under the rug_ then it is true that the GM is building off the player's input (ie the action declaration) but this is very obviously _not_ an example of the sort of thing that @innerdude described upthread, that I subsequently elaborated on.

The contrast is in fact quite striking.

If you don't like the words that I use to describe the contrast please supply me with some that meet with your approval. But please don't imply that the contrast doesn't obtain. It does. I know about it. @Emerikol knows about it. @TwoSix and @innerdude know about it. @Ovinomancer knows about it. And I'm pretty sure from your posts that you know about it too.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, @Bedrockgames
> 
> Here is a paragraph from Paul Czege and another one from Eero Tuovinen that helps explain my use of the word _notes:_
> 
> although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​​_Dungeons & Dragons_ involves clear and strong backstory authority as a crucial part of the game: the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play, the GM refers to his notes or imagination and decides what should be in the chest.​
> Those _unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about_, the _GMs notes and imagination_, are what I'm referring to.
> 
> Now supposed instead of _notes_ I used the word _conception_ - and hence referred to _playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction_, would that satisfy you? The key feature of _the GM's conception of the shared fiction _is that it is asymmetrical and close to unilateral. For instance, if in the GM's conception of the shared fiction there is no secret trapdoor under the rug, then the PC will not find one know matter how confidently the player declares that his/her PC is searching. That is a very typical illustration of the asymmetry-verging-on-unilateralism that I am pointing to when I use the phrase _playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction_.




I would call it the GM's fictional world. But they don't even use just the term notes in that paragraph. They say "notes or imagination" it is clearly pointing to a much larger idea than just notes (and our objection to calling it playing to discover the GM's notes is it is reductive because it leaves out elements like the GM's imagination, like the role of synergy between players pushing on the setting, NPCs pushing back, and things organically developing). 

No one is contesting there is an asymmetry of power in that the GM ultimately gets to decide what is and is not in the setting (though he or she often has to bow to the dice and other external factors). But again, I think you are painting an extremely simplistic picture that overlooks and undervalues the role of PCs pushing against the setting, asking questions about it, etc. They might not have the power to invent things whole cloth but they have the power to force the GM to invent, and to work using the power of their characters to exert will on the setting and shape it through their characters actions, interactions, etc; often leaving a fairly important legacy in the setting itself. And this isn't something the GM can simply deny them on a whim. The promise of sandbox is if you want to try it, I have to fairly adjudicate it. 

In terms of what's in the treasure chest, sure in some instances there is going to be something the GM has conceived of, and the contents of that thing will be set down in advance (sometimes in notes, sometimes as a firm decision the GM makes when the chest is introduced, etc). That is an important part of creating a sense of a world external to the characters. I do this even when I am improvising (make very clear decisions in my head about 'what's in the box' so there is a consistent world and so their choices matter----and sometimes I will note these things down and show them to the players after just to make clear a choice they made mattered and dispel any possibility of illusionism). At the same time, there are all kinds of instances where, even if the players don't have narrative power, their ability to question and prod is going to still help shape things. It certainly isn't the same as some of the stuff you have been advocating, and I wouldn't argue otherwise (especially since a typical sandbox is built on the premise of discovering a world and doing so through your character). But it isn't just dead notes on a page. Players being able to suddenly veer off in some direction or decide to pay off the local constables to arrest the guy who hired them for the adventure so they can take over his fighter pits, this is the sort of synergy that people were pointing to. And extrapolation from the notes on this is important and different from notes themselves. I may have notes on the fighter pits (possibly though they were introduced as improvised setting details during play), but once the players pull a move like that, a whole host of questions I have probably not asked about them need to be answered, and I need to start having NPCs reacting in believable, logical and human ways to what they are doing. I don't see that as notes. I see that as the 'living' part of living world.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, @Bedrockgames
> 
> Here is a paragraph from Paul Czege and another one from Eero Tuovinen that helps explain my use of the word _notes:_
> 
> although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​​_Dungeons & Dragons_ involves clear and strong backstory authority as a crucial part of the game: the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play,* the GM refers to his notes or imagination *and decides what should be in the chest.​
> Those _unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about_, the _GMs notes and imagination_, are what I'm referring to.



I bolded the important part of that.  He is differentiating between notes and imagination(improv), while you are trying to merge them and are getting a lot of trouble for it. They aren't the same thing and one word isn't going to be accurate for both.


pemerton said:


> Now supposed instead of _notes_ I used the word _conception_ - and hence referred to _playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction_, would that satisfy you? The key feature of _the GM's conception of the shared fiction _is that it is asymmetrical and close to unilateral. For instance, if in the GM's conception of the shared fiction there is no secret trapdoor under the rug, then the PC will not find one know matter how confidently the player declares that his/her PC is searching. That is a very typical illustration of the asymmetry-verging-on-unilateralism that I am pointing to when I use the phrase _playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction_.



So no, it is still not an accurate portrayal as we've been telling and demonstrating to you for pages and pages now.  The goal of play is still not focused on the DM's concepts.  Also, there are multiple ways to play a Sandbox, some of which don't involve knowing all the details of every dungeon like that.  Sometimes the DM may not have considered that and may just give it a random roll to see if a secret door is there.  

You're trying to force several different ways of playing a Sandbox into one narrow, incorrect phrase.


pemerton said:


> This is why I use the qualifying phrase _verging on_.
> 
> For instance, and to allude to the quote from Tuovinen: the GM may not have thought about what is in the chest, or what is under the rug, until a player declares that his/her PC has a look. If the GM at that point decides _there is nothing in the chest _or _there is nothing under the rug_ then it is true that the GM is building off the player's input (ie the action declaration) but this is very obviously _not_ an example of the sort of thing that @innerdude described upthread, that I subsequently elaborated on.



In that one example sure, but by and large the players have considerably more input.  "Verging" is very much an incorrect portrayal of the overall disparity.  The vast majority of inputs are along the lines of, "I go up to the bartender and punch him in the face," followed by the DM declaring in the fiction something that responds to that.  Or perhaps, "I rifle through the Baron's desk looking for the missing deed," followed by the DM declaring something in the fiction that responds to that.  Many times, the response is less than the player input, even though the DM does have final say.

If I had to guess,  I'd say that the percentage was somewhere in the neighborhood of 60/40 or 65/35 in favor of the DM.  Still significant, but hardly "verging on."


----------



## pemerton

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames.

I don't really follow your replies. You say that the GM is in charge, but you also say that the players "have input" and "help shape things". But they don't have "narrative power" (whatever that means - _narrative power _sounds like the power to shape the fiction, so if players don't have that then I'm not sure what their input and shaping consist in, so maybe it means something else?).

Do you agree that there is an approach to RPG play in which the GM is empowered to determine the outcomes of action resolutions based on a prior conception of the fiction (whether that is sourced in notes or imagination)? And do you agree that there is an approach to play in which the answer to a player's question _what do I see_ or _what do I find_ or _what do I know about <this gameworld element the GM has just introduced> _is typically provided by the GM making a decision based on his/her prior conception of the fiction, perhaps relying on a Knowledge check (or INT check or whatever the system dictates) to determine how much of his/her prior conception to share?


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> A weaker version, but one that I have noticed a fair bit, is "Make a INT check" or "Make a WIS check" with the result of the check being a trigger for the GM to soft-veto the action on the grounds of the adverse consequence it would produce.



However, I think that this is often used almost as a "mulligan" by the GM when they realize that they haven't adequately framed/telegraphed the fiction and the pertinent stakes to the players. So the "check" is meant to empower the GM to author additional fiction or scene framing. It's a bit silly, but I don't think that it's always about vetoing players.


----------



## AnotherGuy

How many experienced DMs out there have asked question

_What is the point of the AP/Module's notes?_

One has to wonder why such a question was raised by a veteran DM.


----------



## pemerton

One can always improve one's craft.

And speaking to other RPGers about ways of playing RPGs is pretty much the raison d'etre of these boards.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> Even accepting that, player authorship isn't _required_ for the GM to frame a note-free, full-improv world that responds to player declaration and resolution mechanics only.  The players can stay totally in character, only framing situations that they know in-character to be likely (no making up cities or geography or anything).  And the GM responds to that, taking responsibility to frame necessary situational information as becomes relevant.



Obviously if the GM makes up everything then the player would not be authoring anything.  And I was only tangentially interacting with the example which did not seem player authorish.  I do though believe many have said that there is some player authorship in the game and that when they establish something, within genre limits I accept, that something comes into existence.  So when that happens, the character viewpoint cannot be maintained almost by definition (Actor vs Author role).


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup.  They authored that they asked the barkeep for ale and info, and provided 10 gold coins as a sweetner.



And what about that could a character in that world not do?  The use of authoring here in our discussion implies the player does something the character could not do.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with your description, here, of _character viewpoint_. Having all my character's cognitive access to his/her life, his/her knowledge, his/her world mediated via GM description is radically non-immersive. Just to give a really clear example: my PC is in his/her home town. The GM narrates a NPC. If I have to ask the GM things like _Do I know this person? Do I love this person? Did we part on good or bad terms last time we met?_ that is not immersive to me. It actually creates a radical dissociation from the fiction, and makes me feel like my PC is a space alien or visitor from another world.



Okay so maybe we are getting somewhere here.  

Do you not agree though that in the real world I do not see people and make up a story about them and it become true?  Can we agree on that?   In a GM notes based world, the notes are reality.   So if a character just up and says he knows someone out of the blue when in fact at that moment the character does not know anything about that person, that is not something anyone in our world would ever do.   

I get the distinction somewhat though.  Obviously how radical you get at authoring as a player would dictate how outrageous this might seem.   And minor authorings like knowing a barkeep etc... might not seem so bad to many people who would balk at you conjuring a city into existence out of nothing.  So there are I suppose extremes.  

So here is the process that happens....
1.  GM says you enter a tavern in the shady part of town
2.  Bob the player of the rogue character decides as the player that his character knows the barkeep and thus puts that thought into his characters head. 
3.  The rogue character then says "Hey I know this barkeep let's see if she knows anything"

Now, the #2 part is not spoken.  It's a thought in Bob's head.  
In my style here is how it might go...
1.  GM says you enter a tavern in the shady part of town
2.  Bob asks what his rogue sees.  What are the rogues eyes taking in....
3.  GM consults notes and sees that the barkeep is someone the character knows.
4.  GM says "You see Blondy the Barkeep an old friend of yours.  She smiles and waves."

So in one instance, information is put into a characters head by that characters player.   In the other the GM is describing what the character sees and is passing information to the player from the characters mind.  I see a difference here.  Call it what you will.

Now if this area is full of people the PC knows, a lot of this information might be handed out ahead of time.   Prior to the game it would be fine if a PC says he wants to be immersed in the underworld and known by a lot of people.   Okay assuming I have an underworld, I take note of that.


----------



## Emerikol

Lanefan said:


> I disagree a little here.  A character can't invent a backstory out of nothing, I'll give you that, but once there's a framework of a backstory I have no problem with the player fleshing it out.
> 
> An example: a PC I play has, as part of her DM-plus-random-determined background, done some time in the (Roman-equivalent) legions.  That's all I got to work with; but I-as-player then expanded on that to say which legions she was in, who the commanders were, what rank I achieved (and how I then lost it!) and what my role was, and the vague timing around all this.  All subject to DM veto, of course, but as yet he hasn't vetoed any of it and it sometimes gives me a nice foundation to roleplay from.



I'll bite.   Isn't this done ahead of time outside the actual game?   You and the DM talking about things and you suggesting ideas for your character?   For me this happens iteratively prior to the start of the game.  But even when it happens during a campaign, which would be fine, it would happen outside of the game.  During the game maintaining only character role is important.   So if I had a cleric player who said "Hey, I want to flesh out my religion and come up with the marriage rites, or develop the hierarchy further, or whatever."   That would be fine but it would be done and checked by the GM to be sure it didn't go against already established things.  Most of the time if such a thing happens it's because it's not been established.  And most of the time it's fine, and even if it weren't fine it's typically only a very minor adjustment for consistency etc...


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, @Bedrockgames.
> 
> 
> Do you agree that there is an approach to RPG play in which the GM is empowered to determine the outcomes of action resolutions based on a prior conception of the fiction (whether that is sourced in notes or imagination)? And do you agree that there is an approach to play in which the answer to a player's question _what do I see_ or _what do I find_ or _what do I know about <this gameworld element the GM has just introduced> _is typically provided by the GM making a decision based on his/her prior conception of the fiction, perhaps relying on a Knowledge check (or INT check or whatever the system dictates) to determine how much of his/her prior conception to share?




No. This isn't the language I would use at all (we've contested over terms like 'the fiction' before). Your terminology, in my view, is loaded and reflects a philosophy about gaming, about analyzing games that we don't share at all


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> No. This isn't the language I would use at all (we've contested over terms like 'the fiction' before). Your terminology, in my view, is loaded and reflects a philosophy about gaming, about analyzing games that we don't share at all



Agree.  

My goal as GM is to simulate a world in a neutral and fair way.  The players then interact with that world in the same way we interact with our real world.  To the degree, I can provide that sort of experience in an imaginary fantasy world, I consider myself a success.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, @Bedrockgames.
> 
> I don't really follow your replies. You say that the GM is in charge, but you also say that the players "have input" and "help shape things". But they don't have "narrative power" (whatever that means - _narrative power _sounds like the power to shape the fiction, so if players don't have that then I'm not sure what their input and shaping consist in, so maybe it means something else?).
> 
> Do you agree that there is an approach to RPG play in which the GM is empowered to determine the outcomes of action resolutions based on a prior conception of the fiction (whether that is sourced in notes or imagination)? And do you agree that there is an approach to play in which the answer to a player's question _what do I see_ or _what do I find_ or _what do I know about <this gameworld element the GM has just introduced> _is typically provided by the GM making a decision based on his/her prior conception of the fiction, perhaps relying on a Knowledge check (or INT check or whatever the system dictates) to determine how much of his/her prior conception to share?




When we say narrative power, it is just a convenient term for describing games where the players can narrate things into existence like the GM, or possibly games where they have limited abilities to establish setting content as players, not as characters.

Also i don't think any of us disagree there is a difference between a game where players have that kind of power, versus ones where the GM is the one with power of setting. Where I think most of us disagree is your simplifcation of the latter to "The GM decides" "playing to discover the GM's notes". You are describing it like a very binary process, and I think it is much, much more organic than how you are describing it. There is simply more to it than that. And part of what that is is the GM is beholden to other things (dice, what the players do in the setting and what gets established by their characters)

For example if you say "What do I see", the GM isn't responding based on their prior conception of the fiction. That isn't how we conceive of play at all. It is not this unfolding fiction that is happening that gets built up in binary exchanges of players say X, GM decides. There is that component of the GM making his decision. But you are ignoring things like players can make a case outside character for things, and the GM will often be considering their words. It isn't as simple as "I decide". My answer needs to make sense too. And most GMs I have played with, will allow back and forth, where  players often explain hwy they think something ought to be present. The players don't have direct power, but they have the tools of persuasion (expected to be used in good faith, not to advance their character's interest) to help smooth out this process. In a typical sandbox the GM is making his decision not based on the prior fiction, but based on the world, the ongoing situations in that world, and what has just previously occurred (I think this is a much better term than the fiction, because the fiction seems to sidestep or minimize the role of the world).

To take another example, if the players go to the head of phoenix moon gang and ask for her help finding the disappeared daughter of a local magistrate, the GM is going to respond, not decide, but respond, based on what the players say, what the leader's motivations are, weighing any rolls they might make, who the player characters are, etc. What the players say here could be very important. Then he might declare what the leader says or does, and even then he isn't often simply deciding. If he says the leader throws her crescent moon blade at the party (which would be out of character here, but let's use that as an example), he still has to roll her attack. He can say what she tries to do, but he is frequently just as bound by the dice as the players. I think a much better conception, one that many sandbox GMs invoke is the GM is playing the world, the players are playing their characters. If you want to reduce that to the players are playing to discover the GMs notes, or the GM decides what happens based on his prior understanding of the fiction, I think you can do that, but like I have said it is very reductive, and it oversimplifies something that will feel very different in play if you follow the oversimplification as a model or as a procedure.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Just a side point: I have seen some posters on this board assert that a player's action declaration does not establish anything in the fiction until the GM incorporates it. I would characterise play done this way as the player's making _suggestions _to the GM via the process of declaring actions, which the GM is at liberty to take up or decline as seems to fit the GM's conception of the fiction.
> 
> I've also seen posters on this board say things that _imply _the above even though it hasn't been outright asserted. Examples include "You wouldn't do that, would you? You're Lawful Good." (I can see it might be argued that breaking alignment is a type of metagaming and so perhaps is captured already in what you posted.) A weaker version, but one that I have noticed a fair bit, is "Make a INT check" or "Make a WIS check" with the result of the check being a trigger for the GM to soft-veto the action on the grounds of the adverse consequence it would produce.




The GM helping the players understand something in the world their characters would understand due to intelligence isn't the GM trying to shape vetoing an action at all. It could be if the GM is doing so to encourage certain results or to mislead. But the GM is supposed to not care one way or another whether the players take action A, B, or C. If the PCs do something that leads to disaster, that is an entirely fair outcome and it is the GM respecting their ability to make choices in the setting. But if a player would know something that might lead them to choose a different action, the GM has a responsibility to make sure that is fairly adjudicated


----------



## Campbell

I think I would personally differentiate between play where prep constrains play and play where the point is to figure out what the GM has prepared as a means of like basically consuming content. Exploration for its own sake rather than in service of some goal or desire on the part of their character or casual enjoyment of the GM's prepared narrative.  I know the latter sort of play exists because I have played in those games. I have run those games. I would argue that it's even the norm. I am playing in such a game right now.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> And what about that could a character in that world not do?  The use of authoring here in our discussion implies the player does something the character could not do.



Let's unpack this.  The character never does anything at all.  The character is imaginary.  The player is doing everything.  You can put constraints on the player's options, like acting in character, but this doesn't change this fact.  And, because of this, everything a player does that results in a change in the fiction is authoring fiction.  Granted, in many games, this is gated or shared authoring, but this isn't talking about if authoring fiction occurs, but rather who has what authority to author a thing.  In effect, we're discussing the different authorities to author.

Your approach is that the player only has the authority to author action declarations and statements about the internal feelings and thinking of the PC.  However, even this is gated, because the GM exercises veto authority over even these things, having the authority to declare an action declaration or statement about thinking to be incompatible with the GM's conception of the fiction.  This means that there are many constraints on a player's ability to author fiction, but it doesn't change that what they do is author fiction.

In other games/systems/approaches, the how fiction gets authored is moved around, but it's rarely without it's own constraints.  These constraints look different from your approach though.

Let's look at a classic example:  Searching for a secret door.  The scene is that the PC (or PCs) are fleeing from some guards, and, for whatever reason, have ended up in a dead end.  Desperate, they search the dead end for a secret exit.

A) in your approach (and I'm only saying your here as a differentiator, I use this as well when I run 5e and similar games), the PCs do the search -- the player has authored this into the fiction.  The resolution of the search, however, is entirely based on the GM's conception of the fiction.  Normally, the GM would have determined pre-play if a secret door was present in this dead end (which was also likely determined pre-play), or would use their prep to inform their decision as to whether or not a secret door was present here.  Regardless, the presence or absence of a secret door would be entire up to the GM -- that the players have searched for a secret door will have almost no bearing on it's existence in the fiction.  The only thing that will happen here is that the GM will consult their conception and, if a door is present, will ask for a check to see if it is located.  I'm ignoring that a GM might ask for a check even if it's not because that's not important to the point -- it's just some theatrics to further hide information from players.

B) in some other approaches, the question of a secret door is looked at differently.  Since there is no pre-play determination of fiction, the question becomes 'is it possible a secret door may be here?'  The answer to this is yes, unless something specific in the fiction or genre would prevent it (like it was determined in previous play that no secret door exists in this dead end).  So, yes, it's possible, but we don't know yet.  This would be resolved via a check.  A success would reveal that a door does exist, a failure would add complication to the scene or pay off a consequence.  Here, the door's a question for everyone at the table.

So, to get back to authoring, in A, the players are still authoring into the fiction the actions their PCs are taking.  This is the hard limit, though, as the result of those actions is entirely up to the GM to author.  In B, however, the very act of declaring the action also defines part of the solution space.  So, the player is still authoring the action of their PC searching for a secret door, but also adding the potential that a secret door exists.  On a success, the fact that a secret door exists can be said to be because the player authored that bit of fiction, even though it was mediated through the mechanics of the game.


----------



## Campbell

I'll be honest. I really could live without the 'living breathing world' framing. It just feels like a flex to me. I think we can talk about reactive sandboxes without using loaded language that implies consistency, a sense of permanence, and the setting feeling tangible are not features or priorities for other ways of playing roleplaying games. It's also not very descriptive of the process of play - only of how most of want it to feel in play. Including a lot of us who favor different approaches.


----------



## Fenris-77

I prefer _world in motion_. It gives that sense of things happening without some of the baggage.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I prefer _world in motion_. It gives that sense of things happening without some of the baggage.



I'm not sure this is better.  The "world" in Blades in the Dark, for instance, is in constant motion, but the motivation for that motion is different from the GM's conception of what it should be.


----------



## Campbell

Time to get to some actual practical stuff. All of this assumes I am not running a game with specialized prep requirements.

I tend to favor an iterative approach to setting and character creation. Usually what I will do is come up with an initial scenario to kick stuff off. Some inciting event and enough setting information to give that event context. Then we will do a Session Zero where players create characters with a stake in the inciting event. The purpose is generally to get an idea of who the PCs are, how they are connected to each other, and to start building a supporting cast for each character.

From that point on most of prep tends to revolve on building out both the initial scenario and building circles of NPCs around the PCs. I will have more details about this process later this weekend. Time for me to get ready for work.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> @Maxperson, @Bedrockgames.
> 
> I don't really follow your replies. You say that the GM is in charge, but you also say that the players "have input" and "help shape things". But they don't have "narrative power" (whatever that means - _narrative power _sounds like the power to shape the fiction, so if players don't have that then I'm not sure what their input and shaping consist in, so maybe it means something else?).



It consists of their actions and roleplay.  If the player says, "I take some roses from the garden and give them to the princess when I see her tonight," I'm not at liberty to say, "No you don't."  I'm not at liberty to say, "Well, instead one of the guards really cut those flowers and gave them to the visiting prince who then gives them to the princess."  I am constrained by what the player declares to narrate an outcome that matches what the player did.  The player's input is a major factor in how the narration is shaped, so the player did in fact help shape the narration.  I am forced as a DM to come up with something fair and makes sense with what the player did.  


pemerton said:


> Do you agree that there is an approach to RPG play in which the GM is empowered to determine the outcomes of action resolutions based on a prior conception of the fiction (whether that is sourced in notes or imagination)?



Sure, but only where no PCs were involved.  If PCs are involved, then the DM is only empowered to determine an outcome that is both based on prior conception of the fiction AND player input(actions/RP).


pemerton said:


> And do you agree that there is an approach to play in which the answer to a player's question _what do I see_ or _what do I find_ or _what do I know about <this gameworld element the GM has just introduced> _is typically provided by the GM making a decision based on his/her prior conception of the fiction, perhaps relying on a Knowledge check (or INT check or whatever the system dictates) to determine how much of his/her prior conception to share?



Sure, but those questions are generally a minority of the game.  PC interaction with the environment is much more significant in my experience.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure this is better.  The "world" in Blades in the Dark, for instance, is in constant motion, but the motivation for that motion is different from the GM's conception of what it should be.



You can have a "world in motion" with very different prime movers. It might be all GM notes and random tables and whatnot, or it might be the player responsive version you get in Blades. I think both are fine goals for play and suit different needs, styles and interests. I would submit that the feeling for the players is what's at issue with a definition here, more so than how it is accomplished. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> However, I think that this is often used almost as a "mulligan" by the GM when they realize that they haven't adequately framed/telegraphed the fiction and the pertinent stakes to the players. So the "check" is meant to empower the GM to author additional fiction or scene framing. It's a bit silly, but I don't think that it's always about vetoing players.



Sometimes it's that for sure.  Usually, though, the player is about to have the PC do something that would result in something bad happening to the PC, but which the player might not have thought about.  If the PC has a 7 wisdom, I probably won't say anything.  The PC is very unwise.  If the PC has an 18 wisdom, I probably won't have the check be made.  Nobody at my table has anything approaching an 18.  If the PC is anywhere from 10-16, I'll give the player a roll and then just inform the player of the likely result.  Sometimes the player will change his mind.  Other times he will go forward.  If he chooses to go forward, off we go.  I'm not trying to veto anything.  I'm just giving the player information that the PC would have in that situation.

Edit: If the problem was mine and I didn't describe it well enough, I would also give the information for free.  No roll, no matter what the stat of the PC.  I'm not going let a negative effect just happen when it's my fault for poorly describing something.  If after I correct my error the player still want to proceed, then we will proceed.  It's still not a veto.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> You can have a "world in motion" with very different prime movers. It might be all GM notes and random tables and whatnot, or it might be the player responsive version you get in Blades. I think both are fine goals for play and suit different needs, styles and interests. I would submit that the feeling for the players is what's at issue with a definition here, more so than how it is accomplished. YMMV, of course.



Sure, but the term "living world" was being used to describe a specific approach of heavy prep and the GM conceiving of things that occur independent of the PCs.  I was pushing back against using "world in motion" as a sub for "living world" as a sub for this approach -- these phrases accurately describe a number of approaches that generate the same 'feel' in play.  Which is what you're saying.  I'm just trying to point out that chain of responses, such  that your initial response seemed to be offering a new term to describe the heavy prep approach rather than the feel.  I don't see much daylight between us, here.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Sure, but the term "living world" was being used to describe a specific approach of heavy prep and the GM conceiving of things that occur independent of the PCs.  I was pushing back against using "world in motion" as a sub for "living world" as a sub for this approach -- these phrases accurately describe a number of approaches that generate the same 'feel' in play.  Which is what you're saying.  I'm just trying to point out that chain of responses, such  that your initial response seemed to be offering a new term to describe the heavy prep approach rather than the feel.  I don't see much daylight between us, here.



I was suggesting _world in motion_ so as to escape the gravity of the baggage that accompanies "living world" while still describing the player facing feeling of verisimilitude in terms of things happening. A phrase that can describe not just that specific prep heavy approach, but also the other methods of achieving that same feeling.

Edit: Perhaps a different phrase that's linguistically further separated from _living world_ might be better...


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with your description, here, of _character viewpoint_. Having all my character's cognitive access to his/her life, his/her knowledge, his/her world mediated via GM description is radically non-immersive. Just to give a really clear example: my PC is in his/her home town. The GM narrates a NPC. If I have to ask the GM things like _Do I know this person? Do I love this person? Did we part on good or bad terms last time we met?_ that is not immersive to me. It actually creates a radical dissociation from the fiction, and makes me feel like my PC is a space alien or visitor from another world.



I missed this, but it strikes me again as having a fundamental lack of understanding of how to play our playstyle.

Would you know that person?  Depends.  If you are from a city like Waterdeep where the population is about 1.35 million people, it's highly unlikely that you will know any given person, but if it doesn't matter, like if it's some storekeeper or something, you can tell me.  I'll trust you not to abuse it and tell me that you know everyone you run into.  If you are from a village of 400, then you do know that person.  Everyone knows everyone in places that small.  A place in-between like a city of 100k, then maybe.  You'll get a roll.  Do you love that person?  Why the hell are you asking me?  It's your character and this is a background issue.  If you know the person, then you tell me whether you are in love with that person or not.  Same with the terms you left on.  

As far as I'm concerned, this is just filling in your background kind of stuff and you get to do that as you see fit.  Again, I trust my players not to abuse this.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> So, to get back to authoring, in A, the players are still authoring into the fiction the actions their PCs are taking.  This is the hard limit, though, as the result of those actions is entirely up to the GM to author.  In B, however, the very act of declaring the action also defines part of the solution space.  So, the player is still authoring the action of their PC searching for a secret door, but also adding the potential that a secret door exists.  On a success, the fact that a secret door exists can be said to be because the player authored that bit of fiction, even though it was mediated through the mechanics of the game.



So I think the terms again led us into some confusion.  I was thinking authoring fiction was akin to author stance vs actor stance.  If you just meant contribute to the story then of course every single rpg game in the universe has players doing that in some manner.  

So my take on authoring fiction was that you the player, not the GM, was bringing something or at least the possibility of something into existence that the GM would be unaware of prior to the start of the session.  Which is how you illustrated your B approach.  So whatever you want to call that?  Most of my prior comments were addressed to that way of viewing authoring the fiction.  The word authoring is loaded unfortunately so I didn't read things as you intended.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> I was suggesting _world in motion_ so as to escape the gravity of the baggage that accompanies "living world" while still describing the player facing feeling of verisimilitude in terms of things happening. A phrase that can describe not just that specific prep heavy approach, but also the other methods of achieving that same feeling.
> 
> Edit: Perhaps a different phrase that's linguistically further separated from _living world_ might be better...



One issue I have with calling everything a living world is that if nothing happens without the PCs being present then it's not a living world as I define it.   A living world is one that changes and continues whatever the PCs do even if they just fall into a sleep for ten years.   When they wake up the world will be different.   It's the fact that NPCs have agendas that may or may not cross paths with the PCs anyway.   

Here is an example.  I might have noted that a young girl is in love with a young boy in the village.  I might have noted that her father is domineering and mean spirited and won't let them see each other.   They try to see each other anyway.  So that might be the starting situation in this village.   The PCs could discover this information but they may never discover it if they don't look that way.   I still have on my calendar the fact that the father beats the boy several weeks later and perhaps a week later both of them run away.  In the meantime I have some notes where they might meet.

Is it possible the PCs could get involved?  Maybe.  Maybe it is just local color.  Maybe for a few days after they run away it's local gossip in some places.   Could the PCs agree to find the girl and bring her back for a fee?  Could they aid the getaway?  They could do all sorts of things.  Most of the time they will not interact with these events at all.   They are still events.   So when I say the world is a living breathing world, that is what I mean.   Things happen outside the purview of the characters.

Let's liken this to writing.  Writers want you to feel like their world is real.  Writers though generally don't spend a lot of time writing about things unrelated to the main characters.  They do occasionally but this sort of example I gave likely doesn't get on a page unless the main character(s) absolutely will interact.  But there are other things a writer does, providing all sorts of little details, that something happened in the background.  So the gossip about the girl running away very much might make it into a story.  When writing you generally just show the effects of off camera action but off camera action is important to deeping the story and creating verisimilitude.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> So I think the terms again led us into some confusion.  I was thinking authoring fiction was akin to author stance vs actor stance.  If you just meant contribute to the story then of course every single rpg game in the universe has players doing that in some manner.
> 
> So my take on authoring fiction was that you the player, not the GM, was bringing something or at least the possibility of something into existence that the GM would be unaware of prior to the start of the session.  Which is how you illustrated your B approach.  So whatever you want to call that?  Most of my prior comments were addressed to that way of viewing authoring the fiction.  The word authoring is loaded unfortunately so I didn't read things as you intended.



But, what's the difference?  The secret door being there or not is still authored into the fiction by one of the game's participants.  What's the functional difference in who does it?

My answers:  the difference is in preference and play priorities.  If the GM is authoring everything, and presenting it as a puzzle to the players to pick up on and make smart decisions, then this is a fine way to play.  It's different from an approach that looks at the fiction as something to discover in play.  However, this said, that actual functional difference is only in who gets to say what, and that's a very interesting way to look at games -- it's not about creating a believable world, as both approaches I've discussed do this, but rather about who builds that world and how.  These are important discussions and differences, they generate different kinds of experiences, but it's not about creating a believable world at all, and the sooner we move past this as a conceit, the sooner productive discussion about approaches occur.


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, since I wasn't advocating for calling everything a living world we ought to be alright, shouldn't we?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> One issue I have with calling everything a living world is that if nothing happens without the PCs being present then it's not a living world as I define it.   A living world is one that changes and continues whatever the PCs do even if they just fall into a sleep for ten years.   When they wake up the world will be different.   It's the fact that NPCs have agendas that may or may not cross paths with the PCs anyway.
> 
> Here is an example.  I might have noted that a young girl is in love with a young boy in the village.  I might have noted that her father is domineering and mean spirited and won't let them see each other.   They try to see each other anyway.  So that might be the starting situation in this village.   The PCs could discover this information but they may never discover it if they don't look that way.   I still have on my calendar the fact that the father beats the boy several weeks later and perhaps a week later both of them run away.  In the meantime I have some notes where they might meet.
> 
> Is it possible the PCs could get involved?  Maybe.  Maybe it is just local color.  Maybe for a few days after they run away it's local gossip in some places.   Could the PCs agree to find the girl and bring her back for a fee?  Could they aid the getaway?  They could do all sorts of things.  Most of the time they will not interact with these events at all.   They are still events.   So when I say the world is a living breathing world, that is what I mean.   Things happen outside the purview of the characters.
> 
> Let's liken this to writing.  Writers want you to feel like their world is real.  Writers though generally don't spend a lot of time writing about things unrelated to the main characters.  They do occasionally but this sort of example I gave likely doesn't get on a page unless the main character(s) absolutely will interact.  But there are other things a writer does, providing all sorts of little details, that something happened in the background.  So the gossip about the girl running away very much might make it into a story.  When writing you generally just show the effects of off camera action but off camera action is important to deeping the story and creating verisimilitude.



I'm going to be blunt -- so what?  If the players never engage this fiction, it doesn't make the world feel more "living" for _them _at all.  If the goal is to present a living world, this example fails in that regard.

If the players encounter this, then there's nothing that prevents a similar feeling if this fiction is generated in play.  This example absolutely feels like something that might easily come up in a Dogs in the Vineyard game, for instance, introduced in play as a reaction to something the PCs do.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I'll be honest. I really could live without the 'living breathing world' framing. It just feels like a flex to me. I think we can talk about reactive sandboxes without using loaded language that implies consistency, a sense of permanence, and the setting feeling tangible are not features or priorities for other ways of playing roleplaying games. It's also not very descriptive of the process of play - only of how most of want it to feel in play. Including a lot of us who favor different approaches.




For me this is a very important term, but it isn't universally used by all sandbox or all old school GMs. In fact most people use terms like world in motion. I do not see 'living world' as flex, I see it as an underlying philosophy where the NPCs have will and use that will, and where groups, monsters, etc all have a kind of will and are effectively living. It isn't meant to be a statement that you are literally bringing a world to life or anything, but it is a powerful metaphor for understanding the concept. For me this is simply the term I adopted based off the GM advice in Feast of Goblyns i posted earlier. Where they describe the concept of a major wandering encounter, then go into greater detail basically describing what I am describing (if in a slightly more limited scope). In that description it ends with "--they live!". That really resonated with me when I read it, and I started running my games like that (well before I was doing sandbox). At the time I always called them "living adventures" when I started running sandboxes, I applied the term there. Other people used the term independently, possibly meaning something slightly different from how I conceived of it. But this is a term I've been using for a long time, and one that I can't see myself relinquishing because I find it useful. That said, I don't expect other people to adopt it. I realize my concept of sandbox play and of the living adventure may be slightly outside what others mean by the terms.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> But, what's the difference?  The secret door being there or not is still authored into the fiction by one of the game's participants.  What's the functional difference in who does it?



There is a massive difference.  The GM is not a player in the typical sense.  He is a special player with a special job.  This enables the other players, those running characters, to do so from a pure actor stance.  Meaning they do what their characters can do and this is deeply satisfying for some people.  It feels more real and more immersive.   



Ovinomancer said:


> My answers:  the difference is in preference and play priorities.  If the GM is authoring everything, and presenting it as a puzzle to the players to pick up on and make smart decisions, then this is a fine way to play.  It's different from an approach that looks at the fiction as something to discover in play.  However, this said, that actual functional difference is only in who gets to say what, and that's a very interesting way to look at games -- it's not about creating a believable world, as both approaches I've discussed do this, but rather about who builds that world and how.  These are important discussions and differences, they generate different kinds of experiences, but it's not about creating a believable world at all, and the sooner we move past this as a conceit, the sooner productive discussion about approaches occur.



And while in theory, I don't dispute it's possible for everyone to be authors in a roleplaying game and it be believable, I don't feel that it is that way in practice.  At least not to me which is why I use the language I do.  If I know as a PC that I'm creating something that is not there yet, I am pushed out of my character viewpoint.  You may not be but I am.   

It's very much like five authors saying they are going to write a novel together.  It's possible it would be a great novel but the likelihood is low.  Passing the creative wand if you will from hand to hand will lead to inconsistencies and shallowness in my opinion.  Because creating things on the fly for even one person is hard to do well.  The GM is not creating things on the fly or at least not very much at all.  He is spending time in advance and he can revise as he goes.  I don't know how many times I've revisited my map and revised it or moved a city before the game starts.  I don't think I could do it as one person let alone five people most of whom aren't nearly as committed to the game as I am.

Now having said that, I am happy if it works for you and I am not denying your experience.  You should not deny mine.   I think you will find a lot of people that use the exact same language because for them it is true as well.  A world created on the fly is just not possibly as good a world as one done in advance.  We are mortals.   

So take this to heart.  I am not trying to offend you and I am very much doing my best not to interpret what you say as you trying to offend me.  When you deny my own experience of a game though, you really should just speak for yourself.  When I say something is immersive or shallow, I am speaking for myself.   I am happy the hobby is broad and people engage in all sorts of ways.  I am fascinated by some of the rules systems you guys develop.  I just don't have the time or commitment to play that way for long.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm going to be blunt -- so what?  If the players never engage this fiction, it doesn't make the world feel more "living" for _them _at all.  If the goal is to present a living world, this example fails in that regard.
> 
> If the players encounter this, then there's nothing that prevents a similar feeling if this fiction is generated in play.  This example absolutely feels like something that might easily come up in a Dogs in the Vineyard game, for instance, introduced in play as a reaction to something the PCs do.



Fine, that is your take but I've clarified what I mean by a living world.  If you read @Bedrockgames above, he has the same take.   It has value to me and my players.  YMMV.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Something worth pointing out too is when I GM this kind of game I feel the living world matters more than the GM. So I frequently explain to players how I am resolving something. I will also ask if they think that is a fair way to handle it, take their input, before making a final decision (and sone things I have put to a vote). i don’t get overly precious about ‘my world!’. What I care about is a functioning table, where players can see my good judgments and bad judgments clearly, where their opinions still matter in terms of whether something crossed a believability line. If I make an error and a player points it out, I don’t mind undoing something. For instance if I tell the players they walk into a reception hall and I say a 50 foot tall man sits before them on a dais; if a player points out all the doors are only 3 by 6 feet——that is something that would require modification (same if I accidentally introduced an NPC who had died twenty sessions back. These are extreme examples but this sort of on the spot criticism is a tool players in my groups wield


----------



## Fenris-77

@Emerikol  So you want_ your_ experience validated but at the same time are very happy to throw shade at other people's examples and experiences? I don't get the logic. See your quote below:

_It's very much like five authors saying they are going to write a novel together. It's possible it would be a great novel but the likelihood is low. Passing the creative wand if you will from hand to hand will lead to inconsistencies and shallowness in my opinion._

So that approach you've never played or tried, but that other have stated works very well, will, in your opinion, lead to shallowness and inconsistency? Hmm, IDK about anyone else, but that doesn't sounds like validating someone's _contra_ point of view. Quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, I'm not sure.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> @Emerikol  So you want_ your_ experience validated but at the same time are very happy to throw shade at other people's examples and experiences? I don't get the logic. See your quote below:
> 
> _It's very much like five authors saying they are going to write a novel together. It's possible it would be a great novel but the likelihood is low. Passing the creative wand if you will from hand to hand will lead to inconsistencies and shallowness in my opinion._
> 
> So that approach you've never played or tried, but that other have stated works very well, will, in your opinion, lead to shallowness and inconsistency? Hmm, IDK about anyone else, but that doesn't sounds like validating someone's _contra_ point of view. Quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, I'm not sure.



If you read the whole post, I very much say this is my perspective and it does not have to be anyone else's.  I make the case for why I believe as I do.  You can have fun playing a game that I don't using an approach that I don't.   That is the beauty of options.  I will be right there fighting beside you if anyone wanted to ban anything or even drive it out of the public square.   I may not agree with your opinion but I will defend your right to make it.

If you are having fun, how could I possible deny your experience.   Yet you continue to deny my own.   For me absolutely a game where players author fiction is not one I'd find very immersive.  Do I really need to put "for me" everywhere?  I do put it out there a good bit.   The example above is an attempt to explain my perspective.   And you will note the - in my opinion at the end.  An attribution that should be unnecessary since everything we write is our opinion.   

And I am not unaware of the approach.  It's not just some word I've heard of but have no inkling how it works.  I've heard plenty of descriptions.   I've definitely played in campaigns, briefly, where DMs didn't do much prep and tried to wing it.  They failed to wing it effectively even when they were the only one doing the winging.  Adding four more people to the equation just increases the likelihood of it failing.  Again in my opinion.


----------



## Fenris-77

No one's trying to convince you, personally, to enjoy it, just that's it is not only possible to play differently but also actually quite successful in precisely the way described. Not, in other words, inconsistent and shallow. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the couple of campaigns you've played in don't carry much explanatory weight in any kind of broader way, although they do certainly explain your opinions.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> There is a massive difference.  The GM is not a player in the typical sense.  He is a special player with a special job.  This enables the other players, those running characters, to do so from a pure actor stance.  Meaning they do what their characters can do and this is deeply satisfying for some people.  It feels more real and more immersive.



This is a fairly false distinction.  The GM is special because you've assumed that special role, largely because it works well with some systems, not because GM has some kind of inherent specialness.  Once we get to the point that the specialness is assigned, and understand this, we can then actually look at how that works rather than stopping at "GMs are special."  They really aren't, they're still players in the game, albeit with differentiate roles.  And those roles don't tell us anything about the difference in the fiction created except who creates them, which, as I just covered, isn't something inherent.

And, as for actor stance, the players in the secret door example I gave were entirely within actor stance.  Saying, "I search for a secret door," is right there in actor stance -- the PC is really hoping to find a secret door to escape the guards and is trying to do so.  The difference is the outcome of this, which, for the player, is still largely the same -- the system is engaged and the result says whether or not you find a secret door.  The real difference here is that, in the first example, that system is "the GM decides according to what they think it should be" and the second in "the mechanics decide."  The players don't step outside their characters in either.


Emerikol said:


> And while in theory, I don't dispute it's possible for everyone to be authors in a roleplaying game and it be believable, I don't feel that it is that way in practice.  At least not to me which is why I use the language I do.  If I know as a PC that I'm creating something that is not there yet, I am pushed out of my character viewpoint.  You may not be but I am.



To be blunt, again -- given you've no experience with other modes of play, what you feel is true is largely irrelevant.  People with that experience and who still use both approaches are telling you that this is not correct, but you persist, arguing from ignorance with assurance.

And, to be blunt again -- it's perfectly cool to never, ever get that experience.  It's perfectly cool to be super happy with how you play and not want to bother with another system or think that you wouldn't like it anyway.  100% hunky-dory.  It's the claims that your method produces a specific result that other methods cannot that's the issue -- you've zero evidence or experience to make this claim, but persist in the face of people that do have both saying otherwise.


Emerikol said:


> It's very much like five authors saying they are going to write a novel together.  It's possible it would be a great novel but the likelihood is low.  Passing the creative wand if you will from hand to hand will lead to inconsistencies and shallowness in my opinion.  Because creating things on the fly for even one person is hard to do well.  The GM is not creating things on the fly or at least not very much at all.  He is spending time in advance and he can revise as he goes.  I don't know how many times I've revisited my map and revised it or moved a city before the game starts.  I don't think I could do it as one person let alone five people most of whom aren't nearly as committed to the game as I am.



It's not like writing a novel together at all.  It's a completely different thing.


Emerikol said:


> Now having said that, I am happy if it works for you and I am not denying your experience.  You should not deny mine.   I think you will find a lot of people that use the exact same language because for them it is true as well.  A world created on the fly is just not possibly as good a world as one done in advance.  We are mortals.



But, you are denying my experience.  Just a few pages ago you were broaching the question if my experience even counts as an RPG!  Meanwhile, I have 100% been consistently saying that you have a 100% valid way to play, a fun way to play, that I've both played that way and will probably do so again (feeling a hankering for a hexcrawl starting to lurk), and that there's zero wrong with playing this way.  The only denying is coming from one direction, and it's not pointed at you.

Has there been some blunt discussion of how play operates?  Sure.  Can this be uncomfortable? Absolutely, any good criticism should be uncomfortable or it's not doing much.  I'm running 5e right now, hugely closer to your preferences than a game like Blades in the Dark.  Everything I've said applies to my own play, and I'm not the least bit upset or sorry about that -- I've embraced this, looked at how it works, and decided it's just fine for me.  I will use this approach when it suits the goals I have for that game, 100%, without reservation.  And I'll also freely admit that I'm currently running a hard railroad, that play is about discovering what's in the notes, and that there's pretty much zero protagonism in my game.  And we're having a blast!


Emerikol said:


> So take this to heart.  I am not trying to offend you and I am very much doing my best not to interpret what you say as you trying to offend me.  When you deny my own experience of a game though, you really should just speak for yourself.  When I say something is immersive or shallow, I am speaking for myself.   I am happy the hobby is broad and people engage in all sorts of ways.  I am fascinated by some of the rules systems you guys develop.  I just don't have the time or commitment to play that way for long.



I'm not denying your experience.  I'm saying that when you say that your approach gives you X, and you can't get that any other way, that's incorrect.  If you say that your approach gives you X in a way you prefer, I'll applaud that you've found the right way for you to play to maximize fun!  And, I'll still talk about how games work.


Emerikol said:


> Fine, that is your take but I've clarified what I mean by a living world.  If you read @Bedrockgames above, he has the same take.   It has value to me and my players.  YMMV.



I'm had Bedrockgames on ignore for some time, largely because I got tired of the constant accusations of attacking him, personally, while he's busy attacking others, personally.  So, no, thank you.

That your approach has value to you and yours is beyond question, and I've never questioned it.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> No one's trying to convince you, personally, to enjoy it, just that's it is not only possible to play differently but also actually quite successful in precisely the way described. Not, in other words, inconsistent and shallow. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the couple of campaigns you've in don't carry much explanatory weight in any kind of broader way, although they do certainly explain your opinions.



Isn't consistency and shallowness a matter of opinion?  If you play a game and think it is tremendously consistent and deeply immersive, does that mean I would automatically think the same?   Are we discussing matters of taste?   So when I give my taste preference, that is not an assault upon your own tastes.   It is my perspective and experience.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Isn't consistency and shallowness a matter of opinion?  If you play a game and think it is tremendously consistent and deeply immersive, does that mean I would automatically think the same?   Are we discussing matters of taste?   So when I give my taste preference, that is not an assault upon your own tastes.   It is my perspective and experience.



But, to put a point on it, you _haven't played these games_.  So, how would you know?


----------



## Arilyn

Yep, you have to try the minimal/no prep style. It can feel counter-intuitive, but it does work really well. You may dislike it, but it can't be really understood without giving it a whirl. It can't be inconsistent, shallow, non immersive, etc. or the style would not have so many adherents.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> Isn't consistency and shallowness a matter of opinion?  If you play a game and think it is tremendously consistent and deeply immersive, does that mean I would automatically think the same?   Are we discussing matters of taste?   So when I give my taste preference, that is not an assault upon your own tastes.   It is my perspective and experience.



The game you played in isn't the games I run or play in. Suggesting that that is the case is .... pretty odd. Your taste is yours, same with everyone, but your experience, slight as is it is, isn't definitive in any kind of way.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Arilyn said:


> Yep, you have to try the minimal/no prep style. It can feel counter-intuitive, but it does work really well. You may dislike it, but it can't be really understood without giving it a whirl. It can't be inconsistent, shallow, non immersive, etc. or the style would not have so many adherents.



Right, the claim that this kind of play creates these kinds of issues directly says that people that play that way like inconsistency and shallowness.  Quite the opposite, really -- one of the issues that made me move to exploring other styles of play was a dissatisfaction with the feel of consistency in heavy prep games (it felt forced), and the amount of sheer work necessary to create them.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a fairly false distinction.  The GM is special because you've assumed that special role, largely because it works well with some systems, not because GM has some kind of inherent specialness.  Once we get to the point that the specialness is assigned, and understand this, we can then actually look at how that works rather than stopping at "GMs are special."  They really aren't, they're still players in the game, albeit with differentiate roles.  And those roles don't tell us anything about the difference in the fiction created except who creates them, which, as I just covered, isn't something inherent.
> 
> And, as for actor stance, the players in the secret door example I gave were entirely within actor stance.  Saying, "I search for a secret door," is right there in actor stance -- the PC is really hoping to find a secret door to escape the guards and is trying to do so.  The difference is the outcome of this, which, for the player, is still largely the same -- the system is engaged and the result says whether or not you find a secret door.  The real difference here is that, in the first example, that system is "the GM decides according to what they think it should be" and the second in "the mechanics decide."  The players don't step outside their characters in either.
> 
> To be blunt, again -- given you've no experience with other modes of play, what you feel is true is largely irrelevant.  People with that experience and who still use both approaches are telling you that this is not correct, but you persist, arguing from ignorance with assurance.
> 
> And, to be blunt again -- it's perfectly cool to never, ever get that experience.  It's perfectly cool to be super happy with how you play and not want to bother with another system or think that you wouldn't like it anyway.  100% hunky-dory.  It's the claims that your method produces a specific result that other methods cannot that's the issue -- you've zero evidence or experience to make this claim, but persist in the face of people that do have both saying otherwise.
> 
> It's not like writing a novel together at all.  It's a completely different thing.
> 
> But, you are denying my experience.  Just a few pages ago you were broaching the question if my experience even counts as an RPG!  Meanwhile, I have 100% been consistently saying that you have a 100% valid way to play, a fun way to play, that I've both played that way and will probably do so again (feeling a hankering for a hexcrawl starting to lurk), and that there's zero wrong with playing this way.  The only denying is coming from one direction, and it's not pointed at you.



When you say that my own opinion that X is not immersive is wrong then you are denying my perspective and experience.



Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not denying your experience.  I'm saying that when you say that your approach gives you X, and you can't get that any other way, that's incorrect.  If you say that your approach gives you X in a way you prefer, I'll applaud that you've found the right way for you to play to maximize fun!  And, I'll still talk about how games work.



This is where you are dead wrong.  My approach gives me X and I can't get it playing the other ways.  At least where X is immersive, a feeling of verisimilitude.   It is ridiculous that you are denying how I feel about something.  A person who is not immersed due to X where X is absolutely anything in the universe is someone who is not immersed due to X.  Immersion is a personal thing.   You can't seem to get that.  



Ovinomancer said:


> I'm had Bedrockgames on ignore for some time, largely because I got tired of the constant accusations of attacking him, personally, while he's busy attacking others, personally.  So, no, thank you.
> 
> That your approach has value to you and yours is beyond question, and I've never questioned it.



We aren't debating approaches having merit in general.  If people are enjoying an approach then it has merit for THEIR games.  That is true of anything.   Use what you like and discard what you don't.  

I have tried over and over to explain to you WHY I FEEL AS I DO.  I am not saying anything about how YOU FEEL AS YOU DO.   I have repeated this a lot so you should just repeatedly read the previous sentence until you get it.


----------



## Emerikol

Arilyn said:


> Yep, you have to try the minimal/no prep style. It can feel counter-intuitive, but it does work really well. You may dislike it, but it can't be really understood without giving it a whirl. It can't be inconsistent, shallow, non immersive, etc. or the style would not have so many adherents.



Two things....

Do people play roleplaying games that are not immersive in the first place.  Sure.  But, the main point is the idea of immersion is subjective.  You may be immersed.  If people who value immersion are playing in your style then they are immersed.   That doesn't mean I would be immersed nor would it mean any number of others would be immersed.   Since you like to talk about groups, isn't it something to consider that many who oppose author stance approaches often cite immersion as their objection?   Whereas others don't care and don't have an issue.   

Millions of people love chocolate cream pie.  I don't care for it and would never waste the calories on it.  Could I eat it?  Oh I could and would if it was necessary to be polite.  I would never choose it over apple or peach pie if given the choice though.   Yet millions love chocolate cream pie.


----------



## Cadence

Emerikol said:


> I get the distinction somewhat though.  Obviously how radical you get at authoring as a player would dictate how outrageous this might seem.   And minor authorings like knowing a barkeep etc... might not seem so bad to many people who would balk at you conjuring a city into existence out of nothing.  So there are I suppose extremes.
> 
> So here is the process that happens....
> 1.  GM says you enter a tavern in the shady part of town
> 2.  Bob the player of the rogue character decides as the player that his character knows the barkeep and thus puts that thought into his characters head.
> 3.  The rogue character then says "Hey I know this barkeep let's see if she knows anything"
> 
> Now, the #2 part is not spoken.  It's a thought in Bob's head.
> In my style here is how it might go...
> 1.  GM says you enter a tavern in the shady part of town
> 2.  Bob asks what his rogue sees.  What are the rogues eyes taking in....
> 3.  GM consults notes and sees that the barkeep is someone the character knows.
> 4.  GM says "You see Blondy the Barkeep an old friend of yours.  She smiles and waves."




This makes me curious about what other styles are out there...

2. Bob the player says he's probably been in this part of town a lot, and says his rogue looks around for anyone he knows - the barkeep (?)
3. The GM makes a decision based on things like whether they already had planned who the barkeep was in a story important way, or if there was someone there getting ready to sidetrack the players, or if this is a great time to see where the player wants to head with their character.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> The game you played in isn't the games I run or play in. Suggesting that that is the case is .... pretty odd. Your taste is yours, same with everyone, but your experience, slight as is it is, isn't definitive in any kind of way.



So you believe unless I try a game exactly as you play it, I can't say I wouldn't like it based solely on elements in that game?

A good example.  I am certain bet my life that there is no roleplaying game with dissociative mechanics, live with it I understand what it is as I see it, that I am going to enjoy.   I have NEVER played D&D 5e.  Not even one session.  I never bought the books.  I saw the way they handled the fighter and healing and I knew I would never enjoy playing it.  I didn't need to play it to know that.

The same is true for player author stance.  The second I realize in a game that there is nothing really there around the corner and that it will only come into existence when I round the corner, I will lose interest.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> When you say that my own opinion that X is not immersive is wrong then you are denying my perspective and experience.



You have this on backward. You're using your own slight experience to tell whole swathes of the hobby that what they do isn't immersive. Someone telling you that isn't the case isn't denying your experience, just the application of that experience to anyone's game but your own as something that is in any way definitional or definitive.


----------



## Emerikol

Cadence said:


> This makes me curious about what other styles are out there...
> 
> 2. Bob the player says he's probably been in this part of town a lot, and says his rogue looks around for anyone he knows - the barkeep (?)
> 3. The GM makes a decision based on things like whether they already had planned who the barkeep was in a story important way, or if there was someone there getting ready to sidetrack the players, or if this is a great time to see where the player wants to head with their character.



I definitely think it would be fine if a player said "Do I see anybody I know given I'm from this area or I know this area well?"

At that moment, I'd know the answer to that question and give it to him.  If it were in an area where people are moving in and out and it's not a fixed location, I'd roll for a chance and if successful I'd say yes.  If not I'd say no.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> You have this on backward. You're using your own slight experience to tell whole swathes of the hobby that what they do isn't immersive. Someone telling you that isn't the case isn't denying your experience, just the application of that experience to anyone's game but your own as something that is in any way definitional or definitive.



No.  I'm saying IT IS NOT IMMERSIVE FOR ME.  Please read the previous sentence until you get it.   Immersion is subjective in case you were wondering.  And I never said my game was the only game I could be immersed by.  I've said though what gives me immersion and what does not.   So I guess you might say "my approach".


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> So you believe unless I try a game exactly as you play it, I can't say I wouldn't like it based solely on elements in that game?



Nope, we all get to have on opinion. But at the same time a complete lack of experience with game X isn't a great platform to base criticism on either.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> No.  I'm saying IT IS NOT IMMERSIVE FOR ME.  Please read the previous sentence until you get it.   Immersion is subjective in case you were wondering.  And I never said my game was the only game I could be immersed by.  I've said though what gives me immersion and what does not.   So I guess you might say "my approach".



If this is your position then I feel like you should maybe take a scroll back through your posts in this thread to figure out why everyone else seems to think something different than this. I'd never suggest that I know better than someone else what's immersive for them, that's silly sauce.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> If this is your position then I feel like you should maybe take a scroll back through your posts in this thread to figure out why everyone else seems to think something different than this. I'd never suggest that I know better than someone else what's immersive for them, that's silly sauce.



Not everyone.  Plenty immediately understand.  Amazingly it's those people viewing it from my perspective.  I can only write the words on the page.  Did you read them?  Or did you just think what you wanted to think in a caricature of my views.  I've repeated often on here that immersion is subjective and that these things break my immersion.  Yes I don't decorate every single solitary sentence with a half dozen qualifiers.  

If I said to you that cherry pie tastes terrible would you think I was asserting something universal or giving my opinion?   Isn't the fact taste is subject a factor in your consideration?  If I said Mr X. was a liar then that would not be an opinion.  He either lied or he didn't lie.   Immersion though is subjective.  Just like taste.


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, all that wonderful hyperbole aside, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the nature of your contributions to the thread. If you'd been obviously just talking about your own experience we wouldn't be where we are. Anyway, this horse is dead, moving on...


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, all that wonderful hyperbole aside, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the nature of your contributions to the thread. If you'd been obviously just talking about your own experience we wouldn't be where we are. Anyway, this horse is dead, moving on...



Or you had bothered to read what I right instead of assuming what I was thinking.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> When you say that my own opinion that X is not immersive is wrong then you are denying my perspective and experience.



You have no experience with X, how would you know?

Further, this is eliding that you think that X will probably not be immersive for you, but what you say is X is not immersive, and then go on to claim that counters are attacking your opinions.  


Emerikol said:


> This is where you are dead wrong.  My approach gives me X and I can't get it playing the other ways.  At least where X is immersive, a feeling of verisimilitude.   It is ridiculous that you are denying how I feel about something.  A person who is not immersed due to X where X is absolutely anything in the universe is someone who is not immersed due to X.  Immersion is a personal thing.   You can't seem to get that.



You actually have no idea about that, do you, because you haven't tried other ways.  And that's 100% fine, by the way, no requirement to do so, but that makes the true statement really that you're happy with your approach because it gives you what you want, not that this is the only way.  You'd get no pushback if you said this, by the way.  I'm happy you enjoy gaming.


Emerikol said:


> We aren't debating approaches having merit in general.  If people are enjoying an approach then it has merit for THEIR games.  That is true of anything.   Use what you like and discard what you don't.



Yup, but if you don't have experience you really shouldn't be saying much about other approaches other than you don't have experience with them or that you're happy as is, thank you very much.


Emerikol said:


> I have tried over and over to explain to you WHY I FEEL AS I DO.  I am not saying anything about how YOU FEEL AS YOU DO.   I have repeated this a lot so you should just repeatedly read the previous sentence until you get it.



The motte, again.  Feels.  Cool, I'm glad you feel this way.  Stick to saying that you're happy with your approach and stop trying to claim that your approach is the only way that the things you state you value are achievable.  Especially in terms of asking if other approaches are even RPGs -- a point you've still left out there and not walked back, and are still ignoring, by the way, despite not a single person telling you that you're wrong to enjoy playing your way or suggesting that it's not RPGing.  What you should do is then make claims about other games when you lack the experience and knowledge to do so.  As I've said, a few times now, some of your claims about other games read as completely ignorant to anyone's that's played them.  It's not a good look, and it shows that your arguments about what you feel are limited because you don't have the experience to generalize them.  Which is, again, fine, you're not required to get that experience, but then you aren't going to be credible when you make general statements.


----------



## Manbearcat

@hawkeyefan

When Haight was investigating the "site-of-the-murder-scene" haunted Union Hall or dealing with "Ghost Field Manifested Storm" with the child poltergeist who threw the incorporeal ball at your feet and expected you to "play with him", how did you (the person playing) _feel (because so much focus has been put on "feel") _and why?  However you felt, it certainly wasn't due to some elaborate, purple prose-ey exposition dump on my end.

@Fenris-77

How did you feel beholding this from afar?

I'd be curious to hear the answers framed by (a) stance, (b) situation framing, (c) mechanics (all of it including potential action resolution fallout and snowballing in a direction different from where it went in our game), and (d) "<adjectives> world." If you had to guess why you guys felt way x and why someone else (like @Emerikol ) might feel way y about these moments, what would you attribute that to (with respect to the above)?

EDIT - If its not clear what this is for, I'm looking for (a) first hand anecdote regarding "feels" and (b) steelmanning someone who might feel differently (and why they might).


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> Or you had bothered to read what I right instead of assuming what I was thinking.



If it makes you feel better to think that it's a reading comprehension issue, awesome. It isn't, but whatever floats your boat. For the record, I haven't disagreed with everything you've said by any stretch, just your characterization of games and approaches you've plainly never played. I'm certainly not telling you what to think or enjoy, or that what you do enjoy is badwrongfun.


----------



## innerdude

Emerikol said:


> Agree.
> 
> My goal as GM is to simulate a world in a *neutral and fair way*.  The players then interact with that world in the same way we interact with our real world.  To the degree, I can provide that sort of experience in an imaginary fantasy world, I consider myself a success.




The big problem for me is what I've bolded in the snippet above---namely, it's almost impossible for me as a GM, even with the absolute best intentions, to remain fully neutral/impartial/fair within all of the parameters available. Whether it be scene framing, adjudicating action, prefabrication of world elements, challenge and combat encounter creation, etc., I always find that inevitably some sort of bias creeps into my decisions. 

Most of the time, that bias is in favor of the players, but sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's stuff that I just think, "Man, I really _really really_ want the players to see or experience X, because that would be sooooo cool!"

And suddenly that desire to have the player experience X becomes this hidden seed that pushes the action. 





Bedrockgames said:


> For example if you say "What do I see", the GM isn't responding based on their prior conception of the fiction. That isn't how we conceive of play at all. It is not this unfolding fiction that is happening that gets built up in binary exchanges of players say X, GM decides. There is that component of the GM making his decision. But you are ignoring things like players can make a case outside character for things, and the GM will often be considering their words. It isn't as simple as "I decide". My answer needs to make sense too. And most GMs I have played with, will allow back and forth, where  players often explain hwy they think something ought to be present. The players don't have direct power, but they have the tools of persuasion (expected to be used in good faith, not to advance their character's interest) to help smooth out this process. In a typical sandbox the GM is making his decision not based on the prior fiction, but *based on the world, the ongoing situations in that world,* and what has just previously occurred (I think this is a much better term than the fiction, because the fiction seems to sidestep or minimize the role of the world).




The bolded part here is the problematic component. You keep talking about "the world" as if it operates in some wholly independent sphere of the shared fiction, as if it is possessed of some immutable, objective properties of existence separate from other components of the imagined fiction.

This is the whole crux of the argument around how and what player-facing game mechanics are designed to address---that there is no "world," there are only conceptions of the fiction in question. Saying that it's all part of the grand, overarching "natural, simulated world" doesn't give those conceptions any additional weight or gravitas.

Honestly, this was one of, if not _the _biggest mental hurdle for me to get over in regards to knowing how to approach player facing mechanics. Because the "game world" simply _had_ to be this independent construction, operating under its own parameters. How else could anyone know anything about anything if there wasn't an assumed, "fully realized" game world?

Until it finally clicked that there is no "world," there are only _conceptions of the fiction_. Any given conception exists in one of two states---1) something that is already established as true within the fiction state, and 2) things that are proposed to be true, but not yet known to be true (and potentially may end up being false).

By default, D&D assumes that a GM's notes / prefabrications / headcanon are conceptions that fall into Category 1 --- "Something already established as true within the fiction," until/unless the GM deems otherwise. The fact that the players don't know about the overwhelming majority of prefabricated "truths" is irrelevant, they're still considered "truth" for the fiction.

Category 2 conceptions are generally propositions from the players---"I kill the orc." This isn't known to be true until the game plays out, and the fiction state resolves. It may end up being true---and may end up being false, if the player's dice perform badly, or some other interposition happens first (e.g., the orc successfully runs away or the character trips and falls down).

Category 2 conceptions/propositions can be negated. For example, a player can say something as simple as, "Bob the Fighter walks across the room to head toward NotBob the Vile's private dining area." But this can be rendered untrue in any number of ways, e.g.:

Player 2: Joe the Wizard grabs Bob the Fighter's arm as soon as he stands up. [in character] 'I don't think you want to mess with NotBob right now, friend. He'll probably kill you.'

Or, 

GM: You go to walk across the room, but the barmaid slips, crashes a tray of empty flagons to the floor, and falls into your arms in disheveled confusion.

In both cases, Bob the Fighter has not, in fact, walked across the room to NotBob's private dining area. At least not until the interposed propositions are either accepted or rejected as truth.

RPG gameplay is really nothing more than Category 2 conceptions/propositions steadily moving to Category 1---it was unknown if the conception is true, and now it is known to be true or not.





Bedrockgames said:


> To take another example, if the players go to the head of phoenix moon gang and ask for her help finding the disappeared daughter of a local magistrate, the GM is going to respond, not decide, but respond, based on what the players say, what the leader's motivations are, weighing any rolls they might make, who the player characters are, etc. What the players say here could be very important. Then he might declare what the leader says or does, *and even then he isn't often simply deciding.*




The bolded portion of your quote cannot logically follow from the sentences that precede it. A _response_ is necessarily a _decision_.


----------



## Arilyn

I think there might be some confusion over the playstyles because of GMs who don't prep for a game that requires it. Most of us have probably had the experience of an unprepared GM floundering around trying to improvise games, but still wearing the hat of "traditional" GM. These games do feel surreal and shallow. Games that are built to accommodate minimal/no prep have structures in place. And these games work. Might not be everyone's preferred style, but they work.


----------



## Manbearcat

Arilyn said:


> I think there might be some confusion over the playstyles because of GMs who don't prep for a game that requires it. Most of us have probably had the experience of an unprepared GM floundering around trying to improvise games, but still wearing the hat of "traditional" GM. These games do feel surreal and shallow. Games that are built to accommodate minimal/no prep have structures in place. And these games work. Might not be everyone's preferred style, but they work.




And I thinks its instructive to note how significant differences in (a) ethos (GM mandate vs GM constraint via encoded principles), (b) GM-vs-table-facing-machinery (codified and table-facing action resolution vs GM-facing mediated action resolution via judgement and feel), and (c) integration (holistic design vs modular design) affect the formulation of these kinds of games.

I've seen 5e heralded as unstructured free form in the way that PBtA games are.  I've seen them run like that (Mercer does this).

But the difference between what Mercer is doing in the 5e Critical Role series (and GMs who run 5e like this), what I'm doing in DW/AW, and the experience of the participants at the table (including the GM) is MASSIVE (precisely because of the extreme differences between a - c cited above; its GM mandate + GM-facing mediated action resolution via judgement and feel + modular design vs DW being the opposite in all ways).  People have used "loosey-goosey" to describe this sort of play in 5e and I agree with that.  My DW/AW games are anything but "loosey-goosey", though they are 90 % improv.


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> @hawkeyefan
> 
> When Haight was investigating the "site-of-the-murder-scene" haunted Union Hall or dealing with "Ghost Field Manifested Storm" with the child poltergeist who threw the incorporeal ball at your feet and expected you to "play with him", how did you (the person playing) _feel (because so much focus has been put on "feel") _and why?  However you felt, it certainly wasn't due to some elaborate, purple prose-ey exposition dump on my end.
> 
> @Fenris-77
> 
> How did you feel beholding this from afar?
> 
> I'd be curious to hear the answers framed by (a) stance, (b) situation framing, (c) mechanics (all of it including potential action resolution fallout and snowballing in a direction different from where it went in our game), and (d) "<adjectives> world." If you had to guess why you guys felt way x and why someone else (like @Emerikol ) might feel way y about these moments, what would you attribute that to (with respect to the above)?



One of the beauties of playing a game like _Blades_, with all it's authorial permissions, is when you're playing it with a group of likeminded and engaged players (that includes the GM). So this scene above developed out of the snowball of our player decisions and the consequences thereof not just from the session in question, but from several previous sessions. This is true of idea level content, but also in the mechanical decisions we made as players, fully aware of what the fallout could be for failure or complication. Throughout those sessions, both @hawkeyefan and I made strong authorial contributions to the game, both in and out of character. The framing of our Blades game is _strongly_ recursive, by which I mean that the ideas bounce back and forth across the table at high speed with everyone bumping and setting ideas and consequences like pros. That gets back to @Manbearcat who does the actual scene framing, and the result is an encounter that is strongly welded to the characters involved, which in turn leads to player investment and, dare I say it, even immersion. So even as the non-present observer in this scene I found it enormously engaging and immersive, aided by the fact that I was peripherally involved of course, from a distance.

The kind of immersion and engagement I'm describing here is different from the kind you get in a GM notes game. Not better, or worse, just different. There's a stronger connection directly to the mechanics of the game and player decision making, where in, say, D&D or OSR play the connection tends to be to the GMs adjudication rather than actual mechanics, which feels different in play. Both are good of course, they just play to different kinds of player engagement and expectations. I can't imagine anyone playing the series of session in question and not enjoying themselves immensely, but with different expectations and play priorities I'm sure it's possible.

As for why someone might not enjoy it, several possibilities occur to me. Some players are uncomfortable with the idea of playing outside their character, which is fine and very common, but it doesn't produce the play I describe above. Some players are also not comfortable being as active as hawkeyefan and I are as players - there's no room for sitting back and enjoying the ride in _Blades_, it's hands on the wheel at all times. Beyond this, Blades puts a lot more of of the responsibility for consequences on the players because those consequences are often player facing, and not everyone is comfortable with that level of responsibility. I've termed this in positive terms on the Blades side, but I want to be clear that not wanting any of the above things isn't bad, weak, wrong or anything else negative.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> One of the beauties of playing a game like _Blades_, with all it's authorial permissions, is when you're playing it with a group of likeminded and engaged players (that includes the GM). So this scene above developed out of the snowball of our player decisions and the consequences thereof not just from the session in question, but from several previous sessions. This is true of idea level content, but also in the mechanical decisions we made as players, fully aware of what the fallout could be for failure or complication. Throughout those sessions, both @hawkeyefan and I made strong authorial contributions to the game, both in and out of character. The framing of our Blades game is _strongly_ recursive, by which I mean that the ideas bounce back and forth across the table at high speed with everyone bumping and setting ideas and consequences like pros. That gets back to @Manbearcat who does the actual scene framing, and the result is an encounter that is strongly welded to the characters involved, which in turn leads to player investment and, dare I say it, even immersion. So even as the non-present observer in this scene I found it enormously engaging and immersive, aided by the fact that I was peripherally involved of course, from a distance.
> 
> The kind of immersion and engagement I'm describing here is different from the kind you get in a GM notes game. Not better, or worse, just different. There's a stronger connection directly to the mechanics of the game and player decision making, where in, say, D&D or OSR play the connection tends to be to the GMs adjudication rather than actual mechanics, which feels different in play. Both are good of course, they just play to different kinds of player engagement and expectations. I can't imagine anyone playing the series of session in question and not enjoying themselves immensely, but with different expectations and play priorities I'm sure it's possible.
> 
> As for why someone might not enjoy it, several possibilities occur to me. Some players are uncomfortable with the idea of playing outside their character, which is fine and very common, but it doesn't produce the play I describe above. Some players are also not comfortable being as active as hawkeyefan and I are as players - there's no room for sitting back and enjoying the ride in _Blades_, it's hands on the wheel at all times. Beyond this, Blades puts a lot more of of the responsibility for consequences on the players because those consequences are often player facing, and not everyone is comfortable with that level of responsibility. I've termed this in positive terms on the Blades side, but I want to be clear that not wanting any of the above things isn't bad, weak, wrong or anything else negative.




That all makes sense.

Let me ask you something (and this may seem like an odd question from viewers afar) - disconnected from player input and the table-facing dynamics which you went through above.

There is a lot of celebration of both elaborate world-building and theatricality + heavy exposition dumps in D&D culture and _feel/immersion_ being downstream of that.  If my GMing style was extremely theatrical with elaborate exposition dumps, would that have *enhanced or detracted* from all the things you mentioned above?   What I'm asking is "does GMing with theatrical and elaborate exposition dumps vs pithy (both in terms of theatrics and word count) and provocative framing" have impact on (a) play broadly and (b) *this kind of play specifically*?

And how would players who are used to (and feel they are moved/compelled by) GMing with theatrical and elaborate exposition dumps in their framing feel about the different kind of framing that we're discussing here?


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> That all makes sense.
> 
> Let me ask you something (and this may seem like an odd question from viewers afar) - disconnected from player input and the table-facing dynamics which you went through above.
> 
> There is a lot of celebration of both elaborate world-building and theatricality + heavy exposition dumps in D&D culture and _feel/immersion_ being downstream of that.  If my GMing style was extremely theatrical with elaborate exposition dumps, would that have *enhanced or detracted* from all the things you mentioned above?   What I'm asking is "does GMing with theatrical and elaborate exposition dumps vs pithy (both in terms of theatrics and word count) and provocative framing" have impact on (a) play broadly and (b) *this kind of play specifically*?
> 
> And how would players who are used to (and feel they are moved/compelled by) GMing with theatrical and elaborate exposition dumps in their framing feel about the different kind of framing that we're discussing here?



Theatrical GMing and info dumps are mostly not useful in _Blades_ as they tend to interfere with the recursive process, either via time (info dumps) or register (theatricality). Those things are great in other games sometimes, but not in _Blades_ IMO. Pithy and provocative framing is a pretty succinct description of what GMing Blades should look like. You need the recursive process operating at high speeds to get the most out of the mechanics in _Blades_, so anything that runs counter to that is suboptimal, IMO.

As I said above, a main ingredient that replaces those two things in a game of _Blades_ is player activity and ownership of consequences. What that lacks is the element of being entertained that I think characterizes those two play elements, from the player side, obviously. I found initially with Blades, as would many people I suspect, that the game asks a lot more from the players than some other games. and that takes some getting used to and won't be to everyone's taste either.


----------



## Manbearcat

I'll go ahead and do a quick steelman of where I think a large cross-section of D&D players would have trouble with a Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Blades in the Dark game that I ran for them:

* Table-facing action resolution, setting/faction/conflict clocks, leading a distributed authority conversation regarding content generation vs GM-facing and overwhelmingly GM-exclusive content generation.

* Pithy (with very little theatrics) and provocative framing vs theatricality-heavy and exposition-heavy framing.

* No myth setting with collective world-building vs high resolution, steeped-in-history/lore, pregenerated setting.

* The sheer energy and responsibility required to respond steadily and creatively with the questions/provocations put before you in the content generating conversation.



Now I don't think those players are wired that way inherently (meaning their neurological hardware is cemented).  With enough exposure and play, I think its extremely likely that the bulk of them would experience/develop a cognitive toggle.  Not all, but a large number of them.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> Theatrical GMing and info dumps are mostly not useful in _Blades_ as they tend to interfere with the recursive process, either via time (info dumps) or register (theatricality). Those things are great in other games sometimes, but not in _Blades_ IMO. Pithy and provocative framing is a pretty succinct description of what GMing Blades should look like. You need the recursive process operating at high speeds to get the most out of the mechanics in _Blades_, so anything that runs counter to that is suboptimal, IMO.
> 
> As I said above, a main ingredient that replaces those two things in a game of _Blades_ is player activity and ownership of consequences. What that lacks is the element of being entertained that I think characterizes those two play elements, from the player side, obviously. I found initially with Blades, as would many people I suspect, that the game asks a lot more from the players than some other games. and that takes some getting used to and won't be to everyone's taste either.




Assuming deftness of play and that the chemistry between the participants isn't inherently bad, do you think its that energy, pacing, and flow (and the way the mechanics are tightly integrated as a feedback loop -feeding into and emerging from play) that do the heavy lifting of the immersive quality of play?

Put another way, do you think folks that feel they would be distracted by all of this stuff would inherently find their distractions falling away because its impossible not to get swept up by this?


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> Assuming deftness of play and that the chemistry between the participants isn't inherently bad, do you think its that energy, pacing, and flow (and the way the mechanics are tightly integrated as a feedback loop -feeding into and emerging from play) that do the heavy lifting of the immersive quality of play?
> 
> Put another way, do you think folks that feel they would be distracted by all of this stuff would inherently find their distractions falling away because its impossible not to get swept up by this?



Pretty much, yeah. In more traditional games immersion comes from action declaration and exposition (which is fine), but _Blades_ does it differently. The mechanics and pacing of the game itself, in the form of the feedback loop, are designed to foster that feeling of being swept away. Without having playing a game like _Blades_ its almost impossible, from the traditional D&D/OSR perspective, to envision what the difference is. The mechanics look one way when you're just reading them, and another way entirely when you're not just playing them, but playing them with some confidence. This reminds me of some of the prefatory material in _Burning Wheel _where Luke Crane is up front about the game needing some time and attention to really make fly.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The big problem for me is what I've bolded in the snippet above---namely, it's almost impossible for me as a GM, even with the absolute best intentions, to remain fully neutral/impartial/fair within all of the parameters available.




no one in their right minds would state a GM is remaining fully neutral. No one is truly objective. Objectivity, neutrality and fairness are ideals people strive for and there are referees who are closer to this ideal than others (just like there are more impartial and fair referees in professional sports). The fact that neutrality is a difficult goal, doesn't make it one not worth striving for. Throwing up our hands and 'saying it's impossible!" simply isn't the right reaction when there is clearly a difference between a GM who makes serious effort to be neutral and one who regularly favors Brett because he likes Brett and thinks everyone else at the table is a loser. The point of cultivating these kinds of skills is to be able to discern when you are not being fair, when your impartiality is being influenced by something like that.


----------



## innerdude

Fenris-77 said:


> One of the beauties of playing a game like _Blades_, with all it's authorial permissions, is when you're playing it with a group of likeminded and engaged players (that includes the GM). So this scene above developed out of the snowball of our player decisions and the consequences thereof not just from the session in question, but from several previous sessions. This is true of idea level content, but also in the mechanical decisions we made as players, fully aware of what the fallout could be for failure or complication. Throughout those sessions, both @hawkeyefan and I made strong authorial contributions to the game, both in and out of character. The framing of our Blades game is _strongly_ recursive, by which I mean that the ideas bounce back and forth across the table at high speed with everyone bumping and setting ideas and consequences like pros. That gets back to @Manbearcat who does the actual scene framing, and the result is an encounter that is strongly welded to the characters involved, which in turn leads to player investment and, dare I say it, even immersion. So even as the non-present observer in this scene I found it enormously engaging and immersive, aided by the fact that I was peripherally involved of course, from a distance.




So much this. All of this. All of it. All of the "this" that can be placed thusly. 

This is EXACTLY what's happening in my Ironsworn campaign. Couldn't have described it better if I'd spent a week trying.




Fenris-77 said:


> The kind of immersion and engagement I'm describing here is different from the kind you get in a GM notes game. Not better, or worse, just different. There's a stronger connection directly to the mechanics of the game and player decision making, where in, say, D&D or OSR play the connection tends to be to the GMs adjudication rather than actual mechanics, which feels different in play. Both are good of course, they just play to different kinds of player engagement and expectations. I can't imagine anyone playing the series of session in question and not enjoying themselves immensely, but with different expectations and play priorities I'm sure it's possible.




Again, so much this. One of the things I wanted focus on in a breakout thread around actor stance / "playing from only character view" is to present a view much like this.




Fenris-77 said:


> As for why someone might not enjoy it, several possibilities occur to me. Some players are uncomfortable with the idea of playing outside their character, which is fine and very common, but it doesn't produce the play I describe above. Some players are also not comfortable being as active as hawkeyefan and I are as players - there's no room for sitting back and enjoying the ride in _Blades_, it's hands on the wheel at all times. Beyond this, Blades puts a lot more of of the responsibility for consequences on the players because those consequences are often player facing, and not everyone is comfortable with that level of responsibility. I've termed this in positive terms on the Blades side, but I want to be clear that not wanting any of the above things isn't bad, weak, wrong or anything else negative.




Very much this too. Three of my Ironsworn players have grasped onto this with vigor, and are getting paid back in return. One player is by default a more . . . cautious player, largely the result of decades of "GM force" play in D&D 3.5 being beaten into him.


----------



## Manbearcat

I wonder if Emikol, Lanefan et al (and their players) would describe their play by the sort of "collective flow state" that is being depicted above; I suspect not.  If not, I wonder if the source of being incredulous at the cognitive state that has been depicted in these kinds of games (which advocates say enhances their immersion rather than detracts) is because of an expectation of a discretized agency/cognitive position. 

Then I wonder if the "4e Warlords suck because they're ordering around my PC" is an inevitable outgrowth of this (eg rather than finding a way to achieve cognitive unity and make all of this work, or politely decline the synergy, there is offense at the sense of encroachment on someone's domain).


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> I wonder if Emikol, Lanefan et al (and their players) would describe their play by the sort of "collective flow state" that is being depicted above; I suspect not.  If not, I wonder if the source of being incredulous at the cognitive state that has been depicted in these kinds of games (which advocates say enhances their immersion rather than detracts) is because of an expectation of a discretized agency/cognitive position.
> 
> Then I wonder if the "4e Warlords suck because they're ordering around my PC" is an inevitable outgrowth of this.



I think that D&D style characters are far more siloed than characters in _Blades_. Character's in D&D have very little mechanical effect on each other and as a result have a significantly different (and larger) cognitive distance from each other. *Blades*, on the other hand, *demands* that the players work as an actual team, in mechanical terms, at least some of the time. I might call the resulting difference immersion in the game (Blades) rather than strictly immersion in the character (D&D), although the former certainly includes the latter.

Edit: sorry, forgot the actual point, which is that the team approach really obviates the preciousness you sometimes see about character control and autonomy you see in conversations about traditional games.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> When Haight was investigating the "site-of-the-murder-scene" haunted Union Hall or dealing with "Ghost Field Manifested Storm" with the child poltergeist who threw the incorporeal ball at your feet and expected you to "play with him", how did you (the person playing) _feel (because so much focus has been put on "feel") _and why? However you felt, it certainly wasn't due to some elaborate, purple prose-ey exposition dump on my end.




When the ghost kid's ball landed at my feet, as a player I felt a sense of....excitement, I think is probably best. A little thrill at something so creepy and immediately engaging. I knew this was going to be a tipping point of some sort. Here was something that needed to be dealt with, and depending on how it went, things could proceed in drastically different directions. It was a tense moment.

I would agree that the feeling I had wasn't really about the prose you used to set the scene....I think the description was very straightforward rather than evocative.



Manbearcat said:


> I'd be curious to hear the answers framed by (a) stance, (b) situation framing, (c) mechanics (all of it including potential action resolution fallout and snowballing in a direction different from where it went in our game), and (d) "<adjectives> world."




I'd say that my engagement with the scene was also so strong because it was connected to my character's interests. He has a scientific interest in the arcane, and this was his first really significant foray into dealing with ghosts and the like. It spoke to the character. 

It also allowed my to use the gadget my character has created (one of my significant choices during character creation), his "ghost gloves", which gave me the idea to simply interact with the spectral ball and "throw" it back to the kid. But, deciding to bring those to bear actually made it a bit more risky because they have a drawback of being "volatile" and possibly attracting unwanted spectral consequences. So the ghost gloves having that quality meant that I knew using them as a part of the solution to the situation meant that if it went wrong, it would have been that much worse.

The entire scenario, from beginning to end, had that feel to it. I was very aware I was in dangerous territory, and pretty obviously out of my character's depth, and at any moment things could have went horribly wrong. All of it felt genuine to the fictional world we'd established, and the situation you described, and my character's place in it.



Manbearcat said:


> If you had to guess why you guys felt way x and why someone else (like @Emerikol ) might feel way y about these moments, what would you attribute that to (with respect to the above)?




I don't want to say what @Emerikol may feel about it, but I can say that I felt the world and the scenario had depth, and I felt immersed in the situation as my character. I don't think that any of this suffered from a lot of the details clearly arising only through play and not being decided ahead of time.  

I know that at one point earlier in my life as a player/GM....even only about 5 years ago.....I likely would have balked at this to some extent, but I think that's largely due to the phenomenon that @Arilyn just mentioned when we find ourselves in an RPG that clearly requires prep of some sort, and the GM has not done any, and so they're struggling to riff on the fly using a system that's not designed to support that, for players who likely weren't expecting that. I've been in those games and they can be frustrating. 

But playing with a system and processes that actively support and promote this kind of play, and with people who are comfortable with it and who clearly enjoy it, like you and @Fenris-77 , it works quite well. The world feels as real as any I experienced in my younger days, and my character feels like a natural and unique part of that world.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> I think that D&D style characters are far more siloed than characters in _Blades_. Character's in D&D have very little mechanical effect on each other and as a result have a significantly different (and larger) cognitive distance from each other. *Blades*, on the other hand, *demands* that the players work as an actual team, in mechanical terms, at least some of the time. I might call the resulting difference immersion in the game (Blades) rather than strictly immersion in the character (D&D), although the former certainly includes the latter.
> 
> Edit: sorry, forgot the actual point, which is that the team approach really obviates the preciousness you sometimes see about character control and autonomy you see in conversations about traditional games.




And again (back to the 4e Warlord), I wonder if these trad D&D predilections were (as would be with Blades) one of the issues that a certain subset of the D&D culture had with 4e (where team thematic and tactical synergy are collected rather than distributed).


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The big problem for me is what I've bolded in the snippet above---namely, it's almost impossible for me as a GM, even with the absolute best intentions, to remain fully neutral/impartial/fair within all of the parameters available. Whether it be scene framing, adjudicating action, prefabrication of world elements, challenge and combat encounter creation, etc., I always find that inevitably some sort of bias creeps into my decisions.
> 
> Most of the time, that bias is in favor of the players, but sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's stuff that I just think, "Man, I really _really really_ want the players to see or experience X, because that would be sooooo cool!"
> 
> And suddenly that desire to have the player experience X becomes this hidden seed that pushes the action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part here is the problematic component. You keep talking about "the world" as if it operates in some wholly independent sphere of the shared fiction, as if it is possessed of some immutable, objective properties of existence separate from other components of the imagined fiction.
> 
> This is the whole crux of the argument around how and what player-facing game mechanics are designed to address---that there is no "world," there are only conceptions of the fiction in question. Saying that it's all part of the grand, overarching "natural, simulated world" doesn't give those conceptions any additional weight or gravitas.
> 
> Honestly, this was one of, if not _the _biggest mental hurdle for me to get over in regards to knowing how to approach player facing mechanics. Because the "game world" simply _had_ to be this independent construction, operating under its own parameters. How else could anyone know anything about anything if there wasn't an assumed, "fully realized" game world?
> 
> Until it finally clicked that there is no "world," there are only _conceptions of the fiction_. Any given conception exists in one of two states---1) something that is already established as true within the fiction state, and 2) things that are proposed to be true, but not yet known to be true (and potentially may end up being false).
> 
> By default, D&D assumes that a GM's notes / prefabrications / headcanon are conceptions that fall into Category 1 --- "Something already established as true within the fiction," until/unless the GM deems otherwise. The fact that the players don't know about the overwhelming majority of prefabricated "truths" is irrelevant, they're still considered "truth" for the fiction.
> 
> Category 2 conceptions are generally propositions from the players---"I kill the orc." This isn't known to be true until the game plays out, and the fiction state resolves. It may end up being true---and may end up being false, if the player's dice perform badly, or some other interposition happens first (e.g., the orc successfully runs away or the character trips and falls down).
> 
> Category 2 conceptions/propositions can be negated. For example, a player can say something as simple as, "Bob the Fighter walks across the room to head toward NotBob the Vile's private dining area." But this can be rendered untrue in any number of ways, e.g.:
> 
> Player 2: Joe the Wizard grabs Bob the Fighter's arm as soon as he stands up. [in character] 'I don't think you want to mess with NotBob right now, friend. He'll probably kill you.'
> 
> Or,
> 
> GM: You go to walk across the room, but the barmaid slips, crashes a tray of empty flagons to the floor, and falls into your arms in disheveled confusion.
> 
> In both cases, Bob the Fighter has not, in fact, walked across the room to NotBob's private dining area. At least not until the interposed propositions are either accepted or rejected as truth.
> 
> RPG gameplay is really nothing more than Category 2 conceptions/propositions steadily moving to Category 1---it was unknown if the conception is true, and now it is known to be true or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded portion of your quote cannot logically follow from the sentences that precede it. A _response_ is necessarily a _decision_.



I just can't agree with you sorry. This all very much is not how I conceptualize play. I think the world exists as a concept (shared fiction is actually something different in my mind: that is has more to do with the collective understanding the players at the table and the GM all share, the current state of play (or narration if you prefer). But a mental concept can be something that exists outside the players. It is a model that the GM has and maintains in his or  her head, in notes, in instincts they've developed about the settings truths, and in addition to this the world grows and expands as the players interact with it and as the synergy people talk about arises. Now if you've found this doesn't work for you, fair enough. But it isn't a zero sum game between this and more player facing mechanics. Both approaches can exist. Arguments like yours frankly are like the ones people on my  side make when they try to deny that a more narrative RPG is an RPG at all (by, for example relying on proscriptive definitions of RPG). I am not here to wage war on play styles people enjoy. I am happy to make distinctions. because distinctions are useful. but I also won't take seriously someone telling me what I know works at my table isn't working because they have developed a lexicon  around concepts that fit their own preferred style of play (again RPG theory is nowhere near something like Music theory and even music theory is an imperfect language for understanding all forms of music)


----------



## Manbearcat

Manbearcat said:


> I wonder if Emikol, Lanefan et al (and their players) would describe their play by the sort of "collective flow state" that is being depicted above; I suspect not.  If not, I wonder if the source of being incredulous at the cognitive state that has been depicted in these kinds of games (which advocates say enhances their immersion rather than detracts) is because of an expectation of a discretized agency/cognitive position.
> 
> Then I wonder if the "4e Warlords suck because they're ordering around my PC" is an inevitable outgrowth of this (eg rather than finding a way to achieve cognitive unity and make all of this work, or politely decline the synergy, there is offense at the sense of encroachment on someone's domain).




What do you think of the above with respect to what you have written below (and maybe comment on the team synergy/continuity vs distributed/siloed pieces concept)?



hawkeyefan said:


> When the ghost kid's ball landed at my feet, as a player I felt a sense of....excitement, I think is probably best. A little thrill at something so creepy and immediately engaging. I knew this was going to be a tipping point of some sort. Here was something that needed to be dealt with, and depending on how it went, things could proceed in drastically different directions. It was a tense moment.
> 
> I would agree that the feeling I had wasn't really about the prose you used to set the scene....I think the description was very straightforward rather than evocative.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that my engagement with the scene was also so strong because it was connected to my character's interests. He has a scientific interest in the arcane, and this was his first really significant foray into dealing with ghosts and the like. It spoke to the character.
> 
> It also allowed my to use the gadget my character has created (one of my significant choices during character creation), his "ghost gloves", which gave me the idea to simply interact with the spectral ball and "throw" it back to the kid. But, deciding to bring those to bear actually made it a bit more risky because they have a drawback of being "volatile" and possibly attracting unwanted spectral consequences. So the ghost gloves having that quality meant that I knew using them as a part of the solution to the situation meant that if it went wrong, it would have been that much worse.
> 
> The entire scenario, from beginning to end, had that feel to it. I was very aware I was in dangerous territory, and pretty obviously out of my character's depth, and at any moment things could have went horribly wrong. All of it felt genuine to the fictional world we'd established, and the situation you described, and my character's place in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to say what @Emerikol may feel about it, but I can say that I felt the world and the scenario had depth, and I felt immersed in the situation as my character. I don't think that any of this suffered from a lot of the details clearly arising only through play and not being decided ahead of time.
> 
> I know that at one point earlier in my life as a player/GM....even only about 5 years ago.....I likely would have balked at this to some extent, but I think that's largely due to the phenomenon that @Arilyn just mentioned when we find ourselves in an RPG that clearly requires prep of some sort, and the GM has not done any, and so they're struggling to riff on the fly using a system that's not designed to support that, for players who likely weren't expecting that. I've been in those games and they can be frustrating.
> 
> But playing with a system and processes that actively support and promote this kind of play, and with people who are comfortable with it and who clearly enjoy it, like you and @Fenris-77 , it works quite well. The world feels as real as any I experienced in my younger days, and my character feels like a natural and unique part of that world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The bolded portion of your quote cannot logically follow from the sentences that precede it. A _response_ is necessarily a _decision_.




Not is not. A decision is the result of thought and deliberation, before making a choice. A response can just be a gut reaction. However that is besides the point because decide is being used informally here. What is more important is I am trying to explain why the GM isn't simply declaring something by fiat or always the one deciding the outcome. There are other factors and it is probably more accurate to say the GM responds. Because what the players do matters, and it prompts the _decisions_ the GM makes


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Pretty much, yeah. In more traditional games immersion comes from action declaration and exposition (which is fine), but _Blades_ does it differently. The mechanics and pacing of the game itself, in the form of the feedback loop, are designed to foster that feeling of being swept away. Without having playing a game like _Blades_ its almost impossible, from the traditional D&D/OSR perspective, to envision what the difference is. *The mechanics look one way when you're just reading them, and another way entirely when you're not just playing them,* but playing them with some confidence. This reminds me of some of the prefatory material in _Burning Wheel _where Luke Crane is up front about the game needing some time and attention to really make fly.




To be fair, this is true of traditional sandbox style RPGs too (or really any RPG). RPGs are experiential. When I first sat down to play an RPG, the rules were explained, the character sheets made clear, the dice and pencils placed down on the table. I expected to be bored. When play began, suddenly I wasn't in another world. I think we've all had the experience of reading a game thinking it will play one way, then it plays another (and sometimes you play enough games of one style, you can guess pretty well reading similar rules how they play). I read Blades in the Dark Recently. I still feel I have no idea how it feels to play. At some point I will get to playing it (though I have to admit it isn't the game I am most excited about playing at the moment). Something similar happened with HIllfolk. I new about the rules, though they would be disruptive to immersion. Then I played it and the game was actually quite immersive. Since then I've bought the book, played it a number of times. It is definitely good for immersion. But at the same time there are things it doesn't do well, or itches it doesn't scratch that would make it more of a once in a while game for me. One thing I did see right away when I had my players in my regular campaign play it was a lot of the different assumptions really tripped them up and it took a bit of time for them to get over that. 

One area we had a real hard time with with Hillfolk was trying to do mystery. We ended up having a good mystery campaign, but we realized you are really there to enjoy the drama not discovered what actually happened (or to collectively figure out what happened, but the problem that created was there was this amorphous mystery that wasn't pinned down like a regular mystery is: i.e. some killed so and so, in this way, at this time, then did this to cover it up, etc). In Hillfolk those facts could emerge later, and in our case because we didnt' know who the guilty party was you always kind of had to play your character knowing it could end up being you (not sure if that makes sense or not). Also we were new to Hillfolk, so I might have missed some cool 'mystery tool' in the book somewhere. Still a great game. Just mentioning the mystery thing to point out these are all just tools and styles, and there isn't one right way. Every approach is going to have limits or not click with certain people. That is why you want a variety of styles


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> I wonder if Emikol, Lanefan et al (and their players) would describe their play by the sort of "collective flow state" that is being depicted above; I suspect not.  If not, I wonder if the source of being incredulous at the cognitive state that has been depicted in these kinds of games (which advocates say enhances their immersion rather than detracts) is because of an expectation of a discretized agency/cognitive position.



I've described a TRPG table that's going well as having a gestalt-ish vibe a lot like playing in a band. There is, at least subjectively for me, a feeling of flow very similar to reading a particularly engaging book or banging away in my little MIDI room or--more similarly--playing in a band, where I can look at the clock then look again and see that three hours have gone by.

I get that not every one experiences any of those things the same way. I'm also--I think--not as far in the direction you're talking about as the posters you name, so my experiences are plausibly less-relevant.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> I've described a TRPG table that's going well as having a gestalt-ish vibe a lot like playing in a band. There is, at least subjectively for me, a feeling of flow very similar to reading a particularly engaging book or banging away in my little MIDI room or--more similarly--playing in a band, where I can look at the clock then look again and see that three hours have gone by.
> 
> I get that not every one experiences any of those things the same way. I'm also--I think--not as far in the direction you're talking about as the posters you name, so my experiences are plausibly less-relevant.




Can you break this out into its constituent parts for me?  How does this "gestalt-ish vibe" come to be with respect to:


Distribution of contribution at the table
Pace of play
Table-facing vs GM-facing decision-points and action resolution
System integration (as it relates to the above 3 things)
GM theatricality and exposition length
Group chemistry


----------



## Manbearcat

BRG's post above about mystery and Hillfolk reminds me @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 .

How did you think the mystery of the killings sorted itself out?  Going into that I didn't know what the gist was going to be.  I was thinking maybe it was an accidental fertilizer explosion at the Radiant Farms, workplace violence, a labor union meeting gone bad, a Jack the Ripper Spree Killer thing gone amok.  I had a lot of potential ideas.  The Crow extortion racket and leadership coup via Demon summoning just sort of emerged and snowballed after the initial framing and something that was said or done.

So, for me, personally, that was a mystery going in and I (the GM) got to "play to find out" what actually ended up happening.  How did that work out for you guys?


----------



## Fenris-77

I thought it worked out well. The unfolding events played perfectly with what had gone before and there were no false notes or moments of cognitive dissonance. I was pretty sure that was how it played out on your side, but there wasn't a moment where it felt like you were just making crap up.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Yeah, it definitely seemed like what was causing the the situation was uncertain at the start of play. Like it could have been a few different things. Then details slowly started to emerge, and a picture became clearer. 

To me, that seems like a natural progression of a mystery.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> I thought it worked out well. The unfolding events played perfectly with what had gone before and there were no false notes or moments of cognitive dissonance. I was pretty sure that was how it played out on your side, but there wasn't a moment where it felt like you were just making crap up.






hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, it definitely seemed like what was causing the the situation was uncertain at the start of play. Like it could have been a few different things. Then details slowly started to emerge, and a picture became clearer.
> 
> To me, that seems like a natural progression of a mystery.




That was my experience as well.

We often hear these laments of mysteries “not workable” or them being terrible.

Do either of you have a process and/or an outcome for last week’s session that would have yielded “not workable” or terrible?


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> I'll bite.   Isn't this done ahead of time outside the actual game?   You and the DM talking about things and you suggesting ideas for your character?



Doesn't matter when it's done, the point is that it's done at all.

The pattern of DM provides the base framework and then players and-or DM flesh it out was what I was trying to get at.


Emerikol said:


> For me this happens iteratively prior to the start of the game.  But even when it happens during a campaign, which would be fine, it would happen outside of the game.  During the game maintaining only character role is important.   So if I had a cleric player who said "Hey, I want to flesh out my religion and come up with the marriage rites, or develop the hierarchy further, or whatever."



What if this comes up out of the blue in mid-session, though?  Two PCs want to marry each other and the PC Cleric wants to run the ceremony in detail.  Can the Cleric's player make the specifics up on the fly?  Sure, why not.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Can you break this out into its constituent parts for me?  How does this "gestalt-ish vibe" come to be with respect to:
> 
> 
> Distribution of contribution at the table
> Pace of play
> Table-facing vs GM-facing decision-points and action resolution
> System integration (as it relates to the above 3 things)
> GM theatricality and exposition length
> Group chemistry



In general, when a TRPG is going well, there's a feeling that what's happening in the game is more than the sum of the participants' contributions--which is my understanding of what "gestalt" means, though that may be incorrect. That's very much like playing in a band, and the only thing that seems to cover it is "group chemistry," though it's both more than chemistry and not the entirety of the answer to that, either.

Specific to the D&D 5E games I'm running:

Everyone contributes. While I might _talk_ more than half the time, because of how 5E distributes actual narration, I feel as though I contribute well less than half of the actual fiction that applies in play. Yes, I did most of the world-building (because I enjoy doing it, and because I haven't enjoyed running/pplaying in collaborative worlds as much) but it's possible for remarkably little of the broader setting to be relevant for a given session; and given that I think character and action are a greater part of narrative--and the players are bringing more of those (again, relevant to the story) than I am, I think the distribution between players (as a whole) and DM is pretty even.

Pace of play ... varies. I don't like for anything to take so long in the real world that the players forget why the characters are doing it, so even if the characters are exploring something like a dungeon, or traveling, I try to keep why they're doing it foregrounded some. But if a party is coming up on something that looks as though it's going to turn into a major fight, I don't mind if they take as much time as they need to, to get their plan/s together. Also, there is variation in how quick on the uptake the people around the table are (both person-to-person, and a given person session-to-session).

I frame situations, usually by throwing stinky stuff at a convenient fan. Sometimes a party can choose not to engage that; often they can't. I make an effort to over the course of a campaign provide multiple longer-term goals for the party to pursue (some from their characters' backstories, some arising during play). Decisions as to how to handle a given situation, which goal/s to pursue and how, and such, are pretty much entirely up to the players. You want to go to Auriqua to try to avenge Taman's family's death--sure, I'll work out what's going on in Auriqua and put leads there to get you in the direction of Taman's revenge. Action-resolution is 5E, though I find it efficient and fair to announce DCs for saves (most of the time) and to publicize ACs for monsters after like a round or two. If there is real risk in a skill check, I try to make sure the player/s and the DM are on the same page as far as that, and as far as what success will look like. I use some checks--knowledge-type checks mostly--to see how quickly the PCs can learn something. I don't (much) play NPCs as cagey--there isn't a ton of call for social skill rolls.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "system integration" in this context. The answer that comes to mind is that everyone at both tables knows 5E pretty well at this point, so there isn't a lot of fumbling in the rulebooks, and no one a the table is likely to be surprised by something lurking in an edge-case. I very much trust the players to know the rules for how their characters work and play by them--I almost never check the players on the rules (in fact, I'll ask about a rule sometimes). I have a sneaking suspicion I haven't answered you on this, which is unintentional.

I am not a theatrical GM. I've worked with (voice) actors--15+ years recording audiobooks--and I know my limitations in that regard. I have a grasp of how to use language, though, and while I can't really do accents I can modulate my voice to convey character. My exposition length varies, I think. I have in the past been pretty explicitly cinematic (referring to something as "having blown the F/X budget," for instance) and I've been known to sprinkle "oh crap!" moments into scenes.

Best I can tell, everyone at both tables really likes each other. Some of the people I've known a while, others I've only known as long as I've been DMing for them. They certainly tend to work well together in-game, and at the table. There might be some variation in playstyles, but nothing that's way out of the norm for D&D, as far as I know.

--I think I might have answered a slightly-wrong question, and described what that gestaltish vibe _looks like_ at the tables I'm DMing, not so much how it came to be; but I think the answer to that is kinda contained in what I've said. I think it has come to be, because the people at the tables wanted and allowed it to come to be. The players have said kind things about my DMing, and I've been clear--always--that I could not be the DM I am without excellent/compatible players. I'm deeply aware how fortunate I am in that regard.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> Time to get to some actual practical stuff. All of this assumes I am not running a game with specialized prep requirements.
> 
> I tend to favor an iterative approach to setting and character creation. Usually what I will do is come up with an initial scenario to kick stuff off. Some inciting event and enough setting information to give that event context. Then we will do a Session Zero where players create characters with a stake in the inciting event. The purpose is generally to get an idea of who the PCs are, how they are connected to each other, and to start building a supporting cast for each character.
> 
> From that point on most of prep tends to revolve on building out both the initial scenario and building circles of NPCs around the PCs. I will have more details about this process later this weekend. Time for me to get ready for work.



Your example has already left me behind in a bunch of ways:

You're positing a situation where you know who the players - never mind their PCs! - will be before doing most of your prep.

You also assume the PCs will be pre-connected to each other; which as a player, though I'm not necessarily averse to the concept in principle, I dislike having forced on me.

And by the sound of it, any prep done after session 0 isn't neutral, but rather is tailored to the specific PCs.  How does this work out if one or more of those PCs dies in session 1?


----------



## innerdude

Bedrockgames said:


> I just can't agree with you sorry. This all very much is not how I conceptualize play. I think the world exists as a concept (shared fiction is actually something different in my mind: that is has more to do with the collective understanding the players at the table and the GM all share, the current state of play (or narration if you prefer). But a mental concept can be something that exists outside the players. It is a model that the GM has and maintains in his or  her head, in notes, in instincts they've developed about the settings truths, and in addition to this the world grows and expands as the players interact with it and as the synergy people talk about arises. Now if you've found this doesn't work for you, fair enough. But it isn't a zero sum game between this and more player facing mechanics. Both approaches can exist. Arguments like yours frankly are like the ones people on my  side make when they try to deny that a more narrative RPG is an RPG at all (by, for example relying on proscriptive definitions of RPG). I am not here to wage war on play styles people enjoy. I am happy to make distinctions. because distinctions are useful. but I also won't take seriously someone telling me what I know works at my table isn't working because they have developed a lexicon  around concepts that fit their own preferred style of play (again RPG theory is nowhere near something like Music theory and even music theory is an imperfect language for understanding all forms of music)




Wasn't trying to be provocative or denigrating at all. What you describe is nigh identical to a mindset I once held. I believed it was both important and necessary that the game world in RPG play had some sort of "existence outside the players." That in order for RPG play to work coherently, that the game world needed to exist as an "externality".

But ultimately I couldn't refute a simple syllogism:

_All fiction is constructed by one or more authors. All RPG play operates within a fiction. Ergo, the fictional space of RPG play is constructed_.

The game world doesn't exist independently as an externality, it's constructed. Even if the construct is generated for particular purposes, needs, and agendas (usually good ones), it doesn't change its nature as a construct. Pulling a piece of that construct out, setting it aside and declaring, "This thing here, this piece of the fiction, it exists independently and externally to the rest of the fiction," doesn't turn it from fiction into not-fiction. Applying the "externally existent" descriptor to the game world is a category error.

Under scrutiny, eventually I had to recognize that those advocating for player-facing mechanics had a point---all RPG play starts as an idea in someone's head. All of it. It's something that somebody, somewhere, woke up one day (or over hundreds of days) and constructed. And the verb _constructed_ was the tipping point.

I have no issue with your game style, or that it's enjoyable to you. At some point, I'm going to play in that style again myself!

But setting apart the "game world" from the rest of the shared fiction doesn't make it less fictional, it just means that I-as-GM have privileged that part of the fiction _more than other parts_.

But I completely understand the justification for privileging the fiction pertaining to the game world. It's a very useful conceit if the agenda is to limit "experiencing the game world only through the view of the character." And I get why that agenda exists. It's driven by the desire to provide pleasurable gaming experiences---the unfolding of mysteries, the experience of exploring the unknown, of exploring an alternative ego / mind to better understand the self. It's driven by a desire to provide some of the really deep, valuable, and pleasurable outcomes that only RPG play can produce.

I have zero problem with you wanting to privilege the game world fiction for your own play. Just don't turn it into a category error.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> But, what's the difference?  The secret door being there or not is still authored into the fiction by one of the game's participants.  What's the functional difference in who does it?



The difference is that the players have a direct and immediate interest in authoring a secret door right here right now as its presence will bail their asses out of some sticky situation.  This puts them in a conflict of interest: gaining an immediate advantage in play vs long-term setting integrity.

Far rather that conflict of interest be removed via having setting elements such as these be locked in ahead of time.  The GM has no such conflict of interest when she puts that secret door there ahead of time: she has no idea whether it'll ever be found and-or what the situation might be at the time.  She just neutrally puts it there and then allows play to interact with it later in whatever manner might arise.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> I think that D&D style characters are far more siloed than characters in _Blades_. Character's in D&D have very little mechanical effect on each other and as a result have a significantly different (and larger) cognitive distance from each other. *Blades*, on the other hand, *demands* that the players work as an actual team, in mechanical terms, at least some of the time. I might call the resulting difference immersion in the game (Blades) rather than strictly immersion in the character (D&D), although the former certainly includes the latter.
> 
> Edit: sorry, forgot the actual point, which is that the team approach really obviates the preciousness you sometimes see about character control and autonomy you see in conversations about traditional games.



I have no problem backing the concept of character autonomy.  I'm a somewhat chaotic player and thus don't much enjoy situations where my character is supposed to just be a cog in a machine; I'd rather be able to both think and act independently, thank you very much.


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> That was my experience as well.
> 
> We often hear these laments of mysteries “not workable” or them being terrible.
> 
> Do either of you have a process and/or an outcome for last week’s session that would have yielded “not workable” or terrible?



A set of pre-planned clues and locations?


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> I have no problem backing the concept of character autonomy.  I'm a somewhat chaotic player and thus don't much enjoy situations where my character is supposed to just be a cog in a machine; I'd rather be able to both think and act independently, thank you very much.



I think you're perhaps misunderstanding my reply, which is maybe foreseeable given how I phrased it. I have marvelous character autonomy in that game. My character and @hawkeyefan 's are very different and do very different things well. We also do a lot of work as a team given the mechanics in questions, but that doesn't impact my character autonomy. YMMV of course.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> That was my experience as well.
> 
> We often hear these laments of mysteries “not workable” or them being terrible.
> 
> Do either of you have a process and/or an outcome for last week’s session that would have yielded “not workable” or terrible?




No, not really. 

I think that what a game like Blades may not be good at is a more classically designed "whodunnit" kind of scenario rather than a mystery of the sort we played through.

Such a whodunnit is kind of expected to have a culprit and clues that can lead to the culprit, and having those set ahead of time could, in some way, make it tricky. It's kind of a set path, and Blades kind of works against such strong GM determined paths. Or at least, it very easily can do so.

But I'm not sure if that's accurate at this point, honestly. I think you might be able to do a scenario like that without predetermining everything and instead just let it emerge through play.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> You also assume the PCs will be pre-connected to each other; which as a player, though I'm not necessarily averse to the concept in principle, I dislike having forced on me.



Who's talking about force? This is the sort of thing you agree to in in the pitch and session zero (or not). It's not going to be a surprise unless the GM is a wanker.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> But ultimately I couldn't refute a simple syllogism:
> 
> _All fiction is constructed by one or more authors. All RPG play operates within a fiction. Ergo, the fictional space of RPG play is constructed_.




You could easily replace fiction with 'game worlds', and reach the conclusions that the game world is constructed. The game world being constructed doesn't preclude it from existing outside the players. In fact if the game world is the domain of the GM to control, it naturally would exist outside the players. No one is saying a literal world exists but there is a model of a world the GM has created, and it is one that the GM can adapt to what the players do. Now if if this doesn't work for you, fair enough. I am not interested in wining converts here. I don't know a whole lot about game theory. I know enough about philosophy to sense this isn't really proving anything about the claims people here have made about how they run living worlds or sandboxes that are world in motion. 

Also that syllogism does not prove point 2 (all RPGs operate within a fiction). I would suggest, especially since the term 'the fiction' has meaning beyond 'fiction' as it is used when say describing a novel, that the point is contestable. 

Ultimately though, I don't think syllogisms really matter here. What matters is are you playing and enjoying the game and style you are talking about. If you are, go to it. However your experience of the game, doesn't detract from mine. That you fell out of love with the idea of a living world, is your business, not mine. I have been running and playing games like this for ages, with zero angst over whether the world is real enough.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The game world doesn't exist independently as an externality, it's constructed. Even if the construct is generated for particular purposes, needs, and agendas (usually good ones), it doesn't change its nature as a construct. Pulling a piece of that construct out, setting it aside and declaring, "This thing here, this piece of the fiction, it exists independently and externally to the rest of the fiction," doesn't turn it from fiction into not-fiction. Applying the "externally existent" descriptor to the game world is a category error.




No on is asserting it this. No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable. It is not unlike the notion of exploring a setting made for a video game, with the additional element that the human GM is there to add an additional layer of flexibility (i.e. the game might not be programed to allow for it, but a GM can help facilitate what happens when you try to pick up the rock by the bridge or kill the shop keeper). 

If this is insufficient for what you were seeking, fair enough. I am a little perplexed though that an argument or a syllogism would entirely change how you experience the game. That just isn't how I think at all. Do I like this game? Yes or no. Do I feel like I am exploring a world external to myself? Yes or no. That is all I really care about. The GM's job here is to create the sense of a real world, not to create an actual world. But it is an approximation that can really feel real, and the GM can cultivate it as an external in his or her imagination (which is external to the players). I think when you keep describing it as 'the fiction' you miss on this aspect of exploring what is in the GM's head and what they understand about the world, as well as the interplay between that and the PCs: and the energy that flows from that. Now if that is too wishy washy, too mystically phrased for you. By all means, go play another game. Some of us take a somewhat mystic view to conceptualizing how gaming works and it totally works for us. To me it isn't particularly important if you accept these worlds as real or not


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> I have no issue with your game style, or that it's enjoyable to you. At some point, I'm going to play in that style again myself!
> 
> But setting apart the "game world" from the rest of the shared fiction doesn't make it less fictional, it just means that I-as-GM have privileged that part of the fiction _more than other parts_.
> 
> But I completely understand the justification for privileging the fiction pertaining to the game world. It's a very useful conceit if the agenda is to limit "experiencing the game world only through the view of the character." And I get why that agenda exists. It's driven by the desire to provide pleasurable gaming experiences---the unfolding of mysteries, the experience of exploring the unknown, of exploring an alternative ego / mind to better understand the self. It's driven by a desire to provide some of the really deep, valuable, and pleasurable outcomes that only RPG play can produce.
> 
> I have zero problem with you wanting to privilege the game world fiction for your own play. Just don't turn it into a category error.




I think if you put player facing mechanics under scrutiny you would find all kinds of similar problems you are identifying with the living world concept. But based on what you are saying here, I really think out minds just work differently and we are looking for very different things from an RPG. At the end of the day, player facing mechanics seem like a great option for some people. But I have to say: a lot of the people preaching about this style in this thread are only pushing away people like myself with the way they dismiss our style and play up their own. It is a preference. There is nothing particularly better or worse about your preference


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> I have zero problem with you wanting to privilege the game world fiction for your own play. Just don't turn it into a category error.



it isn’t a category error and calling it fiction missed the point of play in this style. Look, I can imagine a small town in my head with residents, a layout and geography. This place exists in my mind external to the players. And the players can explore it in the game. The point of contact is what I and others are calling the energy, the synergy. You seem to be using a term to invoke that and the town in question (ie you are folding the world into the fiction). But these can be two distinct things: one the shared experience the group has as they play in the town together, the other the mental model of the town in the GM’s mind.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Obviously if the GM makes up everything then the player would not be authoring anything.  And I was only tangentially interacting with the example which did not seem player authorish.  I do though believe many have said that there is some player authorship in the game and that when they establish something, within genre limits I accept, that something comes into existence.  So when that happens, the character viewpoint cannot be maintained almost by definition (Actor vs Author role).





Emerikol said:


> Do you not agree though that in the real world I do not see people and make up a story about them and it become true?  Can we agree on that?



In the real world I don't learn about things by making up stories about them. _Nor do I learn about things by having someone lese tell me a story that they made up about those things._



Emerikol said:


> In a GM notes based world, the notes are reality.   So if a character just up and says he knows someone out of the blue when in fact at that moment *the character does not know anything about that person*, that is not something anyone in our world would ever do.



I have bolded the bit I don't agree with. It's not true that the character does not know anything about that person. To elaborate via an example: if the person is the resident of my PC's home town, then almost certainly my PC knows a great deal about that person. Unless my PC has amnesia, that will include recalling whether we were on good or bad terms last time we met.

It's true that, at that point, _the player_ may not know anything about that NPC. But now the question is: _who gets to decide what it is that the character knows?_ You seem to think it's more immersive if the GM tells you. To me, that is radically non-immersive because it makes me feel like my PC is an amnesiac space alien.

It's also true that _when I author fiction about what/who my PC is seeing_, my character is not him-/herself engaged in any act of authorship. _My authorship as a player _correlates to _my character's recollection of his/her memories_. When in your game _you listen to the GM tell you something that s/he authored about the NPC or other thing your PC is seeing_, your character is not him-/herself engaged in a process of listening and learning. _Your listening and learning as a player _correlates to _your character's recollection of his/her memories_.

Authoring is obviously only a rough correlate to remembering. Likewise listening and learning is only a rough correlate to remembering. You prefer the second. I prefer the first. I don't accept that yours is "in character" in a way that mine is not. Just like _remembering_, _authoring_ is something that happens inside me. It is immersive in that fashion. Whereas _listening and learning _is a process of having knowledge come into me from outside, which is not what remembering is like at all. That is why I find it dissociating rather than immersive. What it has in common with remembering is that it is not an "active" creative process. I imagine it is that commonality that makes you prefer it.



Emerikol said:


> in one instance, information is put into a characters head by that characters player.   In the other the GM is describing what the character sees and is passing information to the player from the characters mind.  I see a difference here.  Call it what you will.



I have tried to describe the difference in some detail above.



Emerikol said:


> if I had a cleric player who said "Hey, I want to flesh out my religion and come up with the marriage rites, or develop the hierarchy further, or whatever."   That would be fine but it would be done and checked by the GM to be sure it didn't go against already established things.



This is a completely different thing for me from the above, because now we're talking not just about PC memories but about social practices, theological beliefs, etc. The _established things _you're referring to are, I assume, the GM's notes. For my part I don't see any reason to favour the GM's invention over that of the player, unless there is some direct intersection with the current situation in play (eg if the PCs are about to sneak into the evil high priest's manse, having the player at that point just invent the evil high priest's religious practices might be out of bounds - they'd at least have to succeed on a Religion check).


----------



## Emerikol

innerdude said:


> But setting apart the "game world" from the rest of the shared fiction doesn't make it less fictional, it just means that I-as-GM have privileged that part of the fiction _more than other parts_.




Categories are sometimes arbitrary delineations. For me, I feel there is a high value on a world designed in advance and carefully crafted.  So I put that in a different category from what might be generated ad hoc at a gaming table.  There is always some improvisation in minor areas but it’s heavily informed by what was created earlier.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Who's talking about force? This is the sort of thing you agree to in in the pitch and session zero (or not).



That's just it: I wouldn't agree.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I have bolded the bit I don't agree with. It's not true that the character does not know anything about that person. To elaborate via an example: if the person is the *resident* of my PC's home town, then almost certainly my PC knows a great deal about that person.



Did you mean to type "president" here?

If not, just because someone's from the same town as you doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about them.

Hell, I've lived in the same town my whole life and there's boatloads of people here I don't know from rocks.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> But setting apart the "game world" from the rest of the shared fiction doesn't make it less fictional, it just means that I-as-GM have privileged that part of the fiction _more than other parts_.




But they are different things. Two fictional things can be different. The shared fiction, by which I assume to mean that which is occurring at the table in the setting and more broadly the setting itself, is far up wide a category because you make it impossible to distinguish between the shared reality being established at the table and the world created by the GM that is informing that reality. Further fiction and the fiction (or shared fiction) are not identical concepts. This argument is predicated on an equivocation around the word fiction. This is why I called it word games in an earlier post. You aren’t proving anything. What you are doing is taking away our vocabulary to talk about living worlds, through techniques like equivocation, and by using loaded language like the fiction. Essentially language is being controlled to force us to agree with a playstyle preference (or at least to acknowledge sone deep artificiality about ours that yours doesn’t possess).


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> When we say narrative power, it is just a convenient term for describing games where the players can narrate things into existence like the GM, or possibly games where they have limited abilities to establish setting content as players, not as characters.



I don't understand this, at two levels.

First, why do _you _get to have "convenient terms" whereas my language is outrageous and forbidden?

Second, if a player says, as his/her PC, _I put on a cloak_ she has now narrated something into existence - her PC is wearing a cloak. But I assume you don't count that as narrative power. If a player says to the GM _can my guy pay for a new lantern _and the GM says _sure, just knock off the gps_, does that count as narrative power?



Bedrockgames said:


> if you say "What do I see", the GM isn't responding based on their prior conception of the fiction. That isn't how we conceive of play at all. It is not this unfolding fiction that is happening that gets built up in binary exchanges of players say X, GM decides. There is that component of the GM making his decision. But you are ignoring things like *players can make a case outside character for things*, and the GM will often be considering their words.



I don't get the impression that @Emerikol is a big fan of what I have bolded. He has repeatedly stated that he favours strictly in-character play.

But in any event, are you able to explain how the bolded bit is different, in its fundamentals, from a PbtA GM _asking questions and building on the answers_?



Bedrockgames said:


> To take another example, if the players go to the head of phoenix moon gang and ask for her help finding the disappeared daughter of a local magistrate, the GM is going to respond, not decide, but respond, based on what the players say, what the leader's motivations are, weighing any rolls they might make, who the player characters are, etc. What the players say here could be very important.



I don't understand how the GM's response is not a decision. I mean, it's not a reflex or automatic response is it?


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> If this is your position then I feel like you should maybe take a scroll back through your posts in this thread to figure out why everyone else seems to think something different than this. I'd never suggest that I know better than someone else what's immersive for them, that's silly sauce.



I know what I wrote and on this it is not just my opinion it is a fact.  Even in those rare cases I did not explain, and I explained many times, the topic is about immersion which by definition is a subjective concept.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Did you mean to type "president" here?
> 
> If not, just because someone's from the same town as you doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about them.
> 
> Hell, I've lived in the same town my whole life and there's boatloads of people here I don't know from rocks.



Have you ever lived in a village of 100-odd people? I have. It doesn't take long to know everyone.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this, at two levels.
> 
> First, why do _you _get to have "convenient terms" whereas my language is outrageous and forbidden?




Because you are using language to discredit our playstyle. We are using narrative as an attempt to honestly describe a contrasting style. If you feel it is not accurate give us another label that is and we’re happy to use it. I am not trying to impose narrative elements on your playstyle if they aren’t present or font define it. Like I said, it is a convenient label. I am not attached to it at all and am totally open to it not being accurate to reflect your style or the types of games you play.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> No. This isn't the language I would use at all (we've contested over terms like 'the fiction' before). Your terminology, in my view, is loaded and reflects a philosophy about gaming, about analyzing games that we don't share at all



I've asked you to provide your approved terminology. What is it?

I don't believe, for instance, that you really don't think that there are games in which the action declaration _I search for a secret door_ is resolved by the GM consulting his/her notes, noting that they record no secret door as present in the architecture at the place the PC currently is in, and responding _No_ on that basis. In fact I'm 100% sure that you have run games that are adjudicated in exactly this fashion.



Bedrockgames said:


> The GM helping the players understand something in the world their characters would understand due to intelligence isn't the GM trying to shape vetoing an action at all. It could be if the GM is doing so to encourage certain results or to mislead. But the GM is supposed to not care one way or another whether the players take action A, B, or C. If the PCs do something that leads to disaster, that is an entirely fair outcome and it is the GM respecting their ability to make choices in the setting. But if a *player* would know something that might lead them to choose a different action, the GM has a responsibility to make sure that is fairly adjudicated



Should that bolded word _player _actually be _character_? Otherwise what does it mean to say a player "would" know something if in fact the player _doesn't_ know it. Do you mean _would know it if s/he'd been paying attention to the GM's exposition_?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this, at two levels.
> 
> First, why do _you _get to have "convenient terms" whereas my language is outrageous and forbidden?
> 
> Second, if a player says, as his/her PC, _I put on a cloak_ she has now narrated something into existence - her PC is wearing a cloak. But I assume you don't count that as narrative power. If a player says to the GM _can my guy pay for a new lantern _and the GM says _sure, just knock off the gps_, does that count as narrative power?




no those aren’t narrative powers in my view. Putting on a cloak predisposes the PC has one. Out of convenience the player states what they do as if they have one. But the unspoken assumption here is the GM can pause and say you don’t have a cloak. Nothing was narrated into existence. It’s an edge case of convenience. It still depends on GM approval (generally it just is insignificant enough for the GM to probably not care either way). But if the player says “I load my bazooka” and it wasn’t established he has one, the GM is going to intervene because it is a much more significant assumption


----------



## Emerikol

If one thing could be said from all sides, it’s that the terminology is killing us.  We’ve wasted a lot of time on it.  Not sure the fix.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I've asked you to provide your approved terminology. What is it?
> 
> I don't believe, for instance, that you really don't think that there are games in which the action declaration _I search for a secret door_ is resolved by the GM consulting his/her notes, noting that they record no secret door as present in the architecture at the place the PC currently is in, and responding _No_ on that basis. In fact I'm 100% sure that you have run games that are adjudicated in exactly this fashion.



we have provided plenty of alternatives. My preference is living world 

no one is saying notes aren’t a factor but you have the metaphor upside down: the notes are there to track the world created by the GM and consulting notes is only one way of checking on matters like secret doors (recollection, instinct, improvising, being guided by logic—-would the master of this keep have a secret door here?—-these are all ways the GM manages bringing the world to the table)


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If PCs are involved, then the DM is only empowered to determine an outcome that is both based on prior conception of the fiction AND player input(actions/RP).



The player input here is the action declaration, isn't it?



Maxperson said:


> If the player says, "I take some roses from the garden and give them to the princess when I see her tonight," I'm not at liberty to say, "No you don't."  I'm not at liberty to say, "Well, instead one of the guards really cut those flowers and gave them to the visiting prince who then gives them to the princess."  I am constrained by what the player declares to narrate an outcome that matches what the player did.  The player's input is a major factor in how the narration is shaped, so the player did in fact help shape the narration.



You seem to be reiterating here that the players declare actions for their PCs. But I am talking about the process of _determining the outcome of that declaration_.

There is an approach to RPGing where the GM makes that determination, and does so by reference to his/her prior conception of the fiction. For instance, s/he might have decided that the princess is allergic to roses.

EDIT:


Maxperson said:


> Sometimes it's that for sure.  Usually, though, the player is about to have the PC do something that would result in something bad happening to the PC, but which the player might not have thought about.  If the PC has a 7 wisdom, I probably won't say anything.  The PC is very unwise.  If the PC has an 18 wisdom, I probably won't have the check be made.  Nobody at my table has anything approaching an 18.  If the PC is anywhere from 10-16, I'll give the player a roll and then just inform the player of the likely result.



This is an example of exactly what I mean. How can the GM know, in advance, that the thing the player is having the PC do would result in something bad happening to the PC? The answer must be that the GM is having regard to his/her prior conception of the fiction.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Should that bolded word _player _actually be _character_? Otherwise what does it mean to say a player "would" know something if in fact the player _doesn't_ know it. Do you mean _would know it if s/he'd been paying attention to the GM's exposition_?



Was speaking pretty casually. I am not too precious about the distinction here as the player is the one making the decision and the GM is informing the player, not the character, what they know. And no I don’t mean they would know if they had been paying attention. Possibly that could be the case or possibly the player simply doesn’t know enough about the setting that the character would know.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't understand how the GM's response is not a decision. I mean, it's not a reflex or automatic response is it?



My point was it wasn’t necessarily deliberative and it wasn’t solely just about the GM: the GM can actually by instinct and intuition (by having a feel for the world) and the need to decide will often be a response to what players are trying to do and what they are asking or saying.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> But in any event, are you able to explain how the bolded bit is different, in its fundamentals, from a PbtA GM _asking questions and building on the answers_?




I don’t play PbtA (not really interested in it from what I have read) so I can’t. What I can say is this is fairly informal and dependent on the individual group. I find most groups have differing tastes here. It isn’t like the formal mechanisms you have in hillfolk for example (not sure if asking questions building answers is a formal mechanism).


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I missed this, but it strikes me again as having a fundamental lack of understanding of how to play our playstyle.
> 
> Would you know that person?  Depends.  If you are from a city like Waterdeep where the population is about 1.35 million people, it's highly unlikely that you will know any given person, but if it doesn't matter, like if it's some storekeeper or something, you can tell me.  I'll trust you not to abuse it and tell me that you know everyone you run into.  If you are from a village of 400, then you do know that person.  Everyone knows everyone in places that small.  A place in-between like a city of 100k, then maybe.  You'll get a roll.  Do you love that person?  Why the hell are you asking me?  It's your character and this is a background issue.  If you know the person, then you tell me whether you are in love with that person or not.  *Same with the terms you left on. *
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this is just filling in your background kind of stuff and you get to do that as you see fit.  Again, I trust my players not to abuse this.



I don't understand who you mean by "our". You and @Emerikol don't agree on the bolded sentence, for instance.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> You seem to be reiterating here that the players declare actions for their PCs. But I am talking about the process of _determining the outcome of that declaration_.



It depends on whether the action declared is an attempt or not.  If I say “I kill the orc”, that is in doubt.  So yes we must have a combat to decide if that action declaration comes true.

Whereas, if a PC says he tosses back the last of his ale, there is little reason to oppose that unless he is in some other unusual peril that would prevent it.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> One issue I have with calling everything a living world is that if nothing happens without the PCs being present then it's not a living world as I define it.   A living world is one that changes and continues whatever the PCs do even if they just fall into a sleep for ten years.   When they wake up the world will be different.   It's the fact that NPCs have agendas that may or may not cross paths with the PCs anyway.
> 
> Here is an example.  I might have noted that a young girl is in love with a young boy in the village.  I might have noted that her father is domineering and mean spirited and won't let them see each other.   They try to see each other anyway.  So that might be the starting situation in this village.   The PCs could discover this information but they may never discover it if they don't look that way.   I still have on my calendar the fact that the father beats the boy several weeks later and perhaps a week later both of them run away.  In the meantime I have some notes where they might meet.
> 
> Is it possible the PCs could get involved?  Maybe.  Maybe it is just local color.  Maybe for a few days after they run away it's local gossip in some places.   Could the PCs agree to find the girl and bring her back for a fee?  Could they aid the getaway?  They could do all sorts of things.  Most of the time they will not interact with these events at all.   They are still events.   So when I say the world is a living breathing world, that is what I mean.   Things happen outside the purview of the characters.
> 
> Let's liken this to writing.  Writers want you to feel like their world is real.  Writers though generally don't spend a lot of time writing about things unrelated to the main characters.  They do occasionally but this sort of example I gave likely doesn't get on a page unless the main character(s) absolutely will interact.  But there are other things a writer does, providing all sorts of little details, that something happened in the background.  So the gossip about the girl running away very much might make it into a story.  When writing you generally just show the effects of off camera action but off camera action is important to deeping the story and creating verisimilitude.



I agree fully with what @Ovinomancer says about this.

If the GM is just writing stories for him-/herself, that may be fun for him/her, but doesn't make any difference to the fiction that is established and developed at the table.

And conversely, as a GM I can introduce rumours or gossip or whatever else I want to without establishing any further backstory.

Here are two fairly recent example from my Classic Traveller game:

* The players met Milo, an entrepreneur and explorer from the the world of Taxiwan. I told them that he had made his fortune through a computer skills training business. But what are the details of this? How is to be reconciled with the fact that Taxiwan has only a rudimentary starport and so isn't going to support the migration of very many computer technicians? Etc? Dunno. This can be worked out in the future if needed.

* The players heard rumours that an Imperial armada is in pursuit of them and will soon arrive where they are, across the galactic rift. Is the rumour true? Has it been deliberately spread?  Etc? Not sure. There are various obvious and not-so-obvious possibilities that probably will be worked out in coming sessions.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Isn't consistency and shallowness a matter of opinion?  If you play a game and think it is tremendously consistent and deeply immersive, does that mean I would automatically think the same?   Are we discussing matters of taste?   So when I give my taste preference, that is not an assault upon your own tastes.   It is my perspective and experience.



Let's get down to brass tacks. How deep is your game? Where are the actual play posts that will let me assess that?

I've been a player in the sort of game you describe. It was shallow and basically a vehicle for the GM to show of his half-a-dozen clever ideas. Everything that was deep about it was introduced by the players via intra-party roleplay - that is, in effect, in respect of fiction that the GM couldn't easily touch or control.

The GM's response to this was to trigger some magical effect that teleported all the PCs 100 years into the gameworld's future. Which, in effect, invalidated or rendered moot all the ideas that we as a player group had built up about the campaign. This reinforced the shallowness and pointlessness and the game fizzled not long after.

I've also been a GM in the sort of game that you describe. Over time I realised that the good bits were the ones that were player-facing and player-driven. And that the backstory that I had developed, which would have "the world" unfolding behind-the-scenes in accordance with pre-scripted defaults, was essentially pointless. So I stopped preparing that stuff.

I am extremely satisfied with the depth of the gameworlds that emerge out of my current RPGing. They are not as deep as can be conceived of - I think RPGers like Paul Czege and Ron Edwards, for instance, are doing deeper things - but they're as deep or deeper than anything I've ever seen posted on ENworld.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> There is a lot of celebration of both elaborate world-building and theatricality + heavy exposition dumps in D&D culture



This isn't a big part of how I approach RPGing.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The player input here is the action declaration, isn't it?



It's more than that, as it says in the part you just quoted


pemerton said:


> You seem to be reiterating here that the players declare actions for their PCs. But I am talking about the process of _determining the outcome of that declaration_.



Sure.  You want to limit their input to being not input so that your style allows it and ours doesn't.  That's simply not going to be the case.  Our players also have input into the action resolution, even if to a lesser degree.


pemerton said:


> There is an approach to RPGing where the GM makes that determination, and does so by reference to his/her prior conception of the fiction. For instance, s/he might have decided that the princess is allergic to roses.



Sure.  I already said that if there is no PC involved, the DM decides it all.  Most of the action resolutions, though, are going to involve actions and/or roleplaying.  That means players have input into that resolution more often that not. It isn't the tiny amount of input you implied previously.  It's a considerable amount of input as it puts great constraints upon the DM.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't get the impression that @Emerikol is a big fan of what I have bolded. He has repeatedly stated that he favours strictly in-character play.




I can't speak for Emerikol and I don't know the limits of his style. I would say when I run a sandbox like this, generally things are done in character, but I still have players at the table there with me, talking out of character (whether it is asking someone to pass the chips or telling me if they are addressing me out of character to explain their rationale for something). I consider those fairly soft boundaries. And I don't get overly rigid about the in character thing (I feel that can become way too intense if you only allow in character stuff). I think the only distinction here for me is the player has no formal power to countermand or intrude anything: there is just an informal exchange that can take place which might inform my choices.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't understand who you mean by "our". You and @Emerkiol don't agree on the bolded sentence, for instance.



Our playstyle has multiple variations.  He and I play the same playstyle, but different variants of it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Second, if a player says, as his/her PC, _I put on a cloak_ she has now narrated something into existence - her PC is wearing a cloak. But I assume you don't count that as narrative power. If a player says to the GM _can my guy pay for a new lantern _and the GM says _sure, just knock off the gps_, does that count as narrative power?




Just to revisit this: I think for something to be a real narrative power, it has to be a power the player formally possess through the rules or as a procedure in the game. This fails that because the player is making a valid assumption (or what that player believes to be a valid assumption) about what they might possess. The player only has the power to assert the cloak until the GM says no. Just like if the player narratives "I swing my sword at the orc" that isn't narrative power in a meaningful sense ("I swing my sword and cut off the orc's head" or "I remind the orc that his uncle Chester [not introduced until the PC mentions it] told him never to kill a man without good cause" would be narrative power in a meaningful sense).


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> _All fiction is constructed by one or more authors. All RPG play operates within a fiction. Ergo, the fictional space of RPG play is constructed_.
> 
> The game world doesn't exist independently as an externality, it's constructed. Even if the construct is generated for particular purposes, needs, and agendas (usually good ones), it doesn't change its nature as a construct.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But setting apart the "game world" from the rest of the shared fiction doesn't make it less fictional, it just means that I-as-GM have privileged that part of the fiction _more than other parts_.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have zero problem with you wanting to privilege the game world fiction for your own play. Just don't turn it into a category error.



As far as I can tell, @Bedrockgames agrees with what I have quoted just above:



			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> it isn’t a category error and calling it fiction missed the point of play in this style. Look, I can imagine a small town in my head with residents, a layout and geography. This place exists in my mind external to the players. And the players can explore it in the game. The point of contact is what I and others are calling the energy, the synergy. You seem to be using a term to invoke that and the town in question (ie you are folding the world into the fiction). But these can be two distinct things: one the shared experience the group has as they play in the town together, the other the mental model of the town in the GM’s mind.





			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> The shared fiction, by which I assume to mean that which is occurring at the table in the setting and more broadly the setting itself, is far up wide a category because you make it impossible to distinguish between the shared reality being established at the table and the world created by the GM that is informing that reality.





			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable.





			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> You could easily replace fiction with 'game worlds', and reach the conclusions that the game world is constructed. The game world being constructed doesn't preclude it from existing outside the players. In fact if the game world is the domain of the GM to control, it naturally would exist outside the players.



In these posts Bedrockgames distinguishes two instances of imagination:

* The GM imagines something, makes it up, constructs it: this is _the game world_.​​* The players at the table imagine something, make it up, construct it: this is _the shared fiction_.​
He also states that the relationship between these is not symmetrical:

* The GM informs the shared fiction that is created at the table, using the world that s/he has created;​​* The world that the GM has created, which is used to inform the shared fiction at the table, is a _mental model _in the GM's mind that exists independently of the non-GM players' minds;​​* The players "explore" (= learn about, from the GM) the GM's mental model - the process of play includes _transmission _of information from the GM (drawing on his/her mental model) to the players.​
I don't think anything that Bedrockgames has said here is particularly controversial or revelatory. I believe that everyone participating in this thread has played in RPGs that fit what Bedrockgames describes. Including @innerdude.

For reasons that are opaque to me Bedrockgames objects to anyone actually explicitly stating what he very strongly implies but doesn't quite state, namely, that the process of play involves the players learning what the GM's mental model is. He will talk about the GM's mental model _informating_ the players' shared fiction, and he will talk about the players _exploring_ a place that exists in the GM's mind. But as soon as one joins the dots using a verb like _learning _or _discovering_ (to describe the cognitive relationship between players and GM's imaginative construct) or a verb like _telling_ or _transmitting_ (to describe the communicative relationship between the GM, as possessor of the imaginative construct, and the players) one is apparently saying an improper thing.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> This isn't a big part of how I approach RPGing.




“Understatements of the Year for $500, Alex!”


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> we have provided plenty of alternatives. My preference is living world
> 
> no one is saying notes aren’t a factor but you have the metaphor upside down: the notes are there to track the world created by the GM and consulting notes is only one way of checking on matters like secret doors (recollection, instinct, improvising, being guided by logic—-would the master of this keep have a secret door here?—-these are all ways the GM manages bringing the world to the table)



Upthread I suggested _GM's conception of the fiction _and you rejected that too.

In the example you give in the post I have just quoted, _the GM decides if a secret door is present. _The players, in learning that there is no secret door_, learn the GM's conception of the fiction_. Don't they?


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> The difference is that the players have a direct and immediate interest in authoring a secret door right here right now as its presence will bail their asses out of some sticky situation.  This puts them in a conflict of interest: gaining an immediate advantage in play vs long-term setting integrity.



Do you extend this objection to players trying to declare other action that will get them out of sticky situation, such as (say) _attacking the trolls that are trying to kill and eat them? _That will also change the setting - if the players succeed it now contains dead trolls and live PCs instead of live trolls chowing down on roasted PCs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> As far as I can tell, @Bedrockgames agrees with what I have quoted just above:



I do. I object strongly to the way 'fiction' and 'the fiction' and 'shared fiction' are being used and equivocated upon to blur the line between 'setting the GM creates' and 'stuff that happens in that setting at the table' in order to reduce the game to shared fiction at the table.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Assuming deftness of play and that the chemistry between the participants isn't inherently bad, do you think its that energy, pacing, and flow (and the way the mechanics are tightly integrated as a feedback loop -feeding into and emerging from play) that do the heavy lifting of the immersive quality of play?
> 
> Put another way, do you think folks that feel they would be distracted by all of this stuff would inherently find their distractions falling away because its impossible not to get swept up by this?





Manbearcat said:


> And again (back to the 4e Warlord), I wonder if these trad D&D predilections were (as would be with Blades) one of the issues that a certain subset of the D&D culture had with 4e (where team thematic and tactical synergy are collected rather than distributed).



I think getting swept up in play is important. Related but not identical is a visceral sense of what is going on.

Two examples I thought of reading your posts:

* In our Prince Valiant game, the PCs had ridden north of the town of Castle Hill to confront a knight - "the best in all Britain", Sir Lionheart - who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle. The two PC knights were defeated. The third PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. The new knight then defeated Sir Lionheart (mechanically, by spending a certificate to Kill a Foe in Combat - the player chose killing and not merely knocking senseless because he intuited, from Sir Lionheart's personality as portrayed by me, that Sir Lionheart would which to continue the fight on foot if unhorsed, and the player knew that his PC had no chance of winning that fight).​​* In our 4e D&D game the PCs in their flying Thundercloud Tower were assaulted by a dragon-riding frost giant. At one point the dragon, temporarily blinded, was hiding beneath the tower so that it couldn't be attacked by the PCs. The PC magic-user (played by the same player as the squire in Prince Valiant) conjured his imp (minor action), had it fly down to the base of the tower (move action), activated his third eye (another minor action: the imp has the Eye of Vecna in it, though now no longer under Vecna's influence, and when the invoker activates his 3rd eye he can see through his imp's eyes and has LoS and LoE from there) and then spent an action point to attack with Thunderwave (encounter power as a multi-class wizard), the plan being to blast the dragon out from beneath the tower, so the ranged strikers could attack it, and to blast its giant rider off the back of his mount so he would take 25d10 or so falling down to the bottom of the Glacial Rift. The plan didn't work, because the to hit rolls failed despite pumping multiple reroll and roll-boosting resources into them.​
One of these is a mechanically simple game. The other is mechanically intricate. But both produced compelling and vivid fiction. The participants get swept up in it. Patterns of "possibility" (ie sensible ways for the story to unfold) emerge, and are crystallised through action declarations and resolution. For me, this is what RPGing is about. It's highly immersive, in my view. But I wouldn't say that _exploration_ (or _learning_, _discovering_, etc) the gameworld are very big parts of it. But there is definitely discovery of the fates of the protagonists!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> As far as I can tell, @Bedrockgames agrees with what I have quoted just above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In these posts Bedrockgames distinguishes two instances of imagination:
> 
> * The GM imagines something, makes it up, constructs it: this is _the game world_.​​* The players at the table imagine something, make it up, construct it: this is _the shared fiction_.​
> He also states that the relationship between these is not symmetrical:
> 
> * The GM informs the shared fiction that is created at the table, using the world that s/he has created;​​* The world that the GM has created, which is used to inform the shared fiction at the table, is a _mental model _in the GM's mind that exists independently of the non-GM players' minds;​​* The players "explore" (= learn about, from the GM) the GM's mental model - the process of play includes _transmission _of information from the GM (drawing on his/her mental model) to the players.​
> I don't think anything that Bedrockgames has said here is particularly controversial or revelatory. I believe that everyone participating in this thread has played in RPGs that fit what Bedrockgames describes. Including @innerdude.
> 
> For reasons that are opaque to me Bedrockgames objects to anyone actually explicitly stating what he very strongly implies but doesn't quite state, namely, that the process of play involves the players learning what the GM's mental model is. He will talk about the GM's mental model _informating_ the players' shared fiction, and he will talk about the players _exploring_ a place that exists in the GM's mind. But as soon as one joins the dots using a verb like _learning _or _discovering_ (to describe the cognitive relationship between players and GM's imaginative construct) or a verb like _telling_ or _transmitting_ (to describe the communicative relationship between the GM, as possessor of the imaginative construct, and the players) one is apparently saying an improper thing.




This isn't a fair characterization of what I am trying to say or of my conclusions (or my thoughts on the concept of 'shared fiction'----a term I don't myself embrace at all).


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I object strongly to the way 'fiction' and 'the fiction' and 'shared fiction' are being used and equivocated upon to blur the line between 'setting the GM creates' and 'stuff that happens in that setting at the table' in order to reduce the game to shared fiction at the table.



This is not an accurate description of what @innerdude said in his post. I quoted the part of his post that is relevant, and requote it here:



innerdude said:


> But setting apart the "game world" from the rest of the shared fiction doesn't make it less fictional, it just means that I-as-GM have privileged that part of the fiction _more than other parts_.



Like you, he sets apart _the setting the GM creates_ from _the stuff that happens at the table_. And like you he agrees they are both fiction.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Like you, he sets apart _the setting the GM creates_ from _the stuff that happens at the table_. And like you he agrees they are both fiction.




No because what he was saying was in service to this idea: 



> Until it finally clicked that there is no "world," there are only _conceptions of the fiction_.




That is the kind of equivocation I am talking about. Moving from 'the setting is fictional' to 'there is only the fiction, there is no world'. 

But I am not interested in fighting you point by point over each little post and statement (I don't have the time). What I will say is the point where we still disagree is on whether this can be characterized as 'discovering the GM's notes'. Like I said, this is reductive, it has the metaphor upside down and I don't think it would lead to better player (I think it would lead to worse play) if you conceive of it in this way. For me, living world is a much better and more accurate model for understanding how to run this kind of game. Playing to discover the notes would just lead people to focus entirely on the notepad prep, not try to bring that material to life in a meaningful way IMO. And as I have said countless times, it is dismissive and insulting. It isn't a label anyone on my side is embracing and there is a reason for that. We've disagreed on that characterization long before this thread. I am not going to be lawyered into adopting your language.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Upthread I suggested _GM's conception of the fiction _and you rejected that too.



Yes, because I don't like the term 'the fiction' since it tends to blur the world with what is going on at that moment during play. I don't accept 'the fiction' a my terminology for what is going on in this kind of campaign. I accept it is fictional. But I reject 'the fiction'. Like I said, Living World is my preferred term. Others have expressed theirs. You insist on characterizing what we are doing with your own language. You can do that. But we don't have to adopt it if we dislike it.


----------



## pemerton

Weirdly, @Bedrockgames has posted two replies to my posts but then put me on ignore so I can't read them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

@pemerton I put you on ignore because I found your post that quoted me multiple times with its lawyerly tone very infuriating. The point of ignore for me is temporary, I use it as a cooling down mechanism so I don't say anything angry (as I suspected your follow-ups to my responses might provoke my anger). I don't come here to get angry. The moment a poster starts making me angry, I put them on ignore. Then after a few minutes or hours, I take them off (I noticed your reposes above and took you off ignore temporarily because I accidentally went into eWorld in another window where I wasn't logged in and saw your post). I have people who ignore me too. I assume their reasons for ignoring me are valid (I don't take umbrage at them doing so). And I certainly don't announce to the forum who has me on ignore in order to paint their behavior as weird.

EDIT: Also it didn't occur to me that you wouldn't be able to read my responses. I forgot about that aspect of ignore when I selected it


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Have you ever lived in a village of 100-odd people? I have. It doesn't take long to know everyone.



I haven't, and as you initially used the word "town" I was assuming something bigger.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Do you extend this objection to players trying to declare other action that will get them out of sticky situation, such as (say) _attacking the trolls that are trying to kill and eat them? _That will also change the setting - if the players succeed it now contains dead trolls and live PCs instead of live trolls chowing down on roasted PCs.



Once any surprise situations are resolved, or if the PCs saw them ahead of time, the trolls are a known part of the scene and the setting and it's on the players/PCs to find a way to somehow deal with them.  Combat is one option, and most games have reasonably robust mechanics for this.  Escape is another, and some games' mechanics handle this better than others.  Etc.

A better comparison, and one I would object to due to the same conflict of interest, would be if the players had a means of, in effect, on the fly authoring a bypass into the setting that meant they wouldn't have to deal with the trolls at all.

And of course this all assumes the presence of the trolls is somehow mandated by the situation and-or adventure being run and that the DM didn't plop them there on a whim "just because"; as that's just as bad going the other way.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not going to be lawyered into adopting your language.



I really must applaud your astute trapfinding skills.

What level Rogue are you, anyway?


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> I haven't, and as you initially used the word "town" I was assuming something bigger.



I grew up in a town of approximately 400.  Even there everyone knew everyone else.  THE cop once pulled my father over when my dad got a new car.  The cop was like, "Oops, Marc.  I didn't know it was you." and let him go.  When I had a library book that was due, I just walked to the librarian's house which was closer than the library and left it with her.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I can imagine a small town in my head with residents, a layout and geography. This place exists in my mind external to the players. And the players can explore it in the game.





Bedrockgames said:


> No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable.





Bedrockgames said:


> The game world being constructed doesn't preclude it from existing outside the players. In fact if the game world is the domain of the GM to control, it naturally would exist outside the players. In fact if the game world is the domain of the GM to control, it naturally would exist outside the players.





Bedrockgames said:


> The shared fiction, by which I assume to mean that which is occurring at the table in the setting and more broadly the setting itself, is far up wide a category because you make it impossible to distinguish between the shared reality being established at the table and the world created by the GM that is informing that reality.





Bedrockgames said:


> The GM's job here is to create the sense of a real world
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think when you keep describing it as 'the fiction' you miss on this aspect of exploring what is in the GM's head and what they understand about the world



You say in these passages that _the world created by the GM_ - _that s/he imagines in his/her head_ - is _informing the shared fiction_ (= the "reality" established at the table which no one is saying is a thing in the real world).

Would you agree that sometimes that "informing" takes place in virtue of the GM making decisions about action resolution by reference to what s/he is imagining in his/her head? Also, would you agree that what you are describing here is an _asymmetric_ relationship between what the GM _imagines and controls_ and what the players imagine. And that that is what makes it possible for the players to "explore" the GM's imagination? 

Finally, I think we all agree that the players' "exploration" of the GM's world isn't happening via telepathic processes, and that the GM is not creating _the sense of a real world_ via any means other than speaking and perhaps making the occasional sketch? So would you agree that the actual social process whereby these things - the players' _exploration_ and the GM's _creation of a sense of a real world_ - occur is that the GM tells things to the players, either in the process of framing or in the process of action resolution?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't a fair characterization of what I am trying to say





Bedrockgames said:


> I found your post that quoted me multiple times with its lawyerly tone very infuriating.





Lanefan said:


> What level Rogue are you, anyway?



It's not "trapping" or "lawyerly" to take someone at their word.

@Bedrockgames has asserted - repeatedly - that the GM, in his approach to RPGing that he calls sandboxing/"living world", _imagines a world_ and then somehow conveys a sense of that to the players. But he denies that, when this happens, what is taking place is that the players are _learning what the GM is imagining_. It's human, not lawyerly, to be confused by that juxtaposition.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It's not "trapping" or "lawyerly" to take someone at their word.
> 
> @Bedrockgames has asserted - repeatedly - that the GM, in his approach to RPGing that he calls sandboxing/"living world", _imagines a world_ and then somehow conveys a sense of that to the players. But he denies that, when this happens, what is taking place is that the players are _learning what the GM is imagining_. It's human, not lawyerly, to be confused by that juxtaposition.




I found it obnoxious and lawyerly the way you presented my posts and made a case as if I was a defendant on trial. 

Not at all. I am rejecting the description that the players are discovering what is in the GMs notes. I said a while back you could say they are exploring the GM's imagined world. Now I do think that is a simplistic description that brushes over a lot of the nuances I talked about, but it is more accurate and less insulting than 'playing to discover the GM's notes' and it is at least reasonable short hand


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I agree fully with what @Ovinomancer says about this.
> 
> If the GM is just writing stories for him-/herself, that may be fun for him/her, but doesn't make any difference to the fiction that is established and developed at the table.
> 
> And conversely, as a GM I can introduce rumours or gossip or whatever else I want to without establishing any further backstory.



This is where we part on our opinions.  Some well known authors have said stories are not written they are rewritten.  As analogy in this case it makes sense.  My point is that crafted fiction done ahead of time and thought through carefully will be better than off the cuff fiction on average.   Now you can find a really bad crafter and a great improver and that might be an exception.  I'm saying on average.   

If you want to add "for the kind of immersion and verisimilitude I am seeking" then by all means add that caveat.



pemerton said:


> Here are two fairly recent example from my Classic Traveller game:
> 
> * The players met Milo, an entrepreneur and explorer from the the world of Taxiwan. I told them that he had made his fortune through a computer skills training business. But what are the details of this? How is to be reconciled with the fact that Taxiwan has only a rudimentary starport and so isn't going to support the migration of very many computer technicians? Etc? Dunno. This can be worked out in the future if needed.
> 
> * The players heard rumours that an Imperial armada is in pursuit of them and will soon arrive where they are, across the galactic rift. Is the rumour true? Has it been deliberately spread?  Etc? Not sure. There are various obvious and not-so-obvious possibilities that probably will be worked out in coming sessions.



I understand how you do it.  Each player, including the GM, at various times asserts some truth about the fiction and it is built up from that.  I am not in the dark about your style.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Finally, I think we all agree that the players' "exploration" of the GM's world isn't happening via telepathic processes, and that the GM is not creating _the sense of a real world_ via any means other than speaking and perhaps making the occasional sketch? So would you agree that the actual social process whereby these things - the players' _exploration_ and the GM's _creation of a sense of a real world_ - occur is that the GM tells things to the players, either in the process of framing or in the process of action resolution?




no i don't agree with this


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It's not "trapping" or "lawyerly" to take someone at their word.
> 
> @Bedrockgames has asserted - repeatedly -




This is what I mean by lawyerly. It just never feels like a real conversation with you Pemerton. It just feels like you are simply looking for opportunities to bend my words to your point. Again, ultimately what we are debating is the terminology of 'playing to discover the GM's notes'. I reject this terminology and I find it insulting and reductive. Whatever other points are made along the way, what ever other statements people make you choose to dissect over a 46 page thread, this is the point of disagreement. No amount of 'Bedrock games has repeatedly' is going to force me to adopt your vocabulary or your framework for understanding RPGs.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Let's get down to brass tacks. How deep is your game? Where are the actual play posts that will let me assess that?



I haven't read the minds of my players.  They say they appreciate the depth of my world and that when they play in other worlds it is less satisfying because mine has ruined them.   So I take them at their word.  

I try to figure out where different people are coming from on this stuff.  I really just think we are probably talking about something at least slightly different and maybe somewhat different when we talk of immersion.   I mean we may write the same definition down but the actual feeling or experience seems a bit different.  

One example.  Bennies, Fate Points, 1's in Cortex, Hero Points, and on and on would definitely ruin my immersion in a game.  Stepping back and taking that authorial stance would throw me right out of the game.  I'd be back to playing monopoly.   Now, can I enjoy an occasional game of monopoly with friends?  Maybe (let's make it Settlers of Cataan).   I don't want to spend an entire campaign doing that though.

I suspect none of those things would affect your immersion.  I also suspect you are not unique in your view and neither am I.   Different tastes make the world go around.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It's not "trapping" or "lawyerly" to take someone at their word.




It is trapping and lawyerly to use peoples words in the course of a conversation to try to pin them to a position they are not holding, to try to find some inconsistency to force them to accept a position you know they don't. This is not persuasion and it isn't discussion. It is simply rhetorical arm wrestling. it is the difference between trying to win an argument and legitimately trying to find some kind of truth. I think you are just doing the former. And when you combine that with your obvious disdain for our approach it is naturally going to be infuriating (which is why I put you on ignore and why I am not fully engaging your posts at this point)


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I've been a player in the sort of game you describe. It was shallow and basically a vehicle for the GM to show of his half-a-dozen clever ideas. Everything that was deep about it was introduced by the players via intra-party roleplay - that is, in effect, in respect of fiction that the GM couldn't easily touch or control.



You've caricatured my own world by your own bad experience.  Hey I've had bad experiences like that myself.  It is not a condemnation of the style any more than a bad practitioner of your style would be a condemnation of your style.   In our discussions, my assumption is always "done in the best sort of way for that style".   While no one is perfect, I believe I'm a pretty good practitioner of my style.   I've seen plenty of bad practitioners of all sorts of styles.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> ......the players are _*learning *what the GM is imagining_. It's human, not lawyerly, to be confused by that juxtaposition.




Also to be clear this is not a good word to describe it at all. It isn't simply learning. Discovering suggests much more active exploration. Learning sounds as if they are simply being told what is the in the GMs head


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> You've caricatured my own world by your own bad experience.




This about sums up the analysis I think. I am sure pemerton's style is very rewarding for him. I don't understand this quest to prove other peoples styles are somehow more shallow, less impressive than his own


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Upthread I suggested _GM's conception of the fiction _and you rejected that too.
> 
> In the example you give in the post I have just quoted, _the GM decides if a secret door is present. _The players, in learning that there is no secret door_, learn the GM's conception of the fiction_. Don't they?



I think for clarification.   The campaign setting is mostly constructed in advance.  The GM then becomes to the best of his or her ability a neutral arbiter from then on out.   When you say something like "The GM decides if a secret do is present" the implication is that the GM is allowed to improv but the players are not.  That is not the case at least in my games.   The door is either there or not there per the campaign world.  If it is not there then of course it cannot be found.  If it is there and the roll is made it will certainly be found and if the roll is not made it will certainly not be found.

So the GM does two jobs.  To the degree he can separate them that is good. 

One is constructing the setting which he does before the campaign for the most part but also between sessions for things like advancing a calendar or reactions to PC actions that are not immediate.   He takes care to dice for probabilities and not just choose and to be neutral.

The second is adjudicating what is happening in the setting during the play session.  At that time the GM is not doing very much fictional creation.  He is adhering to the campaign setting as much as possible.  His goal is to be a neutral arbiter and purveyor of what the PCs are interacting with.

Question:
Suppose a GM purchased a really detailed setting.  Suppose one exists to purchase even if none is on the market right now.   If the GM purchases it and then adhered to it with great fidelity, would the GM still be creating that fiction?   He is just relaying the information from the store bought setting as the PCs interact with it.


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> This about sums up the analysis I think. I am sure pemerton's style is very rewarding for him. I don't understand this quest to prove other peoples styles are somehow more shallow, less impressive than his own



I think it is fine to state that such and such a game style is not immersive for you.   I have no problem with Pemerton saying his style immerses him.  Who can argue what someone else is feeling?   To the degree we try to make it some absolute is when we get in trouble.   I know his style will not be immersive to me and it won't satisfy my roleplaying itch.  I don't need to suffer through many sessions of it to determine that.  I know I do not like 5e due to certain rules they adopted and I don't need to play it to determine that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Would you agree that sometimes that "informing" takes place in virtue of the GM making decisions about action resolution by reference to what s/he is imagining in his/her head?




I am going to need an example of what you mean here. I think my answer is yes but I suspect you might have slightly different meaning than I do here so don't want to agree unless I am certain. 



pemerton said:


> Also, would you agree that what you are describing here is an _asymmetric_ relationship between what the GM _imagines and controls_ and what the players imagine. And that that is what makes it possible for the players to "explore" the GM's imagination?




I would agree that there is an asymmetric relationship between the control the GM has over the imagined world, his knowledge of it, and the players control of that world. I would not agree that it is the thing that makes it possible for the players to explore the GMs imagination (it is one thing that contributes to that).

I would say it is complicated though, because while the GM has control of the world, he does not have control of the player characters themselves. And there are limits to the GMs power over the world (it is conditional on the players not rejecting his descriptions, rulings and conceptions: a GM who starts describing total nonsense or has NPCs regularly respond in bizarre and questionable ways to what the PCs do, is going to find him or herself not the GM after a while). I think the asymmetry of the power over the world, versus the players control of their characters, is one of the things, when it is fully embraced and not resisted, that can make RPGs so immersive and exciting.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> I think it is fine to state that such and such a game style is not immersive for you.   I have no problem with Pemerton saying his style immerses him.  Who can argue what someone else is feeling?   To the degree we try to make it some absolute is when we get in trouble.   I know his style will not be immersive to me and it won't satisfy my roleplaying itch.  I don't need to suffer through many sessions of it to determine that.  I know I do not like 5e due to certain rules they adopted and I don't need to play it to determine that.




I have no problem with him not liking the style. I have a problem with him imposing his experience on those of us who don't have the same reaction


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I understand how you do it.  Each player, including the GM, at various times asserts some truth about the fiction and it is built up from that.  I am not in the dark about your style.



This statement is basically wrong.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all agree that the players' "exploration" of the GM's world isn't happening via telepathic processes, and that the GM is not creating _the sense of a real world_ via any means other than speaking and perhaps making the occasional sketch? So would you agree that the actual social process whereby these things - the players' _exploration_ and the GM's _creation of a sense of a real world_ - occur is that the GM tells things to the players, either in the process of framing or in the process of action resolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't agree with this
Click to expand...


I'm assuming your disagreement is not in respect of telepathy.

So if there is no telepathy, _and_ if the GM is not telling things to the players, then how do the players "explore" the world? What method is the GM using if not speaking and the occasional sketch?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I'm assuming your disagreement is not in respect of telepathy.
> 
> So if there is no telepathy, _and_ if the GM is not telling things to the players, then how do the players "explore" the world? What method is the GM using if not speaking and the occasional sketch?




Again I think this is reductive. Speaking is part of it, maybe drawing a sketch is part of it. But so is the players asking questions, taking actions to see what result they produce, etc. It can also take place in the form of handouts between sessions. I am not denying the role of the exchange at the table in the exploration. I am just saying there are two distinct things going on: the creation of the world in the GMs mind, then the exploration of that world. I am also saying it isn't simply the GM telling them what is in his or her head, there is a dynamic exchange between the GM and the players at the table, the GM often doesn't know what is in his or her head on a particular aspect of the setting until the players start pushing on it at the table. An important like in that video by Justin Alexander is that a well run sandbox eventually runs itself. And this is due to the living world--synergy aspect of play, which eventually puts players in greater and greater control of what is happening. Sometimes that takes many sessions to get to because there is a process of initially learning about the world. But then as things are established, and the players become more familiar they do start to behave more like natural residents of a real place and I find the focus at that point often shifts more to relationships between different characters and groups. 

Again Pemerton my main issue here is in your description of 'playing to discover the GM's notes' and in your oversimplification of the whole process.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> This is what I mean by lawyerly. It just never feels like a real conversation with you Pemerton. It just feels like you are simply looking for opportunities to bend my words to your point. Again, ultimately what we are debating is the terminology of 'playing to discover the GM's notes'. I reject this terminology and I find it insulting and reductive. Whatever other points are made along the way, what ever other statements people make you choose to dissect over a 46 page thread, this is the point of disagreement. No amount of 'Bedrock games has repeatedly' is going to force me to adopt your vocabulary or your framework for understanding RPGs.



I'm sorry that you are insulted. But you refuse to offer any literal terminology to discuss how RPGing works. All you will use is the metaphor of _the PCs exploring the GM's world_. As if there's no difference between a group of people wandering around Paris checking out the sights and a group of people sitting around a table talking to one another. Surely you can see that it is impossible to take such a contention seriously?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't simply learning. Discovering suggests much more active exploration. Learning sounds as if they are simply being told what is the in the GMs head



How do they _discover_? Other than by prompting or provoking the GM to tell them things?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I have no problem with him not liking the style. I have a problem with him imposing his experience on those of us who don't have the same reaction



I don't even understand what the second sentence means. I haven't imposed anything on you. I've posted a few words on a message board in response to your posts - which as I understand it is the point of the medium.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I'm sorry that you are insulted. But you refuse to offer any literal terminology to discuss how RPGing works. All you will use is the metaphor of _the PCs exploring the GM's world_. As if there's no difference between a group of people wandering around Paris checking out the sights and a group of people sitting around a table talking to one another. Surely you can see that it is impossible to take such a contention seriously?




since the Gzm notes is also non literal I don’t see why my terminology is so horrible. But living world is the terminology I have always used. If you want to call it an imagined world or the GMs world (with imagined being assumed in the description) that seems accurate enough for me and it doesn’t confuse exploring an imagined location with exploring a real world city. No one is saying those are identical experiences.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> How do they _discover_? Other than by prompting or provoking the GM to tell them things?




by saying what they want to do, where they go, what they say, by asking the GM questions, etc.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> You've caricatured my own world by your own bad experience.



I've not said anything about you world. I've asked you to post actual play - but you haven't pointed me to any. You have said that my game would be shallow for you. I've invited you to read my actual play posts but you've declined.



Emerikol said:


> I really just think we are probably talking about something at least slightly different and maybe somewhat different when we talk of immersion.   I mean we may write the same definition down but the actual feeling or experience seems a bit different.



When I talk about RPGing being deep (cf shallow) or meaningful (cf trite) I have in mind the same sorts of things that would inform my judgements of other media.

Do the situations express and evoke human passions? Are the characters engaging and intriguing? Do the events of play surprise, amuse, even upset?



Emerikol said:


> I think for clarification.   The campaign setting is mostly constructed in advance.  The GM then becomes to the best of his or her ability a neutral arbiter from then on out.   When you say something like "The GM decides if a secret do is present" the implication is that the GM is allowed to improv but the players are not.  That is not the case at least in my games.   The door is either there or not there per the campaign world.  If it is not there then of course it cannot be found.  If it is there and the roll is made it will certainly be found and if the roll is not made it will certainly not be found.
> 
> So the GM does two jobs.  To the degree he can separate them that is good.
> 
> One is constructing the setting which he does before the campaign for the most part but also between sessions for things like advancing a calendar or reactions to PC actions that are not immediate.   He takes care to dice for probabilities and not just choose and to be neutral.
> 
> The second is adjudicating what is happening in the setting during the play session.  At that time the GM is not doing very much fictional creation.  He is adhering to the campaign setting as much as possible.  His goal is to be a neutral arbiter and purveyor of what the PCs are interacting with.



Emerikol, I am very familiar with the approach to play that you describe. The last time that I used it was a couple of years ago running an AD&D one-off of X2 Castle Amber.

It is not the same as what @Maxperson and @Bedrockgames are describing, because they both do contemplate the GM engaging in fictional creation during the play session. Maxperson especially. (This is why I keep getting confused by their repeated use of "we" and "our".)

In the style you are describing, when the players move their PCs from square to square of the map, and ask questions about what they see and are told things by the GM, they are very much learning what is in the GM's notes. In X2, for instance, the players learn about the different members of the Amber family, they find the portal to Averoigne, they find the ingredients they need to recover Stephen Amber's tomb, etc. There can't be any "exploration" without the GM telling them about these things.



Emerikol said:


> Suppose a GM purchased a really detailed setting.  Suppose one exists to purchase even if none is on the market right now.   If the GM purchases it and then adhered to it with great fidelity, would the GM still be creating that fiction?   He is just relaying the information from the store bought setting as the PCs interact with it.



When I GMed X2, I wasn't using notes that I authored myself. Tom Moldvay wrote them. I don't think that has a very big impact on the process of play.

Also, you refer to the PCs _interacting_ with _the information that the GM relays_. But people don't "interact" with information. They learn it. Or they convey it. Other salient verbs are _listen_, _tell_, etc.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do they discover? Other than by prompting or provoking the GM to tell them things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by saying what they want to do, where they go, what they say, by asking the GM questions, etc.
Click to expand...


How do the players, by saying things and asking questions, _discover _anything? Wouldn't someone have to respond to what they say and answer their question? And wouldn't that _someone_ be the GM?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Surely you can see that it is impossible to take such a contention seriously?




I don’t see this at all. Plenty of people are running perfectly functioning and fulfilling sandbox campaigns on the basis of this metaphor and on the variety of tools. The metaphor is essential for understanding what you are doing. And I wouldn’t say it is only metaphorical: the GM is literally imagining a world. A world is not being literally made in physical form but a mental model is being created and given moving parts or a kind of life. And there is a fundamental exchange between players and GM at the table that can in very very simple form be reduced to “the GM describes what the players perceive, the players say what they do, the GM responds with a description, ruling, invoking a mechanic’. But your efforts to break down that process always seem extremely reductive, binary and to not describe what I experience at the table (and just seem to be an effort to minimize or deny the players ability to explore and involve themselves in an imagined place). If you can provide a description that truly describes what we are doing, that isn’t a trap and doesn’t seem like a playstyle argument in disquisition (better yet: is not a playstyle argument in disguise) I will happily use your language. So far you have failed to do that for me. And even if you do: to me this will always remain exploration of a loving world: I think any description of the process must start there for me


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> This is where we part on our opinions.  Some well known authors have said stories are not written they are rewritten.  As analogy in this case it makes sense.  My point is that crafted fiction done ahead of time and thought through carefully will be better than off the cuff fiction on average.   Now you can find a really bad crafter and a great improver and that might be an exception.  I'm saying on average.
> 
> If you want to add "for the kind of immersion and verisimilitude I am seeking" then by all means add that caveat.



Except that you have no experience with the other approach, have said so yourself, and are making an assumption.  Given the below, it's not a good one.


Emerikol said:


> I understand how you do it.  Each player, including the GM, at various times asserts some truth about the fiction and it is built up from that.  I am not in the dark about your style.



This description is... look this _could _describe @pemerton's play, but if it does, it's so shallow that it describes your play as well.  After all, in your play a player action declaration establishes a truth (the PC does this) that is then built upon (the GM narrates the result of the action), and the fiction goes on.  At this level, this is trivial to the point of uselessness.  If you mean that play is some kind of conch passing, then it's woefully incorrect.  Either way, it certainly doesn't establish that you understand.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> How do the players, by saying things and asking questions, _discover _anything? Wouldn't someone have to respond to what they say and answer their question? And wouldn't that _someone_ be the GM?




no one is denying that the GM communicates the imagined model to them as they explore it. But I would say it is still more than just the GM telling them. And the GM refers to the model, to instinct, to the motivations of npcs, to what has arisen, in order to respond to players


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> since the Gzm notes is also non literal I don’t see why my terminology is so horrible. But living world is the terminology I have always used. If you want to call it an imagined world or the GMs world (with imagined being assumed in the description) that seems accurate enough for me and it doesn’t confuse exploring an imagined location with exploring a real world city. No one is saying those are identical experiences.





Bedrockgames said:


> no one is denying that the GM communicates the imagined model to them as they explore it. But I would say it is still more than just the GM telling them. And the GM refers to the model, to instinct, to the motivations of npcs, to what has arisen, in order to respond to players



When I read LotR, I "explore" Middle Earth by reading what JRRT wrote. I read the novel, I read the appendices. I learn things that JRRT is telling me.

No one can explore the contents of someone else's imagination unless that other person tells them. _Communicates_ and _tells_ are synonyms in this context.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It is not the same as what @Maxperson and @Bedrockgames are describing, because they both do contemplate the GM engaging in fictional creation during the play session. Maxperson especially. (This is why I keep getting confused by their repeated use of "we" and "our".)
> 
> In the style you are describing, when the players move their PCs from square to square of the map, and ask questions about what they see and are told things by the GM, they are very much learning what is in the GM's notes. In X2, for instance, the players learn about the different members of the Amber family, they find the portal to Averoigne, they find the ingredients they need to recover Stephen Amber's tomb, etc. There can't be any "exploration" without the GM telling them about these things.



1: It depends on the kind of campaign I am running 

2: generally speaking I would have something like a secret door mapped in advance. Sometimes the players go somewhere not yet mapped and I have to decide at that moment. Sometimes they go somewhere mapped, ask if there is a secret door, and I consider it even if no secret door is marked on the map because it’s possible I was wrong not to put one down when I made the map. Generally speaking though you don’t want to shift things around and make them pop into existence when the players prod: it is just sometimes the world has a logic you ought to bow to when the players ask about something you overlooked in prep. World building is a lot of stone foundation in advance, elaboration at the table as things pan out and synergy as the players become more active and interact with the world


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> When I read LotR, I "explore" Middle Earth by reading what JRRT wrote. I read the novel, I read the appendices. I learn things that JRRT is telling me.
> 
> No one can explore the contents of someone else's imagination unless that other person tells them. _Communicates_ and _tells_ are synonyms in this context.



No they aren’t. He had to imagine it first. There is a difference between Tolkien sitting down and developing a world in his head, then putting it into prose so he can communicate that world versus him making it all up as he writes (also worth noting he is telling a story, you aren’t exploring in the way you can in an rpg). the experience of reading these is entirely different


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> No they aren’t. He had to imagine it first. There is a difference between Tolkien sitting down and developing a world in his head, then putting it into prose so he can communicate that world versus him making it all up as he writes (also worth noting he is telling a story, you aren’t exploring in the way you can in an rpg). the experience of reading these is entirely different




my he difference in an rpg is it is interactive. You are not simply being told things


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> One issue I have with calling everything a living world is that if nothing happens without the PCs being present then it's not a living world as I define it.   A living world is one that changes and continues whatever the PCs do even if they just fall into a sleep for ten years.   When they wake up the world will be different.   It's the fact that NPCs have agendas that may or may not cross paths with the PCs anyway.



Come on now.  No one is running games where if the PCs fall into a magical sleep for 10 years, they wake up and everything is exactly the same because the game isn't a living world.  

Even in games driven by player narrative, the DM still has the responsibility to frame the next scene, and that framed fiction should, by necessity, be extrapolated from the previous fiction.  

Honestly, the secret door example is such a bright line between the different play styles I don't know why we need another example.  If there's a secret door in the dead end because the DM's map says so or because the DM rolls on a table, it's the "living world"/"DM's notes" way.  If the player can expend a resource or a check to generate a secret door in the fiction, than it's a player focused method.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> the GM is literally imagining a world. A world is not being literally made in physical form but a mental model is being created and given moving parts or a kind of life. And there is a fundamental exchange between players and GM at the table that can in very very simple form be reduced to “the GM describes what the players perceive, the players say what they do, the GM responds with a description, ruling, invoking a mechanic’.



The players have no access to the GM's imagination except by the GM either speaking to them or drawing sketches.

_Describe _is a synonym, in this context, for _tell _or _communicate_. What you have stated - _the GM describes what the players perceive, the players say what they do, the GM responds with a description, ruling, invoking a mechanic - _is no different from what I have posted dozens, maybe hundreds, of times. The GM describing what the players (I think you mean _PCs_?) see is the GM telling them what is in his/her imagination. The GM responding to player action declarations with a description is the GM telling them more about what is in his/her imagination.



Bedrockgames said:


> But your efforts to break down that process always seem extremely reductive, binary and to not describe what I experience at the table



The description you gave of the "fundamental exchange" is no different from anything I am posting. You assert that it is reductive to say that _the GM tells the players what is in his/her imagination _but think it is non-reductive to use the synonymous (in context) _the GM describes to the players the world that they are perceiving_.

As @Campbell has mentioned already in this thread, you seem to regard any description of the process that does not also valorise the aim and experience of your play as reductive. I don't regard it as incumbent on me to assure that you're enjoying your RPGing - I assume you can do that yourself. I am describing the process of play. And it's hardly foreign to me - I've engaged it in, a great deal, as player and as GM.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> There is a difference between Tolkien sitting down and developing a world in his head, then putting it into prose so he can communicate that world versus him making it all up as he writes



For me as a reader of LotR there is no difference. I can't tell what editing he went through just by reading. I learn that stuff by reading critical editions, Thomas Shippey's book, etc.

I any event this seem irrelevant to the post that you quoted. As I said, "No one can explore the contents of someone else's imagination unless that other person tells them. _Communicates_ and _tells_ are synonyms in this context." JRRT can make it up and then write it down, and then _tell me_. Or JRRT can _tell me _as he makes it up. Either way, he is telling me what he made up.



Bedrockgames said:


> my he difference in an rpg is it is interactive. You are not simply being told things



Do you think I don't know this?

But what does the interaction consist in? Who says what to whom? And what effects does that have on who imagines what?

If the players are _exploring the GM's mental model of the gameworld_, how do they do that except by saying things that prompt the GM to tell them stuff about what s/he is imagining?


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> the secret door example is such a bright line between the different play styles I don't know why we need another example.  If there's a secret door in the dead end because the DM's map says so or because the DM rolls on a table, it's the "living world"/"DM's notes" way.  If the player can expend a resource or a check to generate a secret door in the fiction, than it's a player focused method.



What about a PbtA-type system where _only the GM can establish the existence of a secret door_ but the players can make moves that _oblige the GM to narrate something that will be useful to the player's PC given the context_ - which, if the context is a dead end, might be a secret door?


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> since the Gzm notes is also non literal I don’t see why my terminology is so horrible. But living world is the terminology I have always used. If you want to call it an imagined world or the GMs world (with imagined being assumed in the description) that seems accurate enough for me and it doesn’t confuse exploring an imagined location with exploring a real world city. No one is saying those are identical experiences.



One problem with your insistence upon "living world" terminology, which @pemerton, @hawkeyefan, @innerdude, @Campbell, et al have repeatedly tried explaining to you to little or no avail - regardless of whether they explain it to you with patient due diligence or with "lawyerly" language - is that it's euphemistic terminology and double-speak that doesn't give a real transparent sense for the actual play process or play loop that's going on. And in the absence of you providing accurate terminology, which "living world" is not, it's all just peddling romanticized flowery mumbo jumbo, which "living world" is. What is the "ladies' room"? It's a flowery term for a toilette room designated for use by female-gendered persons. What's a "living world" or "imagined GM's world"? It's the euphemistic and figurative "ladies' room" that doesn't give us a real sense for what we can actually expect behind the doors.

The point being is that it's the _GM's_ _own person_ (vis a vis their world, notes, mind, filter, intuition, arbitration, say-so, etc.) that this is ultimately about. You may find "notes" insulting, but it at least gives some credence to the idea that the GM put some forethought into the thing, and the players aren't playing to discover what the GM hides in and pulls out of their "living bum" or that the GM is changing it all up on a whim the moment the players get a whiff that it's something foul.


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t see this at all. Plenty of people are running perfectly functioning and fulfilling sandbox campaigns on the basis of this metaphor and on the variety of tools. The metaphor is essential for understanding what you are doing. And I wouldn’t say it is only metaphorical: the GM is literally imagining a world. A world is not being literally made in physical form but a mental model is being created and given moving parts or a kind of life. And there is a fundamental exchange between players and GM at the table that can in very very simple form be reduced to “the GM describes what the players perceive, the players say what they do, the GM responds with a description, ruling, invoking a mechanic’. But your efforts to break down that process always seem extremely reductive, binary and to not describe what I experience at the table (and just seem to be an effort to minimize or deny the players ability to explore and involve themselves in an imagined place). If you can provide a description that truly describes what we are doing, that isn’t a trap and doesn’t seem like a playstyle argument in disquisition (better yet: is not a playstyle argument in disguise) I will happily use your language. So far you have failed to do that for me. And even if you do: to me this will always remain exploration of a loving world: I think any description of the process must start there for me



You're not having a séance.  When you're playing, the players ask a question, you rummage around in the vast mental holodeck of a setting you've constructed, and then you answer.  Maybe you knew the answer right away, maybe you wrote it down before, maybe you derived it from a table, or maybe you just made it up right now.  But that's all you do.  There's no spiritual or mystical element to it.  They ask, you answer.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> You're not having a séance.  When you're playing, the players ask a question, you rummage around in the vast mental holodeck of a setting you've constructed, and then you answer.  Maybe you knew the answer right away, maybe you wrote it down before, maybe you derived it from a table, or maybe you just made it up right now.  But that's all you do.  There's no spiritual or mystical element to it.  They ask, you answer.



I am not asserting a seance but I think reducing it to Q&A also misses the complexity of what is going on


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> One problem with your insistence upon "living world" terminology, which @pemerton, @hawkeyefan, @innerdude, @Campbell, et al have repeatedly tried explaining to you to little or no avail - regardless of whether they explain it to you with patient due diligence or with "lawyerly" language - is that it's euphemistic terminology and double-speak that doesn't give a real transparent sense for the actual play process or play loop that's going on. And in the absence of you providing accurate terminology, which "living world" is not, it's all just peddling romanticized flowery mumbo jumbo, which "living world" is. What is the "ladies' room"? It's a flowery term for a toilette room designated for use by female-gendered persons. What's a "living world" or "imagined GM's world"? It's the euphemistic and figurative "ladies' room" that doesn't give us a real sense for what we can actually expect behind the doors.
> 
> The point being is that it's the _GM's_ _own person_ (vis a vis their world, notes, mind, filter, intuition, arbitration, say-so, etc.) that this is ultimately about. You may find "notes" insulting, but it at least gives some credence to the idea that the GM put some forethought into the thing, and the players aren't playing to discover what the GM hides in and pulls out of their "living bum" or that the GM is changing it all up on a whim the moment the players get a whiff that it's something foul.




I just disagree with you. And I don’t think your framework or language is as objective or as clarifying as you assert. I find it reductive. And reductive is a problem when you are trying to explain to people how to run a sandbox. Living world isn’t just romantic language, it encapsulates the philosophy by which you run the setting. And I said replace ‘discover GM’s notes’ with ‘explore GMs world’ or ‘imagined world’ and I am fine with it. Also ‘exploring a living world’ isn’t where we end it. We have all elaborated on the process, the tools, the techniques. What we refuse to do is reduce all that to ‘discover what’s in the GMs notes’


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> For me as a reader of LotR there is no difference. I can't tell what editing he went through just by reading. I learn that stuff by reading critical editions, Thomas Shippey's book, etc.




I think it is very easy to sense when writers have worked out a world in advance versus when they have not.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not asserting a seance but I think reducing it to Q&A also misses the complexity of what is going on



I'm not sure if we are missing anything. The general sentiment seems to be that you are overstating that "complexity" for the sake of needlessly aggrandizing and mystifying the GM's role in the Q&A process, presenting it as if the GM were some sort of divine intermediary to "the Deity" (aka the GM's imagined world).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If the players are _exploring the GM's mental model of the gameworld_, how do they do that except by saying things that prompt the GM to tell them stuff about what s/he is imagining?



if you have an argument lay it out, so I can see how the points connect and if I agree with it. But not going to play a game where you ask me questions point by point to steer me into your conclusions. State your conclusion clearly and defend it with minimal jargon. If I agree I agree. If I don’t I don’t. And explain to me how this questions makes the game ‘discovering the GMs notes’ the thing we are disputing


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not asserting a seance but I think reducing it to Q&A also misses the complexity of what is going on



It doesn't.  I learned to play in the '90s, when having a detailed world with a ton of factions and NPCs running around doing their own thing was considered the pinnacle of RPGs.  I've run and played in plenty of those games.  Other than reading thick books to absorb the setting information, RPG play consisted of asking the DM to answer questions and the DM answering, along with intra-party in-character discussion.  

I mean, the other play style is "The player says 'I do something', the DM says 'OK, that happens but then this happens after', and sometimes you roll dice."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if we are missing anything. The general sentiment seems to be that you are needlessly overstating that "complexity" for the sake of needlessly aggrandizing and mystifying the GM's role in the Q&A process, presenting it as if the GM were some sort of divine intermediary to "the Deity" (aka the GM's imagined world).




I am not overstating the complexity (we have offered all kinds of description of the process and the tools we use). And I am certainly not trying to mystify the GM or aggrandize (I have consistently said I don't get overly precious about 'my world!' and that I regularly seek input from players (often asking them if they think a given ruling I propose is adequate or fair). I even pointed to the genesis for me of the living world/living adventure concept (which really if you break it down is about having moving parts: about having NPCs with a will of their own like PCs have, and having NPCs form into things of greater complexity through groups and organizations). Maybe this model doesn't work for you. That is fair. I am not trying to get anyone to play the way I play. But I definitely don't think or feel the way about RPGs the way you, Pemerton, and some of the others do. I have a much different approach, informed in part by metaphor, emotion and inspiration (which I think is the element you guys are really having a hard time with and seem to take personally for some reason), in part by a background in history-religion-philosophy, in part by things like the Feast of Goblyns section I quoted, in part by a love of world building and thought experiments. I am decidedly not an engineer. Nor am I a theorizer or a lover of jargon. There is nothing wrong with taking an engineers approach to gaming (even I have to sometimes when I am doing things like designing mechanics). But I simply am unable to fall in love with the way of talking about games, of understanding games, that you do. You read that as stubbornness or a hard headed refusal to see the facts. I don't know, I feel when you have identified your actual argument and the premises of the arguments, I've pointed to the spots in them where I am unmoved or disagree. That isn't hard headedness. I am just also not someone who is easily persuaded by good rhetoric (and there is a of good rhetoric on your side) when it runs counter to my own experience and I sense there is some fundamental flaw in the logic (even if I can't immediately identify it: though I will say I often do and that gets ignored)


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> if you have an argument lay it out



Sandbox RPGing is not seance. It is not telepathy. The players do not, in any literal sense, _enter or explore another world_.

The GM imagines something. S/he may prepare it in advance (notes). S/he may extrapolate from those notes in the moment. S/he may just make stuff up in the moment. (You, @Maxperson and @Emerikol seem to have different methods in this respect. But the upshot of all of them is that the GM is imagining something.)

The only way for the players to learn what the GM is imagining is for the GM to tell them.

This telling normally takes place in two sorts of ways: (1) the GM describes to the players what their PCs _perceiv_e and what their PCs _know_; (2) the GM describes the outcomes of action declarations the players make for their PCs, where (in the fiction) those outcomes depend upon the PCs doing things to the world around them. _Searching for a secret door _is a simple example of (2). _Making an offer to to a NPC_ is a more complex example of (2).

Neither (1) nor (2) is done by the GM arbitrarily. The GM is either drawing upon his/her prep (notes). Or s/he is extrapolating from prep in a principled fashion. (This is what @Emerikol calls "neutral" or "fair" GMing.)



Bedrockgames said:


> And explain to me how this questions makes the game ‘discovering the GMs notes’ the thing we are disputing



You seem obsessed by that phrase. I used it in a post replying to @Emerikol, where the latter referred to a preference for RPGing being the "exploration" of a world. My point, in that reply, was that there is no literal exploration: there is learning what the GM has authored. As I already posted upthread, I am quite happy to use the phrase _GM's conception of the fiction _to describe what it is that the players are learning. Upthread you used the phrase _mental model_. I think _conception _or _imagination_ are less jargonistic terms to use, but they are all synonyms in this context.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> It doesn't.  I learned to play in the '90s, when having a detailed world with a ton of factions and NPCs running around doing their own thing was considered the pinnacle of RPGs.  I've run and played in plenty of those games.  Other than reading thick books to absorb the setting information, RPG play consisted of asking the DM to answer questions and the DM answering, along with intra-party in-character discussion.
> 
> I mean, the other play style is "The player says 'I do something', the DM says 'OK, that happens but then this happens after', and sometimes you roll dice."




Again I think this overlooks the synergy that Justin Alexander mentioned in his video (which is the living component). I am not saying there isn't a Q&A process going on. But there are other things at work which I and others have already described. I guess a better thing for me to ask here is what is the point of getting us to concede the Q&A thing? What argument are you building towards with it?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> You seem obsessed by that phrase.




It is the title of the thread and the language people were refusing to budge on after people said they felt insulted by it.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I just disagree with you. And I don’t think your framework or language is as objective or as clarifying as you assert. I find it reductive. And reductive is a problem when you are trying to explain to people how to run a sandbox.



I think that "living world" is equally reductive and a problem when trying to explain people how to run a sandbox. It just romanticizes the outward aesthetic rather than the underlying nuts and bolts process. However, I personally find that the underlying nuts and bolts are _far more_ informative and insightful when learning/explaining how to run a sandbox than the euphemistic speak. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Living world isn’t just romantic language, it encapsulates the philosophy by which you run the setting.



The fact that you are using romantic language to encapsulate the "philosophy" of your preferred playstyle doesn't somehow make the language less romantic. Furthermore, is Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World less of a "living world" even though they operate with a different set of guiding principles in terms of GM/player roles? This is another problem with insisting on "Living World" as your preferred terminology. It could also apply to other games that we can recognize have vastly different underpinning architecture and play principles though they produce a similar output: i.e., a "living world."  



Bedrockgames said:


> And I said replace ‘discover GM’s notes’ with ‘explore GMs world’ or ‘imagined world’ and I am fine with it. Also ‘exploring a living world’ isn’t where we end it. We have all elaborated on the process, the tools, the techniques. What we refuse to do is reduce all that to ‘discover what’s in the GMs



Sure, but what does your euphemistic use of "ladies' room" really describe?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> . I used it in a post replying to @Emerikol, where the latter referred to a preference for RPGing being the "exploration" of a world.




You have been using the phrase for ages in these discussions, usually to dismiss our style as 'just leaning what is in the GMs notes'. I know we've had conversations before where you have said this to me


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> My point, in that reply, was that there is no literal exploration: there is *learning what the GM has authored.* As I already posted upthread, I am quite happy to use the phrase _GM's conception of the fiction _to describe what it is that the players are learning. Upthread you used the phrase _mental model_. I think _conception _or _imagination_ are less jargonistic terms to use, but they are all synonyms in this context.




Something in this phrasing fails to capture the experience for me. And I do disagree in that I think the players are exploring imagined worlds. They may not being on a literal voyage into unknown but it is an exploration where they are not mere passive recipients of the GMs description.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I think that "living world" is equally reductive and a problem when trying to explain people how to run a sandbox. It just romanticizes the outward aesthetic rather than the underlying nuts and bolts process. However, I personally find that the underlying nuts and bolts are _far more_ informative and insightful when learning/explaining how to run a sandbox than the euphemistic speak.




Living world isn't the explanation of how to run the sandbox, it is however an important key to understanding the purpose of something like "a major wandering encounter"---which is the GM acts as if the NPCs (thus the 'They live!" exclamation in Feast of Goblyns that for me was a real light bulb moment. 

It isn't euphemistic language. Euphemisms suggest I am using a word to evade some darker meaning or to reframe something that is unpleasant in a more pleasant light. The point here isn't deception. The point here is to to produce a clear image for people what the goal is. 

But if you look at things like the video I showed, like Rob's article on how to run a sandbox, you see we are not affraid to get into the nuts and bolts of what that actually means. There is nothing wrong with using evocative language to describe something.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> I mean, the other play style is "The player says 'I do something', the DM says 'OK, that happens but then this happens after', and sometimes you roll dice."



Adding to this: the conversation takes place under constraints.

In Burning Wheel, there are certain key things the GM is expected to have regard to in deciding what to say: (i) the PCs' Beliefs, and to a lesser extent their Instincts and Traits; (ii) the intent of any action declaration; (iii) the result of every dice roll. The GM is also expected to manage scenes and their pacing, which affects what s/he says.

In Apocalypse World, the constraints are not identical. There is no clear analogue to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits; but the GM is expected to ask questions and have regard to the answers to those in what s/he says. Each individual move also generates constraints, if the roll is successful (eg a successful "search"-type move will require the GM to narrate some new, useful thing); and if a roll fails, the GM is obliged to narrate some new complication that will follow from the established fiction.

In a canonical sandbox, the constraints arise from the GM's prep. There is no analogue to Belief, Instinct and Traits - in fact the GM is expected to be neutral vis-a-vis the aspirations of the players for their PCs in his/her narration. The focus in resolution is on task, not intent: a player may make a roll to find a secret door that would succeed, if there were a door to be found, and yet fail because the GM's prep (or his/her extrapolation from prep) says there is no door there. The more that the GM is just making stuff up, without prep as some sort of constraint, the more that it makes no sense to describe the GMing as "fair" or "neutral", and the closer the game is getting to what Lewis Pulsipher was criticising as GM-as-storyteller back in the early 80s.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> The fact that you are using romantic language to encapsulate the "philosophy" of your preferred playstyle doesn't somehow make the language less romantic. Furthermore, is Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World less of a "living world" even though they operate with a different set of guiding principles in terms of GM/player roles? This is another problem with insisting on "Living World" as your preferred terminology. It could also apply to other games that we can recognize have vastly different underpinning architecture and play principles though they produce a similar output: i.e., a "living world."




1) My point is it isn't merely romantic language. There are bigger reasons for invoking living world than the romantic sound it has. And I tried to explain those to you

2) I've never asserted Blades in the Dark is less of a living world. This isn't a commentary on other style of play. It is just how I see and understand this style of play. If the issue is you feel jealous or angry because you think I am implying other styles are somehow less vibrant or alive, that simply isn't the case. Still I am not going to stop calling what I do a living world because it is a concept that has really helped me and other people understand the aims. I have to say this comes up so often in these discussions (i.e. we say agency is important in our sessions, so you assert that the most agency is attained by player games like PbtA; we assert our sessions are built on a living world concept). Look this term can be applied like any to a number of styles of play. When it is applied to sandboxes it has particular meaning, which people have explained to you. It isn't our job to describe our games in ways that assure you that your games are also okay (that your games are fun, alive, etc is not in dispute)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but what does your euphemistic use of "ladies' room" really describe?




A bathroom for women. I don't really see how using euphemism to evade discussion of urination and bowel movements is related to what I am talking about


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> One problem with your insistence upon "living world" terminology, which @pemerton, @hawkeyefan, @innerdude, @Campbell, et al have repeatedly tried explaining to you to little or no avail - regardless of whether they explain it to you with patient due diligence or with "lawyerly" language - is that it's euphemistic terminology and double-speak that doesn't give a real transparent sense for the actual play process or play loop that's going on.




Part of the problem here, and I can't speak for everyone on my side, is I think we are not very comfortable with the play loop concept being applied to RPGs, because we find it reductive. If it works for you and enhances your understanding, go for it. But I think often when you reduce a game to a play loop you miss a lot of the subtle things that are going on. I just prefer a much more open approach that doesn't starkly define or formalize player-GM interactions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> The general sentiment seems to be that you are overstating that "complexity"




Is this the general sentiment? Are you so sure? Do the number of people who say something make it more or less truthful? A majority of people, or posters on a thread, can be very wrong (history is filled with examples of majorities who were very, very wrong). History is also filled with majorities who were wrong who made compelling cases for their beliefs (which were often hard or impossible to refute under the reigning paradigm). I see several posters agreeing with me. And I am sure there are tons of lurkers who haven't weighed in. Also there is a circle of posters here who frequently post i the same threads and are like-minded on this topic. I am quite sure if we randomly ventured into other forums, onto facebook groups and elsewhere we'd find very different general sentiments around this discussion. That you, Pemerton and one or two other posters generally disagree with me on things, is not something I find particularly upsetting nor is it something that impels me to reconsider my position.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Would you agree that sometimes that "informing" takes place in virtue of the GM making decisions about action resolution by reference to what s/he is imagining in his/her head?



Sometimes is an accurate.


pemerton said:


> Also, would you agree that what you are describing here is an _asymmetric_ relationship between what the GM _imagines and controls_ and what the players imagine. And that that is what makes it possible for the players to "explore" the GM's imagination?



Yes, it's asymmetric with the DM controlling more, but it's not just the DM's imagination that is being explored.  The space is called the shared imagined space for a reason, and since the DM is not truly God and is imperfect, very often the players will try to explore something that the DM did not think of.  During those times it's the players' imaginations that are being explored and the DM is deciding on.


pemerton said:


> Finally, I think we all agree that the players' "exploration" of the GM's world isn't happening via telepathic processes, and that the GM is not creating _the sense of a real world_ via any means other than speaking and perhaps making the occasional sketch? So would you agree that the actual social process whereby these things - the players' _exploration_ and the GM's _creation of a sense of a real world_ - occur is that the GM tells things to the players, either in the process of framing or in the process of action resolution?



It's not telepathic, no.  However, DMs do often create the sense of a real world via their descriptions.  Further, the players' input is also critical to the process of action resolution.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The more that the GM is just making stuff up, without prep as some sort of constraint, the more that it makes no sense to describe the GMing as "fair" or "neutral", and the closer the game is getting to what Lewis Pulsipher was criticising as GM-as-storyteller back in the early 80s.




This isn't the case. The issue isn't volume in a sandbox (though there are definitely GMs who want to make up less during play). The issue is the rationale and logic behind what they are making up. Storyteller play is about the GM making up a story that the players don't have any meaningful impact on. If the GM is enabling the players to make meaningful choices, including not engaging the story, and the GM is legitimately trying to remain true to the setting, to the motivations of his NPCs and groups, and creating things that he feels fits that truth, that is outside the storyteller GM approach


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> It is the title of the thread and the language people were refusing to budge on after people said they felt insulted by it.



The thread asks _what is the point of GM's notes_. And contemplates possible answers.

I've spoken about the use I've made of notes in various games I've RPGed. So have other posters. If you think asking that particular question is some sort of covert attack upon you or your RPGing, well to me that seems to be your problem.



Bedrockgames said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no literal exploration: there is *learning what the GM has authored.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something in this phrasing fails to capture the experience for me. And I do disagree in that I think the players are exploring imagined worlds. They may not being on a literal voyage into unknown but it is an exploration where they are not mere passive recipients of the GMs description.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to capture your experience. I am trying to describe the actual process of play.

At the start of the session, the players did not know - for instance - that the City of Greyhawk contains a wizard's guild whose building is shaped like a pyramid. At the end of the session they now know that. How did they learn it? That is not a strange or opaque question. Surely it has an answer.

I know how it was answered when I first GMed GH games: I told them.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't euphemistic language. Euphemisms suggest I am using a word to evade some darker meaning or to reframe something that is unpleasant in a more pleasant light. The point here isn't deception. The point here is to to produce a clear image for people what the goal is.



Not darker. _Cruder. _We are sometimes socially put-off by the crude, hence "ladies' room" instead of "toilette room for female-gendered persons." There's nothing fundamentally "dark" or "unpleasant" about the latter, though we still recognize that "ladies' room" is a euphemistic term, much in the same fashion that "living world" is. It's positively framed lingo for something cruder.

What I am fundamentally asking you to do is to complete the analogy by providing an answer for X: 

Ladies' Room : Living World :: Toilette Room for Female-Gendered Persons : X



Spoiler



The answer is not posting yet another tiring round of outrage about "play to discover what's in the GM's notes." It's about being using this opportunity to be constructive.





Bedrockgames said:


> But if you look at things like the video I showed, like Rob's article on how to run a sandbox, you see we are not affraid to get into the nuts and bolts of what that actually means.



Cool. Now what's a non-euphemistic/evocative term or phrase that describes that fundamental "nuts and bolts" process?



Bedrockgames said:


> There is nothing wrong with using evocative language to describe something.



"Evocative language" is doublespeak, in this context, for "euphemistic language." But at least you seem to implicitly recognize that "Living World" is euphemistic, romanticized, and/or evocative rather than procedurally descriptive.


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> Part of the problem here, and I can't speak for everyone on my side, is I think we are not very comfortable with the play loop concept being applied to RPGs, because we find it reductive. If it works for you and enhances your understanding, go for it. But I think often when you reduce a game to a play loop you miss a lot of the subtle things that are going on. I just prefer a much more open approach that doesn't starkly define or formalize player-GM interactions.



Honestly, the fact that you find metaphorical descriptions of play _so important_ and are so offended by literalism is what makes these discussions drag on ad nauseum.  

"you miss a lot of the subtle things that are going on. I just prefer a much more open approach that doesn't starkly define or formalize player-GM interactions." is a bunch of platitudes.  It's a nothingburger.  If you can't define what these subtle things are, or provide examples of what an open approach would look like in contrast to some other play example of a "closed" approach, you're simply not providing much utility to the discussion.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> it's not just the DM's imagination that is being explored.  The space is called the shared imagined space for a reason, and since the DM is not truly God and is imperfect, very often the players will try to explore something that the DM did not think of.  During those times it's the players' imaginations that are being explored and the DM is deciding on.



This is different from what @Bedrockgames described. He referred to the players gaining knowledge of the GM's mental model.

This is an example of the sort of thing that makes me think that you and @Bedrockgames are not using identical techniques. And which, for me at least, makes your use of the plural first person pronoun puzzling.



Maxperson said:


> It's not telepathic, no.  However, DMs do often create the sense of a real world via their descriptions.



This happens in all RPGing. When the GM in my Burning Wheel game described Evard's tower I was able to imagine it. (I think this is what you mean by "the sense of a real world".) But that was clearly not an example of sandbox play, given that the GM's narration of that tower was the upshot of a successful Great Masters-wise check made by me for a PC, the wizard Aramina.



Maxperson said:


> Further, the players' input is also critical to the process of action resolution.



As I noted upthread, their declarations matter. But I don't think you have regard to player intent in narrating outcomes, do you?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The more that the GM is just making stuff up, without prep as some sort of constraint, the more that it makes no sense to describe the GMing as "fair" or "neutral", and the closer the game is getting to what Lewis Pulsipher was criticising as GM-as-storyteller back in the early 80s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't the case. The issue isn't volume in a sandbox (though there are definitely GMs who want to make up less during play). The issue is the rationale and logic behind what they are making up. Storyteller play is about the GM making up a story that the players don't have any meaningful impact on. If the GM is enabling the players to make meaningful choices, including not engaging the story, and the GM is legitimately trying to remain true to the setting, to the motivations of his NPCs and groups, and creating things that he feels fits that truth, that is outside the storyteller GM approach
Click to expand...


I honestly don't understand what you are disagreeing with. I say _the more the GM is just making stuff up, without prep as some sort of constraint_ - and then you go on to talk about _rationale and logic_ and _remaining true to the setting_. How is that any different from what I said? What do you think is the difference between _prep as some sort of constraint_ and _remaining true to the setting_? What do you think is the difference between _just making stuff up _and _having no rationale or logic_?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> This is different from what @Bedrockgames described. He referred to the players gaining knowledge of the GM's mental model.



I also said it is more complicated and not simply learning what is in the GMs mind. Not sure what max has in mind exactly but it sounds somewhat like my games (would need to drill down more to know)


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> 1) My point is it isn't merely romantic language. There are bigger reasons for invoking living world than the romantic sound it has. And I tried to explain those to you
> 
> Still I am not going to stop calling what I do a living world because it is a concept that has really helped me and other people understand the aims.



It's pretty clear that you are missing a pretty gosh darn big point. We are not talking about our AIMS; we are talking about our PROCESS. Because the general aims of desiring to create a "living world" may be incredibly similar, but the issue is about the underlying _process_, the nuts and bolts, of how we realize that through play.



Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't our job to describe our games in ways that assure you that your games are also okay (that your games are fun, alive, etc is not in dispute)



But it's just our job to describe your games in ways that assure you? That seems fair.



Bedrockgames said:


> Is this the general sentiment? Are you so sure? Do the number of people who say something make it more or less truthful? A majority of people, or posters on a thread, can be very wrong (history is filled with examples of majorities who were very, very wrong). History is also filled with majorities who were wrong who made compelling cases for their beliefs (which were often hard or impossible to refute under the reigning paradigm). I see several posters agreeing with me. And I am sure there are tons of lurkers who haven't weighed in. Also there is a circle of posters here who frequently post i the same threads and are like-minded on this topic. I am quite sure if we randomly ventured into other forums, onto facebook groups and elsewhere we'd find very different general sentiments around this discussion. That you, Pemerton and one or two other posters generally disagree with me on things, is not something I find particularly upsetting nor is it something that impels me to reconsider my position.



I was attempting to summarize the general sentiment of people who are pushing back against you in this thread. I thought that was abundantly clear. There's simply no need for you to engage in this sort of cheap rhetorical game of casting aspersions, @Bedrockgames. Cut it out.



Bedrockgames said:


> A bathroom for women. I don't really see how using euphemism to evade discussion of urination and bowel movements is related to what I am talking about



The underlying process of what goes on behind the closed doors of the "Living World" in Sandbox play.


----------



## pemerton

So upthread @Campbell posted this:



Campbell said:


> I'll be honest. I really could live without the 'living breathing world' framing.
> <snip>
> 
> It's also not very descriptive of the process of play - only of how most of want it to feel in play.



When I post about the methods of Burning Wheel, I don't refer to _immersive play_ or _gut-wrenching play_ or _astonishing play_ - although those are all part of the experience I hope to have, and the reasons for playing that system.

I try to describe the techniques actually used: who is expected to say what to whom, in accordance with what sets of rules and procedures and expectations and constraints.

Surely the same is possible for sandboxing. We all understand that the desired experience, on the player side, is to _explore a world_. But what actually takes place at the table that enables that to happen. I don't believe it is incapable of being literally described.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> Honestly, the fact that you find metaphorical descriptions of play _so important_ and are so offended by literalism is what makes these discussions drag on ad nauseum.
> 
> "you miss a lot of the subtle things that are going on. I just prefer a much more open approach that doesn't starkly define or formalize player-GM interactions." is a bunch of platitudes.  It's a nothingburger.  If you can't define what these subtle things are, or provide examples of what an open approach would look like in contrast to some other play example of a "closed" approach, you're simply not providing much utility to the discussion.



A lot of the problem is that I don't know at what point money turns into a lot of money, but I recognize a lot of money when I see it.  Further, when it comes to art, and running a game is like art, there are a lot of undefinables that are involved.  There are rules to what makes good painting.  Correct brush strokes and so on.  However, despite many, many, MANY people using those correct methods, very, very few are master painters.  The undefinables in art make all the difference.

We're not giving you platitudes and nothing burgers.  We are telling you what is going on from an artists point of view.  The artists who are "painters"(DM our style) understand it perfectly and in many ways intuitively, but you "sculpters"(different DMing style) just aren't getting it and are looking for us to explain how we chisel the game, but we don't use chisels.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> A lot of the problem is that I don't know at what point money turns into a lot of money, but I recognize a lot of money when I see it.  Further, when it comes to art, and running a game is like art, there are a lot of undefinables that are involved.  There are rules to what makes good painting.  Correct brush strokes and so on.  However, despite many, many, MANY people using those correct methods, very, very few are master painters.  The undefinables in art make all the difference.
> 
> We're not giving you platitudes and nothing burgers.  We are telling you what is going on from an artists point of view.  The artists who are "painters"(DM our style) understand it perfectly and in many ways intuitively, but you "sculpters"(different DMing style) just aren't getting it and are looking for us to explain how we chisel the game, but we don't use chisels.



Frankly this is not very plausible.

You and @Bedrockgames and @Emerikol talk with utmost confidence about "narrative power" and "dissociated mechanics" and the like. You think you can talk about PbtA and FitD and Cortex+ and Fate and other approaches to play that you have little or no experience with. They are not ineffable.

Why, of all the ways of playing RPGs that have been invented over the past 40+ years, would the one you favour happen to escape literal description?


----------



## Manbearcat

One quick (lol?) thought.

One of the huge differences between (say) Dungeon World/Blades “Sandbox Story Now” play and Trad Sandbox play is *the systematized avenues for player aggression to advocate for their PCs (and through that advocation, wrest control of play trajectory).*

Just briefly upthread I was talking about how the players felt ( @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 ) as the mystery of the slayings in Barrowcleft unfolded via their Score. I did this because I wanted to discuss player feel and mysteries as that was topical at that moment (due to incredulity at both of those things in a Blades game).

However, perhaps more interesting than how _they_ felt is how _I (the GM)_ felt and _why_.

I felt:

*Curious* - Fenriswas running a kill pool and prop bet game back at “home base” (a casino). I was curious at how he would do this (it was mechanized via a Clock, but how would HE do it). He made and buffed and Asset during downtime (a Runner/Spy) to go into the haunted ward > recon > deliver intel to the other PC (the siege squad) > come back to the casino and report). This recon > intel loop was the primary facilitator for this portion of play. It was effectively “comms”.

I was curious at how much hawkeye would press his luck and express his background/Vice with the dangerous, but provocative situations/complications of (sidetracking and therefore Score-threatening) of interest.

I was curious myself as to “what happened in Barrowcleft”. As the Score progressed and more and more fiction had to be created (via framing > declared actions > action resolution > fallout loop), which was bound by prior fiction, a picture began accreting around a culprit and a story. At a point it become clear to us what happened.

*Constrained and Obliged but (simultaneously) Liberated* - The machinery of play is laid bare and we discussed and agreed prior how the Kill Pool Win Con and the Barrowcleft Investigation Win Con would be achieved. Then there are all of the player-facing mechanics and all of the various mechanical and integrated points of pressure and incentive structures that I can use to create difficult decision-points for players.

For instance, I’m very confident that if a put a “Candy Red Button” Devil’s Bargain in front of Hawkeye out in the field...he’s VERY apt to push it (capture the ghost of an old friend who did a turn in Ironhook Prison with him). He wants the xp, for Bavkgroubd/Vice, he wants the extra 1D for action resolution, he wants the ability to unlock a potential Downtime Project via this trapped ghost. I feel liberated...empowered. If he even rolls a 4/5 (Success with Complication), the Complication is going to have big time (possibly snowballing) fallout.

But he got a 6. So now I’m obliged to turn this potential powderkeg of a scene into a decisive win for Team PC.

Same thing with the Ghost Ball and the poltergeist later. Same thing with the killer’s scarf in the field with a pack of ghosts bearing down on the “field unit.”

Every Win by them and move toward the Win Con, I’m obliged to reframe things toward the Score Win.

When the Lamblacks and Red Sashes (sworn enemies) are in the thick of a supernatural cluster-eff at one of the ground zero sites of death (and therefore hauntings), I don’t get to leverage secret backstory/offscreen to just decide what is happening. 3 Fortune Rolls are made based on the Tiers of the two Gangs and the Scale/Magnitude of the Ghost Threat (which outranks them both) and the results are binding (they tick Faction Clocks and they impose a certain type of new gamestate/trajectory of fiction).

I don’t get to “say no” based on setting/genre extrapolation and I don’t get to change Team Monster HPs or fudge my own dice rolls (figuratively in both cases) if events unfold way x vs way y.

*Surprised* -

Surprised they won. This was a brutal Score. The analog to D&D would be a hugely Up-CR and Up-Encounter Budget Combat.

But due to extremely savvy play by the two players and some luck (extraordinarily good dice rolls in action resolution), they won out (and just barely).

Surprised that they decided to turn over all of the Coin for the Payoff in exchange for a big Faction bump with the Dimmer Sisters (making them actually the face of “uncovering the plot”). This loss of Coin gives them a new ally and saves them from the Faction hit (which would have put them At War with The Crows).

Surprised that the antagonists turned out to be the Crows and one of the heads of The Ministry (who manages labor unions/grievances) and now the PCs have an Entanglement with this powerful figure in The Ministry who wanted his role (whether that was incompetent or corrupt beaurocrat ) in the cluster-eff completely below board do it would quietly go away.

Not now though as the PCs secured Union Meeting notes and a journalist is about to publish a huge story on The Ministry’s role in this (unless the PCs do something about it...depends on if they want that kind of heat).




The constituent parts and the integrated whole of this sort of GM orientation doesn’t exist in Trad Sandboxing.

The way a GM’s orientation and the “feels” (certainly the way I feel when I run a Hexcrawl or Sandbox) are just extremely different (polar opposites in many ways).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> But it's just our job to describe your games in ways that assure you? That seems fair.



No. But I am not misdescribing your games or imposing terms on your games you feel are immaculate or insulting. If I did so, it would be fair for you to object


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Frankly this is not very plausible.
> 
> You and @Bedrockgames and @Emerikol talk with utmost confidence about "narrative power" and "dissociated mechanics" and the like. You think you can talk about PbtA and FitD and Cortex+ and Fate and other approaches to play that you have little or no experience with. They are not ineffable.
> 
> Why, of all the ways of playing RPGs that have been invented over the past 40+ years, would the one you favour happen to escape literal description?



I'm only going by what you and others who play your style are describing, though.  I'm not your kind of artist, and from the way you talk about our playstyle, you were one of the "painters" who never mastered the art.  I expect that there are undefinables to your style as well that those who do it well have a hard time explaining, because your explanations fall flat with making it sound like a fun, engaging way to play, yet a lot of people say that it is.

Edit: and we have described ways in which a world becomes living, breathing to you more than once.  Why have you ignored what has been told to you?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> It's pretty clear that you are missing a pretty gosh darn big point. We are not talking about our AIMS; we are talking about our PROCESS. Because the general aims of desiring to create a "living world" may be incredibly similar, but the issue is about the underlying _process_, the nuts and bolts, of how we realize that through play.



in this style the aim is very important. We have tried to describe the processes we use (though those can vary: what seems to unite us is the aim of providing a living world, but there are different schools of thought on how to best achieve that). Still processes have been describe. Articles and videos on ways to do it have been proposed. We just generally reject reducing it to one simple exchange, which you have been characterizing as learning what is in the GM’s notes


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> You and @Bedrockgames and @Emerikol talk with utmost confidence about "narrative power" and "dissociated mechanics" and the like. You think you can talk about PbtA and FitD and Cortex+ and Fate and other approaches to play that you have little or no experience with. They are not ineffable.




No I don’t. I have said repeatedly I don’t play PbtA and can’t really comment on its mechanics. I was just using narrative mechanics to distinguish between games like my own (where players don’t have narrative power) and ones like drama system (where they do: and which is a game I enjoy playing). I sometimes make assumptions about your playstyle but I am not bent in defining it or imposing my own language on it. I often do not understand your description of your style so I am sure there are times I get the things wrong. However I am happy to be corrected when that occurs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I was attempting to summarize the general sentiment of people who are pushing back against you in this thread. I thought that was abundantly clear. There's simply no need for you to engage in this sort of cheap rhetorical game of casting aspersions, @Bedrockgames. Cut it out.



Aldarc try practicing what you preach them. It is effort on my part not to be angered by your posts because they seem angry, hostile and aggressive


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> One of the huge differences between (say) Dungeon World/Blades “Sandbox Story Now” play and Trad Sandbox play is *the systematized avenues for player aggression to advocate for their PCs (and through that advocation, wrest control of play trajectory).*



A related thought:

Does the GM, in narrating consequences, _extrapolate from what s/he has already prepped or imagined about the gameworld_? Or does the GM, in narrating consequences, _have regard to the players' evinced desires about the trajectory of their PCs_?

(Of course, this also relates back to the discussion upthread of protagonism.)

The first approach is _neutral GMing_. I think this is pretty typical of classic/trad sandboxing.

The second approach is one I associate first and foremost with Burning Wheel, but I've used it in other RPGs too: 4e D&D, Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark, and to some extent Classic Traveller.

Upthread I gave a brief account of the episode of play, in our Prince Valiant game, in which the squire PC was knighted by an NPC as the result of an attempt to just ride past him after he refused to joust with a mere squire. In a "neutral" approach the GM would consider the personality of the NPC, the customs of knighthood, etc and extrapolate a "realistic" likelihood of the NPC knighting the PC. But in our game I simply called for a Presence vs Presence check. This keeps the focus on _what is at stake for the character in the scene_ rather than _how often do squires get knighted by proud knights so as to create fitting opposition for those proud knights_. I think only the second would count as _exploring the GM's world_.

In both cases, the world of course is living and breathing. That description doesn't at all capture the difference between the two approaches to adjudication.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> No. But I am not misdescribing your games or imposing terms on your games you feel are immaculate or insulting. If I did so, it would be fair for you to object



Huh? Every time you use the phrase "narrative power" I object, because it's useless and inaccurate - to the extent that you use it to mean "the ability to spend points to establish new fictional details by fiat" then the only game I play that has anything like that is Cortex+ Heroic. Yet you continue to use it.



Bedrockgames said:


> No I don’t. I have said repeatedly I don’t play PbtA and can’t really comment on its mechanics. I was just using narrative mechanics to distinguish between games like my own (where players don’t have narrative power) and ones like drama system (where they do: and which is a game I enjoy playing). I sometimes make assumptions about your playstyle but I am not bent in defining it or imposing my own language on it. I often do not understand your description of your style so I am sure there are times I get the things wrong. However I am happy to be corrected when that occurs.



Instead of making assumptions you might ask. I don't know what "drama system" is. But nothing I've ever seen you post about "narrative power" has ever made any sense to me.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> No. But I am not misdescribing your games or imposing terms on your games you feel are immaculate or insulting. If I did so, it would be fair for you to object



Until you get off your keister and provide more accurate terms about the fundamental, underlying processes of play for your games - nope, not "living world" - then don't be surprised that others will continue using the term you find immaculate and/or insulting in this thread. I and others have been _strongly encouraging_ you to develop your own replacement term that adequately describes the nuts and bolts process of your preferred play. Not the aesthetic. Not the evocative aims. The crude, gritty, underlying process. I agree with @TwoSix that your evasion on the literalism of the process has needlessly dragged out this argument of terminology far longer than it would have been otherwise.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> We're not giving you platitudes and nothing burgers.  We are telling you what is going on from an artists point of view.  The artists who are "painters"(DM our style) understand it perfectly and in many ways intuitively, but you "sculpters"(different DMing style) just aren't getting it and are looking for us to explain how we chisel the game, but we don't use chisels.



The part you're missing (and keep forgetting) is that everyone on "our" side (and it's stupid how this becomes a tribal thing that has sides) _already knows how to paint_.  

To get away from yet another pointless metaphor, everyone here knows how to run a "living world".  It's honestly one of the easier ways to play, and works well for a wider variety of players, because you need much less player buy-in.  Saying "The duke you wish to talk to is a devout member of the Pumplegimp sect, which go on religious pilgrimages every spring, and this he isn't available to talk to, but you can talk to his chamberlain who's (rolls Perception) actually a member of the Asmodeus cult, because you see a carefully covered tattoo on his left wrist" isn't some spiritual moment, it's just using your notes to push the game in a certain direction.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Huh? Every time you use the phrase "narrative power" I object, because it's useless and inaccurate - to the extent that you use it to mean "the ability to spend points to establish new fictional details by fiat" then the only game I play that has anything like that is Cortex+ Heroic. Yet you continue to use it.




what term do you want me to use (I haven’t read your posts as objections


----------



## TwoSix

Manbearcat said:


> One quick (lol?) thought.



That whole post almost fit on my screen, pretty terse by MBC standards.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> from the way you talk about our playstyle, you were one of the "painters" who never mastered the art.



I have run sandboxes. I know how it is done.

I'm pretty confident that this is also true for @Manbearcat, @Aldarc and @TwoSix. I'm not sure about @Campbell; but I imagine he has played in this sort of game even if he hasn't run it.



Maxperson said:


> we have described ways in which a world becomes living, breathing to you more than once.



I don't think you have. If I missed a post could you point me to it?

@Bedrockgames has: he has referred to the GM having a mental model which is then communicated to the players.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> In both cases, the world of course is living and breathing. That description doesn't at all capture the difference between the two approaches to adjudication.




Agreed.

* Comparative thematic neutrality vs thematically-charged.

* Pregenerated and used for extrapolation in mediation vs generated during play

* GM mandate in content generation and content evolution vs systematized GM constraint.

* The comparative way varying procedures, varying level of transparency, and dearth/abundance of levers that players can pull (including by proxy due to authority distribution) to oblige a particular adjudication in any moment of play (and the downstream effects of that).


Those 4 are where the extreme difference in adjudication (and how the world evolves based on adjudication) emerge.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> The part you're missing (and keep forgetting) is that everyone on "our" side (and it's stupid how this becomes a tribal thing that has sides) _already knows how to paint_.
> 
> To get away from yet another pointless metaphor,* everyone here knows how to run a "living world".*  It's honestly one of the easier ways to play, and works well for a wider variety of players, because you need much less player buy-in.  Saying "The duke you wish to talk to is a devout member of the Pumplegimp sect, which go on religious pilgrimages every spring, and this he isn't available to talk to, but you can talk to his chamberlain who's (rolls Perception) actually a member of the Asmodeus cult, because you see a carefully covered tattoo on his left wrist" isn't some spiritual moment, it's just using your notes to push the game in a certain direction.



The bolded part seems untrue, since one of the hallmarks of non-prep play is that you don't prep, and without prep, a living, breathing world isn't possible, yet @pemerton seems to be saying that his non-prep play produces living, breathing worlds.  

If you don't prep, you can't have things going on in the world that the player may not even know about, if you haven't thought them out and enacted them prior to play.  You have to have prepared who the NPCs are in advance, what their goals are and what they are doing about it, then plot out how they go about their goals and what the approximate timeline is.   Just saying, "Hey, you hear a rumor of X going on somewhere else in the world." or "You see on the news that a helicopter crashed in Indonesia." doesn't make the world a living, breathing one.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I have run sandboxes. I know how it is done.



Sure, but from the way you talk and describe the process, it doesn't seem like you've mastered that art.  You know the brush strokes, but not the intangibles that bring it to life.


pemerton said:


> I don't think you have. If I missed a post could you point me to it?



I don't remember which page it was, let alone what post number.  This thread has been moving faster than a pyroclastic flow.


----------



## Campbell

Kevin Crawford manages to describe the process of running sandbox game with precision and without resorting to aspirational language that fails to account for the cognitive limits we all have. He also does not place sandbox gaming on pedestal or make claims about the depth of other ways of playing. Is his treatment of sandbox play in Stars Without Number or Godbound reductive?

I personally love sandbox gaming. Sine Nomine has a direct line to my wallet. I just think our analysis needs to be practical, acknowledge the process of play (and not just how it feels), and respect the limits of our cognitive powers. That last bit is a really big deal to me. I know how hard this naughty word is. We just had our Session Zero for the Infinity game I'm going to be a player in last night. Understanding the scope, relationships, and life experience of one person who is not us is damn near unfathomable to me. Implying that you can actually keep an entire world in your head is staggering. There's a  lot of value in the attempt, but acting like the entire endeavor is not a massive exercise in human will is deeply misleading in my opinion.

Personally I believe that trying to maintain the mystique of what we're doing does a lot of harm to new GMs. It also discourages people to try to become GMs because the entire exercise just looks too daunting. This sort of aspirational language is why I never felt confident as a young GM until I ran Apocalypse World. It's why sandbox play was ineffable to me until I read Stars Without Number and started utilizing the process and tools Kevin Crawford provided.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> The bolded part seems untrue, since one of the hallmarks of non-prep play is that you don't prep, and without prep, a living, breathing world isn't possible, yet @pemerton seems to be saying that his non-prep play produces living, breathing worlds.



Not wanting to do something doesn't mean not knowing _how_ to do something.

I know how to change the oil in my car, but I pay someone to do it because I don't like scraping my back on the driveway and (quite frankly) I can spare the cash to have someone else do it.



Maxperson said:


> If you don't prep, you can't have things going on in the world that the player may not even know about, if you haven't thought them out and enacted them prior to play.  You have to have prepared who the NPCs are in advance, what their goals are and what they are doing about it, then plot out how they go about their goals and what the approximate timeline is.   Just saying, "Hey, you hear a rumor of X going on somewhere else in the world." or "You see on the news that a helicopter crashed in Indonesia." doesn't make the world a living, breathing one.



Again, the mistake you're making is thinking we're not perfectly aware of that.  And again, most of us toggle between these playstyles.  I just think you or Bedrockgames or Emerikol would be incapable of running a good PbtA or BitD game because you haven't tried and have some mental blinders on as to what RPGs _should_ be like.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> what term do you want me to use (I haven’t read your posts as objections



I'm not really interested in a term, because the phenomenon is largely a spurious one.

All action declarations change the fiction if they are successful. Something changes. Whether that change is _the orc is dead_ or _a secret door is discovered_.

The concept of "narrative power" rests on a premise that the second sort of change in the fiction is different from the first. But from the point of view of authorship they are no different. The difference consists partly in topic: the first is about the state of a living thing, the second about the details of the architecture. Because the latter but not the former is typically thought of as a _setting element_, the notion of "narrative power" is coined. But it rests on that thought which is particular to some specific approaches to RPGing.

What is useful is to talk about action declarations, and how they are resolved. When is the GM allowed to dictate outcomes without the players having any chance to get what they want for their PCs (eg that they find a secret door)? And when is that not the case? Answering those questions won't tell us everything about differences of approach, but it will certainly capture some key differences between (to pick two sharply contrasting RPGs) Moldvay Basic and Burning Wheel.


----------



## TwoSix

Campbell said:


> Personally I believe that trying to maintain the mystique of what we're doing does a lot of harm to new GMs. It also discourages people to try to become GMs because the entire exercise just looks too daunting. This sort of aspirational language is why I never felt confident as a young GM until I ran Apocalypse World. It's why sandbox play was ineffable to me until I read Stars Without Number and started utilizing the process and tools Kevin Crawford provided.



This.  It's been a while since I've done a heavy prep campaign, but Worlds Without Number has inspired me to do for one of my next games.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I have run sandboxes. I know how it is done.
> 
> I'm pretty confident that this is also true for @Manbearcat, @Aldarc and @TwoSix. I'm not sure about @Campbell; but I imagine he has played in this sort of game even if he hasn't run it.
> 
> I don't think you have. If I missed a post could you point me to it?
> 
> @Bedrockgames has: he has referred to the GM having a mental model which is then communicated to the players.




If anyone in this thread has run more hours of Trad Sandbox play than me, I would be utterly shocked. From 84 - 04, it was exclusively either Moldvay Dungeon Delving, BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl.

20 years (and I’ve run plenty more in the last 17). Only GMing. No playing. Probably averaging 6 hours per week. Folks can do the math.

If I’m coming at this from a position of ignorance then the whole of D&D culture has a pretty stark purity test!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Instead of making assumptions you might ask. I don't know what "drama system" is. But nothing I've ever seen you post about "narrative power" has ever made any sense to me.



narrative power is a common term in sandbox circles. It usually refers to mechanics that enable players to narrate or control setting details but also refers to any mechanic intended to help the game play out more like a story. It is broad and probably fails to capture what is going on in a game like dungeon world (which I read more based on your descriptions as placing firmer limits on GM power and on formalizing into moves things that are often treated more informally. I do think narrative mechanic accurately describes hill folk, which both has mechanics for imbedding drama (characters have dramatic pokes, you map out relationships before hand and have to establish details like what you want from other characters but why they won’t give it to you). In drama system players take turns framing scenes (which grants them narrative powers a typical sandbox would reserve for the GM). There are mechanics for objecting to framing. Mostly a scene is characters talking and in the course of that dialogue you can introduce setting elements that haven’t yet been introduced (‘but Josephus, what will the myrmidons of kale do if you March south’).  It is a fun game. I find it very immersive. But if I were pitching it to a sandbox GM they would certainly see those things as not belonging in a living world sandbox

my personal view is people are too rigid about narrative mechanics, I think there is a place for them in sandbox. I just think it is helpful to draw distinctions between a pure sandbox and a more experimental one. Where that leaves dungeon world or burning wheel, I don’t know because I don’t play those games. I know many sandbox GM’s are skeptical of those games.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> Not wanting to do something doesn't mean not knowing _how_ to do something.
> 
> I know how to change the oil in my car, but I pay someone to do it because I don't like scraping my back on the driveway and (quite frankly) I can spare the cash to have someone else do it.



That isn't what I said, though.  He's describing his method as producing living, breathing worlds, but his method is unable to produce them.  He may know how to do it, and he may want or not want to do it, but what he is describing isn't it.


TwoSix said:


> Again, the mistake you're making is thinking we're not perfectly aware of that.



I'm going by what he is describing, not what I assume about what he knows.  What he's describing isn't it.  If he's aware of what makes a world a living, breathing one, then why is he describing something that isn't one and claiming that it is?


TwoSix said:


> I just think you or Bedrockgames or Emerikol would be incapable of running a good PbtA or BitD game because you haven't tried and have some mental blinders on as to what RPGs _should_ be like.



I don't have any conception of what RPGS "should be like."  I accept that there are many ways to play them and not all of them are my cup of tea.  I do know preparation is a requisite for achieving a living, breathing world, though.  So claims that they are achieved in a non-prep game aren't accurate. Please note that I'm not saying that what is achieved in non-prep play isn't satisfying to those playing the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> The part you're missing (and keep forgetting) is that everyone on "our" side (and it's stupid how this becomes a tribal thing that has sides) _already knows how to paint_.
> 
> To get away from yet another pointless metaphor, everyone here knows how to run a "living world".  It's honestly one of the easier ways to play, and works well for a wider variety of players, because you need much less player buy-in.  Saying "The duke you wish to talk to is a devout member of the Pumplegimp sect, which go on religious pilgrimages every spring, and this he isn't available to talk to, but you can talk to his chamberlain who's (rolls Perception) actually a member of the Asmodeus cult, because you see a carefully covered tattoo on his left wrist" isn't some spiritual moment, it's just using your notes to push the game in a certain direction.




thst isn’t living world. Living world is more about playing the chamberlain actively and responsively after he has been introduced. And it’s like, wicked spiritual man


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> thst isn’t living world. Living world is more about playing the chamberlain actively and responsively after he has been introduced. And it’s like, wicked spiritual man



Yes, because everyone else plays him robotically and passively.


----------



## pemerton

In my Traveller game I use preparation in the form of starmaps. After the first couple of sessions I drew these up, because keeping track of the established worlds in my head seemed too hard:









The two region are separated by a rift: it is jump-4 from Zinion to the Akaisha Outstation.

Each of these worlds has a write-up. This is mostly randomly-generated properties (as per the Traveller world creation rules), with an overlay description provided by me. Three exceptions are Ardour-3, which was the starting world: after the random rolls, deciding the details of the world was a collaborative effort; and Tara and the Outstation, which were taken from Space Master modules.

Traveller does not suppose that the GM will keep track of events on dozens of worlds with total populations in the billions of people. It uses random generation tools to handle that.

I would say that the main difference between how I approach the world, and the "default" approach to Classic Traveller, is that when those tools generate events, I frame them in ways that connect them in some fashion to the concerns of the players. This reduces the "exploring the GM's world" feel and increases the "protagonistic" feel.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> That isn't what I said, though.  He's describing his method as producing living, breathing worlds, but his method is unable to produce them.  He may know how to do it, and he may want or not want to do it, but what he is describing isn't it.
> 
> I'm going by what he is describing, not what I assume about what he knows.  What he's describing isn't it.  If he's aware of what makes a world a living, breathing one, then why is he describing something that isn't one and claiming that it is?
> 
> I don't have any conception of what RPGS "should be like."  I accept that there are many ways to play them and not all of them are my cup of tea.  I do know preparation is a requisite for achieving a living, breathing world, though.  So claims that they are achieved in a non-prep game aren't accurate. Please note that I'm not saying that what is achieved in non-prep play isn't satisfying to those playing the game.



I'm not going to buy into a prepped world being the only thing that makes a "living, breathing world".  You're insulting some of my playstyles and I'm not going to be lawyered into accepting your terminology.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> Personally I believe that trying to maintain the mystique of what we're doing does a lot of harm to new GMs. It also discourages people to try to become GMs because the entire exercise just looks too daunting. This sort of aspirational language is why I never felt confident as a young GM until I ran Apocalypse World. It's why sandbox play was ineffable to me until I read Stars Without Number and started utilizing the process and tools Kevin Crawford provided.




Really great post but especially this last bit.

My contribution to these threads are to try to deconstruct and demystify what is happening under the hood in all forms of play in order to encourage people to not only play all sorts of games, but TO GM THEM.

TTRPG culture would be so much better off if (a) everyone had more diversity of experience and (b) the player base has significantly more confidence because they’ve all been GMs.

When I GM for people who have a history of GMing, the creative energy of play and excitement is NOTICABLY more palpable.  In part that is because of endogenous features inherent to people who typically GM. But a part of that is exogenous; environment sharpening them in key ways (that, frankly, makes them more desirable players for me).

Anything that makes GMing less daunting and more transparent = yes, please.

Anything that does the opposite = no thanks.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> Yes, because everyone else plays him robotically and passively.



My point is the living aspect you are pointing up is the duke is on pilgrimage every spring so they speak with the chamberlain instead. My pony is whole that is a part of maintaining a living world it isn’t really what it’s about. It’s about what the duke and chamberlain do once the PCs become involved. For instance if the chamberlain decides to work against the PCs, or with them, where goes and what resources he Martial’s towards that end after the PCs leave. It is about the GM treating the npc more like a pc


----------



## pemerton

I've run campaigns that feature the authored-by-and-only-known-to-the-GM bacsktory and setting trajectory stuff that @Maxperson describes:


Maxperson said:


> If you don't prep, you can't have things going on in the world that the player may not even know about, if you haven't thought them out and enacted them prior to play.  You have to have prepared who the NPCs are in advance, what their goals are and what they are doing about it, then plot out how they go about their goals and what the approximate timeline is.   Just saying, "Hey, you hear a rumor of X going on somewhere else in the world." or "You see on the news that a helicopter crashed in Indonesia." doesn't make the world a living, breathing one.




As I posted upthread,


pemerton said:


> Over time I realised that the good bits [of the game] were the ones that were player-facing and player-driven. And that the backstory that I had developed, which would have "the world" unfolding behind-the-scenes in accordance with pre-scripted defaults, was essentially pointless. So I stopped preparing that stuff.



From the players' in-character-point-of-view, when they hear about the prospects of an Imperial armada arriving, I don't think it matters whether I wrote that out three months ago, or whether I made it up on the spot as part of the framing when one of the characters - an Imperial Navy Commander - returns to her base on Novus.

The difference is that I am not trying to present to the players my "mental model" of a world. Rather, I am trying to frame situations that will engage them relative to their aspirations for their PCs.

I think it was earlier in this thread that some posters suggested that it would be important to know the details of such an armada in order to make other decisions about the gameworld (though I'm not sure which ones). My view is that the armada is no more nor less significant than any of the other things happening, such as depressions in major industrial worlds, or droughts on important agricultural worlds. In a system like Traveller, this is all bound up in the rolls made for random content generation.

Other systems that I GM - eg Prince Valiant - are even less procedural than Classic Traveller. The living world in Prince Valiant consists in the PCs getting married, having families, intervening in politics, establishing their regencies, travelling to Constantinople and being praised by the Emperor, etc. We don't need to know any details of military operations beyond either (i) the maps we are using from historical atlases, and (ii) the operations the PCs themselves undertake.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> I'm not going to buy into a prepped world being the only thing that makes a "living, breathing world".  You're insulting some of my playstyles and I'm not going to be lawyered into accepting your terminology.



Then this is much like other discussions here and in the real world.  You have two sides who each have a definition.  I'm also not going to be lawyered into accepting your terminology.  We are at an impasse.


----------



## Aldarc

Campbell said:


> Kevin Crawford manages to describe the process of running sandbox game with precision and without resorting to aspirational language that fails to account for the cognitive limits we all have. He also does not place sandbox gaming on pedestal or make claims about the depth of other ways of playing. Is his treatment of sandbox play in Stars Without Number or Godbound reductive?
> 
> I personally love sandbox gaming. Sine Nomine has a direct line to my wallet. I just think our analysis needs to be practical, acknowledge the process of play (and not just how it feels), and respect the limits of our cognitive powers. That last bit is a really big deal to me. I know how hard this naughty word is. We just had our Session Zero for the Infinity game I'm going to be a player in last night. Understanding the scope, relationships, and life experience of one person who is not us is damn near unfathomable to me. Implying that you can actually keep an entire world in your head is staggering. There's a  lot of value in the attempt, but acting like the entire endeavor is not a massive exercise in human will is deeply misleading in my opinion.
> 
> Personally I believe that trying to maintain the mystique of what we're doing does a lot of harm to new GMs. It also discourages people to try to become GMs because the entire exercise just looks too daunting. This sort of aspirational language is why I never felt confident as a young GM until I ran Apocalypse World. It's why sandbox play was ineffable to me until I read Stars Without Number and started utilizing the process and tools Kevin Crawford provided.



In Stars Without Number, Crawford attempts to explain roleplaying games to new players by equating the PCs to avatars in a computer game and the GM as the computer. This has me thinking whether we should reframe "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" as "using the GM interface to play/discover the game." The GM exists as the players' interface into the game and its curated world: they are the computer that runs the game world program as well as the input/output of player commands for their PC's actions. This may be better than "GM's notes," though it may not provide a better sense of the underlying play procedures in more mainstream sandbox games.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> t’s about what the duke and chamberlain do once the PCs become involved. For instance if the chamberlain decides to work against the PCs, or with them, where goes and what resources he Martial’s towards that end after the PCs leave. It is about the GM treating the npc more like a pc



This is a huge part of Apocalypse World. It is what "fronts" are for. Yet I don't think you and @Maxperson count that as a "living, breathing" game.

In my own case, GMing Traveller, I don't need to decide what resources have been martialled in advance. If the next random starship encounter is with a warship, then I can decide that it's a vessel that is hostile to the PCs because sent by the Chamberlain. That's part of the point of a system for random content generation.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Then this is much like other discussions here and in the real world.  You have two sides who each have a definition.  I'm also not going to be lawyered into accepting your terminology.  We are at an impasse.



There's been an impasse here for years, the thread descending into these types of discussions is just the latest manifestation.


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> In Stars Without Number, Crawford attempts to explain roleplaying games to new players by equating the PCs to avatars in a computer game and the GM as the computer. This has me thinking whether we should reframe "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" as "using the GM interface to play/discover the game." The GM exists as the players' interface into the game and its curated world: they are the computer that runs the game world program as well as the input/output of player commands for their PC's actions. This may be better than "GM's notes," though it may not provide a better sense of the underlying play procedures in more mainstream sandbox games.



I think I referred to the fictional setting as a "mental holodeck" a few pages back, what you're describing is pretty close to my meaning.  

The general sense for this type of play is that the GM's NPCs can act more like PCs and have input in the play space that's orthogonal to the current play agenda.  Let's say the PCs wrong a certain powerful NPC, and then the NPC takes actions "behind the scenes" to hire some bandits and ambush the PCs while they're in the middle of another quest 6 game-time months and 5 real world sessions later.  That would be applauded as good "living world/sandbox" play, because the PCs actions had repercussions they couldn't anticipate and displaying those consequences helps generate verisimilitude.


----------



## pemerton

To add to some of what I've posted not far upthread: is the basic dynamic of play _players engage with GM's ideas_ or _GM engages with players' ideas_? As I've said, when I'm GMing Classic Traveller I'm inclining towards the second, though it is mediated through the procedures for random generation of content.

Of course there is back-and-forth. But the answer to the question _why does our Traveller game involve alien civilisations, psionics and plots within the Imperial Navy and Marines_ is _because the PCs included a xeno-archaeologist, a spy, and a former Marine who aspired to learn psionics._


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> The general sense for this type of play is that the GM's NPCs can act more like PCs and have input in the play space that's orthogonal to the current play agenda.  Let's say the PCs wrong a certain powerful NPC, and then the NPC takes actions "behind the scenes" to hire some bandits and ambush the PCs while they're in the middle of another quest 6 game-time months and 5 real world sessions later.  That would be applauded as good "living world/sandbox" play, because the PCs actions had repercussions they couldn't anticipate and displaying those consequences helps generate verisimilitude.



Is it relevant that this can be done without the sort of off-screen management that @Maxperson describes?

The GM can narrate that bandit ambush as part of framing a new scene, or as a consequence of a failed check, without having done advance working out of how exactly the NPC pulled it off.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> From the players' in-character-point-of-view, when they hear about the prospects of an Imperial armada arriving, I don't think it matters whether I wrote that out three months ago, or whether I made it up on the spot as part of the framing when one of the characters - an Imperial Navy Commander - returns to her base on Novus.
> 
> The difference is that I am not trying to present to the players my "mental model" of a world. Rather, I am trying to frame situations that will engage them relative to their aspirations for their PCs.



Here's the thing.  A living, breathing world isn't for the benefit of the PCs.  Of course from an in-character perspe.ctive it doesn't matter when you did it.  It's for the players benefit that it's done in advance and it gives THEM the sense of a living world


pemerton said:


> I think it was earlier in this thread that some posters suggested that it would be important to know the details of such an armada in order to make other decisions about the gameworld (though I'm not sure which ones). My view is that the armada is no more nor less significant than any of the other things happening, such as depressions in major industrial worlds, or droughts on important agricultural worlds. In a system like Traveller, this is all bound up in the rolls made for random content generation.



What happens once you determine that there are droughts on some worlds, depressions on others and say wars in 3 systems?  Where do you go with all of that information once it is randomly determined?


pemerton said:


> Other systems that I GM - eg Prince Valiant - are even less procedural than Classic Traveller. The living world in Prince Valiant consists in the PCs getting married, having families, intervening in politics, establishing their regencies, travelling to Constantinople and being praised by the Emperor, etc. We don't need to know any details of military operations beyond either (i) the maps we are using from historical atlases, and (ii) the operations the PCs themselves undertake.



That's a world, but it's not a living, breathing one as we are using the term.


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> To add to some of what I've posted not far upthread: is the basic dynamic of play _players engage with GM's ideas_ or _GM engages with players' ideas_? As I've said, when I'm GMing Classic Traveller I'm inclining towards the second, though it is mediated through the procedures for random generation of content.
> 
> Of course there is back-and-forth. But the answer to the question _why does our Traveller game involve alien civilisations, psionics and plots within the Imperial Navy and Marines_ is _because the PCs included a xeno-archaeologist, a spy, and a former Marine who aspired to learn psionics._



Which would stand in stark contrast with playing a module like, say, _Ghosts of Saltmarsh, _where you're going to run into aquatic enemies and pirates as such regardless of whether you play a dwarven cleric of the forge, an elven psychic, or a human pirate.


----------



## Manbearcat

I’ve (and I think chao) have used the term
“Setting Solitaire” to depict this, but I assume that is pejorative rather than absolutely instructive to new players that may want to try their hand at GMing?

* The GM has all the extra-PC pieces in play and their interactions. *Setting.*

* They could run “the game” without player input. *Solitaire*.

*Setting Solitaire*

When the players do play, it becomes an input into the game’s model run.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> The general sense for this type of play is that the GM's NPCs can act more like PCs and have input in the play space that's orthogonal to the current play agenda.  Let's say the PCs wrong a certain powerful NPC, and then the NPC takes actions "behind the scenes" to hire some bandits and ambush the PCs while they're in the middle of another quest 6 game-time months and 5 real world sessions later.  That would be applauded as good "living world/sandbox" play, because the PCs actions had repercussions they couldn't anticipate and displaying those consequences helps generate verisimilitude.




I think the expectation too is that the NPCs have will like PCs do, but also have limitations like they do. You wouldn't just make the ambush happen. You would try to play the NPC fairly, like a PC, working against the party (including doing things like possibly tracking the NPCs movement and their method of communication and tracking the party----as well as doing things like if the NPC sends spies after the party, giving the players a chance to spot them)


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> Is it relevant that this can be done without the sort of off-screen management that @Maxperson describes?
> 
> The GM can narrate that bandit ambush as part of framing a new scene, or as a consequence of a failed check, without having done advance working out of how exactly the NPC pulled it off.



Personally, I don't feel the procedure that generates the fiction necessarily precludes any particular kind of fictional element.  I think the most important element is imposing another play agenda that's in contrast to the current agenda.  

It's the GM taking control, driving the agenda, and forcing the players to react that drives "living world" play.  It's framing the PCs into a scene of the NPC's dramatic goals (I'll get revenge on that adventuring group for crossing me!") and letting the NPC's needs drive play for a time.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> In Stars Without Number, Crawford attempts to explain roleplaying games to new players by equating the PCs to avatars in a computer game and the GM as the computer. This has me thinking whether we should reframe "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" as "using the GM interface to play/discover the game." The GM exists as the players' interface into the game and its curated world: they are the computer that runs the game world program as well as the input/output of player commands for their PC's actions. This may be better than "GM's notes," though it may not provide a better sense of the underlying play procedures in more mainstream sandbox games.




This is at least a metaphor many sandbox GMs use. Where the Gm is like the program, but has greater adaptability because the GM is human. For most of us, at least for the time being, that is the thing that really separates the two mediums (a video game RPG is more locked in, has more preset material with interactions defined before hand----I am sure there are things like algorithms as well, but at the moment it still seems to lack the human GMs adaptability (though it certainly might beat the human GM in terms of being able to map out and track a world and  its physics. A lot of the sandbox GMs I talk to, believe eventually programs will reach a point where they can function the same or better than a human GM. But I do think this is a lot closer to describing what is going on than discovering the GMs notes (still though, I think the obvious aim of an RPG sandbox is to create a believable world for the players to explore-----if you remove that from the equation with sandbox I think you are missing something key


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> Personally, I don't feel the procedure that generates the fiction necessarily precludes any particular kind of fictional element.  I think the most important element is imposing another play agenda that's in contrast to the current agenda.
> 
> It's the GM taking control, driving the agenda, and forcing the players to react that drives "living world" play.  It's framing the PCs into a scene of the NPC's dramatic goals (I'll get revenge on that adventuring group for crossing me!") and letting the NPC's needs drive play for a time.



In Burning Wheel, one option for a failed Circles check is that a nemesis NPC turns up (instead of the helpful NPC the player was hoping his/her PC would meet).

Generally, the nemesis would still be related to the PC (and hence the player agenda) in some fashion, but his/her arrival here-and-now is certainly adverse to what the player was hoping the PC would achieve.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> I’ve (and I think chao) have used the term
> “Setting Solitaire” to depict this, but I assume that is pejorative rather than absolutely instructive to new players that may want to try their hand at GMing?
> 
> * The GM has all the extra-PC pieces in play and their interactions. *Setting.*
> 
> * They could run “the game” without player input. *Solitaire*.
> 
> *Setting Solitaire*
> 
> When the players do play, it becomes an input into the game’s model run.



This makes it sound like the players are secondary to the "model run." when it's the complete opposite.  The players and their goals are primary.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Here's the thing.  A living, breathing world isn't for the benefit of the PCs.  Of course from an in-character perspe.ctive it doesn't matter when you did it.  It's for the players benefit that it's done in advance and it gives THEM the sense of a living world



But how does the players' sense of it change based on when the GM decided it? As opposed to when the GM narrates it?


Maxperson said:


> What happens once you determine that there are droughts on some worlds, depressions on others and say wars in 3 systems?  Where do you go with all of that information once it is randomly determined?



The process is the opposite. Random generation determines events pertaining to the PCs - the PCs meet a starship, or a NPC on world, or a particular patron who wishes them to undertake a mission; the PCs find that the demand for the goods they're trading is quite high, or conversely it is very weak; etc - and the GM then establishes fiction around this to give it meaning, if it's not already obvious what that is.

For instance, when the PCs were on Ashar one of them was banished for having committed a crime. She entered a neighbouring country. It had already been established that the two nations were hostile to one another; and that religion was important in the government of both of them. When the PC encountered fugitives, it was easy to present them as religious refugees, adding additional detail to the already-established situation.


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> In Burning Wheel, one option for a failed Circles check is that a nemesis NPC turns up (instead of the helpful NPC the player was hoping his/her PC would meet).
> 
> Generally, the nemesis would still be related to the PC (and hence the player agenda) in some fashion, but his/her arrival here-and-now is certainly adverse to what the player was hoping the PC would achieve.



Sure, but in the "living world" no PC action is needed.  It's assumed that the GM followed a chain of causal logic, utilizing the capabilities that would be consistent with the NPC as PC analogue (although they may have access to capabilities the PC couldn't gain, like if the antagonist is a lich), to arrive at the point where the bandits can execute their ambush.  

A lot of the Paradox Entertainment games on PC (I'm thinking Crusader Kings 3 here) follow this model; you can literally just watch those games run with no input from the player.  Thousands of NPCs will follow algorithms to try and conquer territory for hundreds of years.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> This is a huge part of Apocalypse World. It is what "fronts" are for. Yet I don't think you and @Maxperson count that as a "living, breathing" game.
> 
> In my own case, GMing Traveller, I don't need to decide what resources have been martialled in advance. If the next random starship encounter is with a warship, then I can decide that it's a vessel that is hostile to the PCs because sent by the Chamberlain. That's part of the point of a system for random content generation.




I just read the intro and skimmed the Fronts entry in Dungeon World SRD (I have a game tonight and want to exercise before I do my prep so I don't have time to read and absorb the whole thing). It is very possible I am getting something wrong, missing something vital but I think I at least have a general sense of what a front is now. Let me preface this by saying I tend to take an expansive view to sandbox and living world (heck living world to me is a concept I dragged out of a non-sandbox adventure). I think there are many sandboxes and many living worlds. I also think there are orthodox ways of thinking around these concepts in communities where they are common, and it helps everyone if we at least make distinctions between types, so people don't feel like a particular playstyle (whether that is mine or yours) is being stealth'd into a campaign. 

What I read about Fronts doesn't run counter to living world for me. If I understand it, it takes something that a GM would commonly do in a living world and gives it more parameters, more definition, more formality. In some ways it seems like it places more limits, but in other ways it looks like it also expands. What I was describing above is what I call playing a living character (this is fundamentally what I mean when I say living adventure or living world: are the NPCs active and engaged in the same way as the PCs are, but also limited in ways like the PCs are). I think this covers very similar ground to Fronts, but the front is maybe more interested in things like when those NPCs plot against the party, and when other dangers present themselves. I think for me that is maybe just one part of the living world concept, and you may be placing boundaries on it that I wouldn't place in my campaign (for example the fronts appear to be something that have a regular rhythm to them around sessions----which is fine, I do that with something I call grudge encounters). Really the only difference I see is I tend to be more intuitive and open with applying this stuff (more sensing it when it naturally arises and then initiating things----and I always tend to do them through the eyes of the NPC in question or the group). Another thing that struck me about fronts is they get into some territory some sandbox GMs might quibble over, but I would file under the role of fate in my worlds. For example it seems like you can have these impending dangers that loom over the campaign in some way, and are drivers of certain kinds of conflict. I freely draw on fate for such things (I even have tables for it). I also don't mind introducing dramatic stuff. This is very long winded and meandering but on the face of it, I don't see Fronts as antithetical to living world or to sandbox. I think some GMs might quibble, and it would be a good idea to clearly explain what a font is and how it might go against any expectations a typical sandbox GM would have if you were selling the concept to them (and the areas I would focus on would be do fonts in any way place limits on GM power, or do they in any way enhance player power over the world: those are essentially the two lines you will butt up against). Incidentally this is why when I formalized fate in my own book, I did so in a way that intentionally walks that line, allowing for the dramatic stuff I liked from Chinese Wuxia television series where characters have fated calamities and there are these coincidental meetings of characters that become significant, while also abiding by the expectation that these things have an in setting explanation). But that was just my approach


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> This makes it sound like the players are secondary to the "model run." when it's the complete opposite.  The players and their goals are primary.



But the model of the living world has been explicitly called out as running _without_ the intervention of the PCs, that was the point of the "asleep for 10 years" example called out several pages ago.  The PCs can't be both "primary" and "nonessential" by my understanding of what those words mean.

I think where the PCs are primary are in determining the _resolution_ of the world (using resolution here as picture or video resolution, not fictional resolution).  The areas around the PCs and the NPCs that are meaningful to the play goals will be more fleshed out and detailed, by necessity.  Other than acknowledging that there are kingdoms and lands across the ocean, for example, you don't waste "processing" time fleshing out their daily activities.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> It's true that, at that point, _the player_ may not know anything about that NPC. But now the question is: _who gets to decide what it is that the character knows?_ You seem to think it's more immersive if the GM tells you. To me, that is radically non-immersive because it makes me feel like my PC is an amnesiac space alien.
> 
> It's also true that _when I author fiction about what/who my PC is seeing_, my character is not him-/herself engaged in any act of authorship. _My authorship as a player _correlates to _my character's recollection of his/her memories_. When in your game _you listen to the GM tell you something that s/he authored about the NPC or other thing your PC is seeing_, your character is not him-/herself engaged in a process of listening and learning. _Your listening and learning as a player _correlates to _your character's recollection of his/her memories_.




This is making me think about my actual play experience.  I think my best experiences playing D&D and the like (as a player or DM) is when there is a nice hand-off between the players and DM in this regard:

the DM and player are fine with the player authoring chunks of background or things they would know
the DM uses the players ideas and conceptions where they don't derail too much of what they have in their heads and thinks is vital
where the DM accounts for the players big picture without making it too gamey (useful-ish magic items and background relevant encounters turn up,  they don't turn up perfectly tailored like clock work in matched sets)
where the DM isn't too wedded to their pre-existing ideas
where the players have the characters motivations be fungible enough that the characters don't constantly leave the party  for a new job or change of scenery like happens in real life
the players aren't too munchkin/min-max in their contributions
The odd thing is, it feels like in all of those we would have knee-jerk described it as the DM running things and making up the world -- I guess, unless pressed to think about what was actually happening.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> But how does the players' sense of it change based on when the GM decided it? As opposed to when the GM narrates it?



Mind you, this is not about all players. Only about how it feels to a lot of us. Coming up with everything on the fly makes the world feel like a facade.  It's all on the surface.  There's no true depth to it.  The advance prep makes it FEEL like there's depth there.  Like the the rest of the world is going about its daily business even when the PCs aren't around.  Living, breathing.


pemerton said:


> The process is the opposite. Random generation determines events pertaining to the PCs - the PCs meet a starship, or a NPC on world, or a particular patron who wishes them to undertake a mission; the PCs find that the demand for the goods they're trading is quite high, or conversely it is very weak; etc - and the GM then establishes fiction around this to give it meaning, if it's not already obvious what that is.
> 
> For instance, when the PCs were on Ashar one of them was banished for having committed a crime. She entered a neighbouring country. It had already been established that the two nations were hostile to one another; and that religion was important in the government of both of them. When the PC encountered fugitives, it was easy to present them as religious refugees, adding additional detail to the already-established situation.



Okay.  From the last post, it sounded like there was some sort of random event table.  So the players might hear of a rebellion on Rigel CXII, a famine on Xerxes II and a war on Bizarro World.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> * In our Prince Valiant game, the PCs had ridden north of the town of Castle Hill to confront a knight - "the best in all Britain", Sir Lionheart - who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle. The two PC knights were defeated. The third PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. The new knight then defeated Sir Lionheart (mechanically, by spending a certificate to Kill a Foe in Combat - the player chose killing and not merely knocking senseless because he intuited, from Sir Lionheart's personality as portrayed by me, that Sir Lionheart would which to continue the fight on foot if unhorsed, and the player knew that his PC had no chance of winning that fight).​​<snip>
> 
> * But I wouldn't say that _exploration_ (or _learning_, _discovering_, etc) the gameworld are very big parts of it. But there is definitely discovery of the fates of the protagonists!​




Did you put the knight there out of your conceptions, or did they suggest there was a knight there to meet?  Was the best in all Britain yours or there idea?  Was Lionheart's portrayal as continuing on the ground your conception or theirs?   If any were yours, was that something they were discovering about the world you were presenting?  If some were not, how did they insert it into the game?


----------



## Aldarc

I'm perfectly willing to accept @Bedrockgames's use of a "living world" campaign as the aspirational aim of traditional sandbox play, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful about the processes by which this aim is realized. So I think that understanding the play process requires understanding _*how*_ we and others, including Brendan,* frequently attempt to achieve this in typical/mainstream sandbox gameplay or how/why certain game systems help to achieve those aims. 

* Maybe it's worth exploring/reading how Bedrock Games' own publications describe play, since presumably they are meant to be conducive to typical sandbox play, though I am not sure where to begin searching for the most lucid explanation. 



TwoSix said:


> Sure, but in the "living world" no PC action is needed.  It's assumed that the GM followed a chain of causal logic, utilizing the capabilities that would be consistent with the NPC as PC analogue (although they may have access to capabilities the PC couldn't gain, like if the antagonist is a lich), to arrive at the point where the bandits can execute their ambush.
> 
> A lot of the Paradox Entertainment games on PC (I'm thinking Crusader Kings 3 here) follow this model; you can literally just watch those games run with no input from the player.  Thousands of NPCs will follow algorithms to try and conquer territory for hundreds of years.



I suspect that this is key. In typical sandbox play, the GM is not only responsible for running the immediate foreground of player-centric action/agency, but also running the background as a sort of concurrently orthogonal game that may or may not intersect again with the PCs. But at the same time, the GM only needs to "procedurally generate" what the players choose to engage/interface with, which is why these games often rely on flexible, generalized systems that gives the GM a lot of leeway to make ad hoc adjudications as needed based on a wide variety of player inputs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> To add to some of what I've posted not far upthread: is the basic dynamic of play _players engage with GM's ideas_ or _GM engages with players' ideas_? As I've said, when I'm GMing Classic Traveller I'm inclining towards the second, though it is mediated through the procedures for random generation of content.




When I run a sandbox I usually feel like I am engaging the players ideas. I don't like running a game where I am the one bringing the adventures to the party. I want them helping to shape the overall campaign concept with the choices their characters make. The players don't have mechanisms that are formal for shaping the campaign, but I am very open to what the players are trying to do within the setting and enabling the campaign to go there. If they suddenly want to be bootleggers, I am happy to roll with that. If by this though, you mean the players are the ones introducing


TwoSix said:


> But the model of the living world has been explicitly called out as running _without_ the intervention of the PCs, that was the point of the "asleep for 10 years" example called out several pages ago.  The PCs can't be both "primary" and "nonessential" by my understanding of what those words mean.
> 
> I think where the PCs are primary are in determining the _resolution_ of the world (using resolution here as picture or video resolution, not fictional resolution).  The areas around the PCs and the NPCs that are meaningful to the play goals will be more fleshed out and detailed, by necessity.  Other than acknowledging that there are kingdoms and lands across the ocean, for example, you don't waste "processing" time fleshing out their daily activities.



that isn’t the point. Living worlds are there for players to explore but the world should move around them do it has a life if it’s own that they sense as they explore. It is something that makes choices so important in play (the players need to know that Aqel-Gabod would be invaded whether they went there or not: but their still participants in the living world like the NPCs and still the campaigns focus


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I'm perfectly willing to accept @Bedrockgames's use of a "living world" campaign as the aspirational aim of traditional sandbox play, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful about the processes by which this aim is realized. So I think that understanding the play process requires understanding _*how*_ we and others, including Brendan,* frequently attempt to achieve this in typical/mainstream sandbox gameplay or how/why certain game systems help to achieve those aims.



It is in the tools we often discuss in the advice. I am not the best mouthpiece but have tried to post links here to my write ups and blog posts in the past. I don’t have time at the moment to reiterate the main points though


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> In Apocalypse World, the constraints are not identical. There is no clear analogue to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits; but the GM is expected to ask questions and have regard to the answers to those in what s/he says. Each individual move also generates constraints, if the roll is successful (eg a successful "search"-type move will require the GM to narrate some new, useful thing); and if a roll fails, the GM is obliged to narrate some new complication that will follow from the established fiction.



How much of this new complication is completed completely ad-hoc on the spot?  If none, how are any pre-conceived notions wiped from the GMs mind?  If some, are those pre-conceived notion akin to notes in a sense (even if only mental)?


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> A related thought:
> 
> Does the GM, in narrating consequences, _extrapolate from what s/he has already prepped or imagined about the gameworld_? Or does the GM, in narrating consequences, _have regard to the players' evinced desires about the trajectory of their PCs_?
> 
> (Of course, this also relates back to the discussion upthread of protagonism.)
> 
> The first approach is _neutral GMing_. I think this is pretty typical of classic/trad sandboxing.
> 
> The second approach is one I associate first and foremost with Burning Wheel, but I've used it in other RPGs too: 4e D&D, Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark, and to some extent Classic Traveller.




Thinking it over, I think there are a lot of people I've played D&D and the like with who think they are doing the former, but are actually doing a lot of the later.   

The difference feels like at what stage they do it (after every die-roll/declaration, between encounters, between sessions) and how much they let on to the players that that is what's happening.  I wonder if just as many DMs want to think they are doing the former, many players say they want their DMs to be doing that ...  even if they like how the second changes their experience as long as they aren't made to be aware of it.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> But the model of the living world has been explicitly called out as running _without_ the intervention of the PCs, that was the point of the "asleep for 10 years" example called out several pages ago.  The PCs can't be both "primary" and "nonessential" by my understanding of what those words mean.



The PCs are the primary focus of the game.  Period.  Everything else, including the game world, is for their benefit.  However, just because the setting is there for their benefit, doesn't mean that it doesn't have working parts that are going on even when they aren't present.  Those working parts don't change the focus, the PCs remain primary, but they do add depth to the world in order to raise the play experience for all involved.  Turning the setting into a living, breathing world. 


TwoSix said:


> I think where the PCs are primary are in determining the _resolution_ of the world (using resolution here as picture or video resolution, not fictional resolution).  The areas around the PCs and the NPCs that are meaningful to the play goals will be more fleshed out and detailed, by necessity.  Other than acknowledging that there are kingdoms and lands across the ocean, for example, you don't waste "processing" time fleshing out their daily activities.



You can't flesh out the daily activities for entire kingdoms, no.  You can know that the King Ron of Burgundy is plotting to steal the Bark of the Covenant from the neighboring kingdom to the east, and what steps he is going to take and what his timeline is, though.  The PCs/players may or may not ever find out about that, and they may or may not do something about it if they do, but the existence of moving parts outside of their sight adds a lot of depth to the game world.  They WILL find out about a lot of it.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> In my Traveller game I use preparation in the form of starmaps. After the first couple of sessions I drew these up, because keeping track of the established worlds in my head seemed too hard:




Those would count as notes you are using?



pemerton said:


> This reduces the "exploring the GM's world" feel and increases the "protagonistic" feel.




How much of the importance is the "feel" and how much is the actuality?


----------



## TwoSix

Cadence said:


> How much of this new complication is completed completely ad-hoc on the spot?  If none, how are any pre-conceived notions wiped from the GMs mind?  If some, are those pre-conceived notion akin to notes in a sense (even if only mental)?



Nothing is forcing the DM to not have any ideas as to how play _might_ proceed, or NPCs that could be introduced, or scenes that could play out in the future.  (Having no ideas would certainly make for a worse game.)

The point of this type of play is the DM never says "No" because of an idea they have in their head or notes that hasn't been introduced in the fiction already.  You can say "The Duke is on a 3 month pilgrimage and can't be negotiated with" after a failed check to meet with the king, but not just because your notes about the palace say so.


----------



## Cadence

TwoSix said:


> Nothing is forcing the DM to not have any ideas as to how play _might_ proceed, or NPCs that could be introduced, or scenes that could play out in the future.  (Having no ideas would certainly make for a worse game.)
> 
> The point of this type of play is the DM never says "No" because of an idea they have in their head or notes that hasn't been introduced in the fiction already.  You can say "The Duke is on a 3 month pilgrimage and can't be negotiated with" after a failed check to meet with the king, but not just because your notes about the palace say so.



Thank you for the clarification.  I have to say such a thing never occurred to me.

Is the effect of the failure or the difficulty of the check based on what's in the DMs head that might not have been addressed in the fiction?  Is the DM equally allowed to say the Duke is away for three months or three hours?  Is the DM allowed to make the difficulty of the check greater if they'd rather not have them meet the Duke?  Are they required to have a roll at all? If the Chamberlain says the Duke is gone for three months can the players think he's lying and make a check about it?  If the players had seen the Duke sail off themselves can they say they think he circled around and make a check for it?  [e.g. analogy wise is the world Bayesian where no point-mass priors on anything are allowed, or are they allowed in some cases?  and are the tightnesses of the priors determined by the DM or the rules or both]


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> The PCs are the primary focus of the game.  Period.  Everything else, including the game world, is for their benefit.  However, just because the setting is there for their benefit, doesn't mean that it doesn't have working parts that are going on even when they aren't present.  Those working parts don't change the focus, the PCs remain primary, but they do add depth to the world in order to raise the play experience for all involved.  Turning the setting into a living, breathing world.



I think we agree, and are just arguing about the word "primary".  Let's say this:

1)  The world exists for the benefit of the players to explore/interact with via their characters.
2)  The DM can extrapolate a new setting state from the old setting state outside of the perceptions of the characters, and thus this is not communicated to the players until they interact with an element of the new setting state.



Maxperson said:


> You can't flesh out the daily activities for entire kingdoms, no.  You can know that the King Ron of Burgundy is plotting to steal the Bark of the Covenant from the neighboring kingdom to the east, and what steps he is going to take and what his timeline is, though.  The PCs/players may or may not ever find out about that, and they may or may not do something about it if they do, but the existence of moving parts outside of their sight adds a lot of depth to the game world.  They WILL find out about a lot of it.



Saying "adds a lot of depth to the world" is a meaningless value judgment.  I'd rather say "Introducing fictional elements into the game derived from the DM's understanding of the changing state of the unseen narrative helps to give the players a sense that the "world" is changing outside their purview and is thus more realistic."


----------



## TwoSix

Cadence said:


> Thank you for the clarification.  I have to say such a thing never occurred to me.
> 
> Is the effect of the failure or the difficulty of the check based on what's in the DMs head that might not have been addressed in the fiction?  Is the DM equally allowed to say the Duke is away for three months or three hours?  Is the DM allowed to make the difficulty of the check greater if they'd rather not have them meet the Duke?  Are they required to have a roll at all? If the Chamberlain says the Duke is gone for three months can the players think he's lying and make a check about it?  If the players had seen the Duke sail off themselves can they say they think he circled around and make a check for it?  [e.g. analogy wise is the world Bayesian where no point-mass priors on anything are allowed, or are they allowed in some cases?  and are the tightnesses of the priors determined by the DM or the rules or both]



Do you have a particular system in mind?  Different systems would have different constraints on what would be allowed.


----------



## Cadence

TwoSix said:


> Do you have a particular system in mind?  Different systems would have different constraints on what would be allowed.



I was unaware there were systems where the DM couldn't simply say the Duke was gone on a trip because that's what their preconceptions/notes said.  Any two systems that would allow that but give different answers would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> This is at least a metaphor many sandbox GMs use. Where the Gm is like the program, but has greater adaptability because the GM is human. For most of us, at least for the time being, that is the thing that really separates the two mediums (a video game RPG is more locked in, has more preset material with interactions defined before hand----I am sure there are things like algorithms as well, but at the moment it still seems to lack the human GMs adaptability (though it certainly might beat the human GM in terms of being able to map out and track a world and  its physics. A lot of the sandbox GMs I talk to, believe eventually programs will reach a point where they can function the same or better than a human GM. But I do think this is a lot closer to describing what is going on than discovering the GMs notes (still though, I think the obvious aim of an RPG sandbox is to create a believable world for the players to explore-----if you remove that from the equation with sandbox I think you are missing something key



I'll consider this progress. But if we can pull back the veil behind this metaphor, I think that we can work towards a better understanding of what's actually going on as part of this process. Again, I think that it's acceptable that your aspirational aim is the generation of a believable/living world, but the underlying crude and dirty _process_ by which GM and players achieve this is what is driving the conversation.

To supply a metaphor of my own: Your aim may be to give life to a beautiful garden; however, to create that garden, you know that you will be buying seeds, dirt, decorations, and tools and getting your hands dirty by hauling dirt/mulch, pulling out weeds, arranging plants, planting seeds, watering plants, trimming bushes, etc. How does one create a "living world" and what is the feedback loop interaction between player and GM, which can make facilitating such a world possible in a way that is distinct from games that operate with different feedback loops and play processes? 

Now players may want to interact with a believable "living world" and the GM may want to provide said living world, but in order for players to do that in typical sandbox play, their actions have to be processed via the GM who often may set the difficulty, call or deny a check, or determine the potential range of outcomes for their actions. In order to engage the world, the players will be looking to the GM (and their rulings) as the GM exists as the intermediary between players and the presented fiction, because it's the GM's responsibility to procedurally generate the world. In order to engage the fiction that the GM presents, they have to engage the GM so that the GM can adjudicate their actions and hopefully generate additional fiction for the players to interact with. 

I think that this is why it feels like "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" for some, but it feels like it gets things wrong for others. 

Party 1 sees "Player -> Living World (GM)" 

Party 2 sees above as "Player -> GM -> World" 

In other words, for players to interact with that living world, their actions have to get filtered through the GM's rulings/adjudications first. Full stop. In other styles/games of play, the GM is less of an "obstacle" per the rules. I do think that typical sandbox play implicitly recognizes this. IMHO, typical sandbox play, however, often tries to alleviate this through a number of ways: e.g., "neutral GMing," pre-built sandbox tools/subsystems, flexible generic system, play to find out what happens/let the dice fall as they may, etc.


----------



## TwoSix

Cadence said:


> I was unaware there were systems where the DM couldn't simply say the Duke was gone on a trip because that's what their preconceptions/notes said.  Any two systems that would allow that but give different answers would be greatly appreciated.



What systems/games have you played in the past?  That would give me a reference to think of something similar to what you've played that uses such mechanics.


----------



## Cadence

TwoSix said:


> What systems/games have you played in the past?  That would give me a reference to think of something similar to what you've played that uses such mechanics.




All the D&D versions (and Gamma World 1e and Pathfinder 1e).  VtM 2e and related  WoD games.  Thirteenth Age.  And just a bit of Brave New World, Call of Cthulhu, Fate, MSHRPG, Shadowrun, Star Wars,  Traveller, Twilight 2000, & Villains and Vigilantes.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> This makes it sound like the players are secondary to the "model run." when it's the complete opposite.  The players and their goals are primary.




I would say three things about this:

1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).

2) “Players being secondary” (as you put it) here would be to the right of M (the median point of the alphabet-as-continuum), more toward Railroad. So that leaves a hell of a lot of room left of M (closer to A).

3) A in this arrangement would be fully Protagonistic Play where the Sandbox is constructed entirely around Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

For instance:

The Dungeon World Sandbox in my game with @darkbard and his wife would be an A. 100 % No Myth setting where everything in that setting is a byproduct of Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

My Blades game with @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 is probably around a B or even C with certain elements in the game being driven by a high res (but modified to our requirements and constantly being modified during play to our needs) pregenerated setting and related machinery that is required to address the premise of the game.

That doesn’t make the Dungeon World game better than the Blades game. They’re both awesome. They’re just slightly different.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> How does one create a "living world" and what is the feedback loop interaction between player and GM, which can make facilitating such a world possible in a way that is distinct from games that operate with different feedback loops and play processes?




I can address the rest in more depth when I have more time, but I think this is a fundamental point of dispute: I think most GMs in sandbox play, and most players have a more open and fluid idea of the interaction that leads to a sense of a living world. We don't tend to embrace this concept of loops (some GMs will talk about the game being an exchange where the payers say what they want to do and the GM responds, but it is always elaborated on in much greater detail. Also I don't think most sandbox players or GMs are as worried about the GM as filter issue. We also probably see it as a two way street of communication. And one thing you also encounter is more comfort with people imagining things differently. There may be some fundamentals you want to nail down and be on the same page for (i.e. the doorway is four feet wide) but we aren't as worried about accidental qualities being different (even a few essential ones being different----unless until something requires them to be clarified).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> * Maybe it's worth exploring/reading how Bedrock Games' own publications describe play, since presumably they are meant to be conducive to typical sandbox play, though I am not sure where to begin searching for the most lucid explanation.




It really depends on the game. Some of my games are focused on building mysteries, not pure sandboxes. One is focused on producing a ripped from the headlines style of play with story elements (Terror Network: think 24 but a little more grounded). Another is focused on character driven adventures with lots of conflict between the players (Crime Network: think Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco). Another is just a horror emulation game that doesn't attempt to advance one particular style of play (Horror Show). Another is an alternative history setting focused on mysteries, monster hunts and politics, where the players are servants of Caligula helping him wage a war against Neptune (Servants of Gaius). More recently Sertorius is a game about characters who are 'demi-god spell casters', and largely it is about leaning into what happens when player characters have that kind of power, start gaining followers (Sertorius). My wuxia/Martial Arts Fantasy game, Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate* is probably the closest to getting the kind of play I talk about here. However there was some evolution of thought over the course of the line. But that is the book where you see things like grudge tables, drama sandbox, etc. My game strange tales is specifically for one shots, not sandboxes, but monster of the week style adventures. Also should mention I am not the only hand in making these games, they all have co-designers.

*This one is free and the relevant advice begins on page 406 through to about 425


----------



## TwoSix

Manbearcat said:


> I would say three things about this:
> 
> 1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).
> 
> 2) “Players being secondary” (as you put it) here would be to the right of M (the median point of the alphabet-as-continuum), more toward Railroad. So that leaves a hell of a lot of room left of M (closer to A).
> 
> 3) A in this arrangement would be fully Protagonistic Play where the Sandbox is constructed entirely around Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.



I now want to rank systems and play styles on this A..Z scale.


----------



## Manbearcat

TwoSix said:


> I now want to rank systems and play styles on this A..Z scale.




Sounds to me like the games you like are AZ.


----------



## innerdude

Bedrockgames said:


> it isn’t a category error and calling it fiction missed the point of play in this style. Look, I can imagine a small town in my head with residents, a layout and geography. This place exists in my mind external to the players. And the players can explore it in the game. The point of contact is what I and others are calling the energy, the synergy. You seem to be using a term to invoke that and the town in question (ie you are folding the world into the fiction). But these can be two distinct things: one the shared experience the group has as they play in the town together, the other the mental model of the town in the GM’s mind.






Bedrockgames said:


> No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so *it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable.* It is not unlike the notion of exploring a setting made for a video game, with the additional element that the human GM is there to add an additional layer of flexibility (i.e. the game might not be programed to allow for it, but a GM can help facilitate what happens when you try to pick up the rock by the bridge or kill the shop keeper).




The issue is, even if I accept that the "living world" conception can exist as an idea outside of the "shared fiction taking place at the table," it's only explorable by the GM. Which is lovely for the GM, to explore the wonderful conception of the world they've created inside their own head. And lest you think I'm being overly critical, I've done it myself, dozens and dozens of times. It is a lovely experience to spend time inside my own headspace, imagining and dreaming of this fictional place I've generated.

But the players don't get to explore that conception. They only get to explore the game fiction happening at the table in front of them. The sole, single, and ONLY avenue the players have for exploration is through the parsed-down version of the ur-"living world" being given to them through the GM.

I understand what you're trying to do with the video game analogy. You're trying to separate, for example, the actual in-game play of _Skyrim_---the things players see and do and interact with---from the source code that powers the game. 

Player stuff = "the fiction at the table,"; source code = "The GM's conception of the living world". And on a certain level, I can kind-of, sort-of see the the connection.

But isn't it also fascinating that _Skyrim _is hands-down the game that has been modded more than any other game in the history of video gaming. And why is that? 

_Because the players want to experience things that its original designers never thought of in the first place_. 

To take the software analogy further, the point of agile software development in today's world is avoid having to do huge, monolithic source code builds and then "waterfall" them down. The goal is to build a minimum viable product, get acceptance from the users, and then iterate from there. Which, oddly enough, is pretty much exactly how Ironsworn and Dungeon World prioritize world-building.

For me, I finally just realized that the conceit of the "living world" is fraught with peril for RPG play. As @Aldarc noted, there's a mysticism, or a romanticizing about the concept that too often gets abused by GMs the world over to create sub-par gaming experiences.

And when I use the word _conceit_ in reference to the notion of a "living world," it is very much intentional. I've spent a great deal of time analyzing my own experiences as a GM trying to run a "living world" campaign (which I've done six or seven times now). 

In those analyses, I realized that if I was being 100% completely honest, that there is a level of _conceit_ involved. There's an inherent hubris---perhaps mild, and ultimately harmless, but hubris nonetheless---in believing that my conception of the game world is so amazing and precious and special that it's worth being explored on its own merit. 

And I know you've said that you don't really feel your world is all that "precious" to you; that you try to downplay and curb that instinct. 

But isn't it still there? Just a little?

And in doing those same analyses, if I was likewise being 100% honest, the things the players cared most about were the things _they actually interacted with themselves_, not the "hidden backstory" or "living world" elements. 

Player engagement happened when they _had something to care about within the shared fiction_. And yes, creating a massive "living world" construct prior to play certainly gives players lots of potential things to care about. But it also gives fuel to the GM to railroad or override things the players care about. Or maybe the GM picks the wrong things. Or maybe the players don't really know what it is they want---they change their minds 1/3 of the way through the campaign, and now everything from Session Zero is now null and void. 




Bedrockgames said:


> If this is insufficient for what you were seeking, fair enough. I am a little perplexed though that an argument or a syllogism would entirely change how you experience the game. That just isn't how I think at all. Do I like this game? Yes or no. Do I feel like I am exploring a world external to myself? Yes or no. That is all I really care about. The GM's job here is to create the sense of a real world, not to create an actual world. But it is an approximation that can really feel real, and the GM can cultivate it as an external in his or her imagination (which is external to the players). I think when you keep describing it as 'the fiction' you miss on this aspect of exploring what is in the GM's head and what they understand about the world, as well as the interplay between that and the PCs: and the energy that flows from that. Now if that is too wishy washy, too mystically phrased for you. By all means, go play another game. Some of us take a somewhat mystic view to conceptualizing how gaming works and it totally works for us. To me it isn't particularly important if you accept these worlds as real or not




The point of the syllogism was that I was being dishonest with myself about how I was prioritizing the prefabricated "living world" elements. If everything is a construct---even the "living world"---then what matters is what is considered true within the shared fiction. And why were my prefabricated "living world" elements receiving privileged status as in-fiction "truth"? Only because the natural asssumption is that it's the GM's call to say so in the first place.

And if I was truly interested in the enjoyment of my players, that I had to be willing to let go of that conceit.


----------



## TwoSix

Manbearcat said:


> Sounds to me like the games you like are AZ.



There's a lot of games from Arizona?


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The issue is, even if I accept that the "living world" conception can exist as an idea outside of the "shared fiction taking place at the table," it's only explorable by the GM. Which is lovely for the GM, to explore the wonderful conception of the world they've created inside their own head. And lest you think I'm being overly critical, I've done it myself, dozens and dozens of times. It is a lovely experience to spend time inside my own headspace, imagining and dreaming of this fictional place I've generated.




I guess this is just where we disagree. I can conceive of something in my head and ask people to explore it (whether that be a place, an idea, etc). Imagine a house, populate that house with people and let the players explore it. Yes in order to gain access players have to talk or communicate with the GM. That is not something you can really get around. But I don't think all that stuff is trapped in your own head. Will the players perfectly see what the GM has in mind? No, of course not. But that lack of attainable perfection doesn't mean there is a spectrum here. A lot like fairness it is something worth striving for. When the rubber hits the road with this style, for me it works well enough. If you are chasing perfection though, you probably won't find it here or anywhere. There is a big, big difference between imagining a world in your own headspace, versus imagining a world in your own headspace and sitting with a group of players and having a conversation where they can explore it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> The point of the syllogism was that I was being dishonest with myself about how I was prioritizing the prefabricated "living world" elements. If everything is a construct---even the "living world"---then what matters is what is considered true within the shared fiction. And why were my prefabricated "living world" elements receiving privileged status as in-fiction "truth"? Only because the natural asssumption is that it's the GM's call to say so in the first place.
> 
> And if I was truly interested in the enjoyment of my players, that I had to be willing to let go of that conceit.




If you find the syllogism persuasive, that is fine. Some people find arguments for the existence of god persuasive, some find arguments against persuasive. That is the nature of arguments and syllogisms. I pointed to where in the syllogism I have a problem accepting the conclusions. But can you at least accept the two following possibilities: 

1) My experience of this isn't the same as yours: for me the living world is an attainable experience (not as a perfect thing mind you, but it is real enough for my purposes)

2) That there may be a flaw in your present logic (where you reject living worlds) just as their was a law in your prior logic (when you embraced living worlds)

Number 2 is one of the reasons why I come across as so stubborn in these threads. I have what I think is a pretty good grasp on the limits of persuasion and on my own limits. I would never suggest I am the smartest person in the room, or even all that smart. And it is largely because of that, I am always wary of accepting arguments that sound convincing, because in my experience it takes some time, but eventually you can find the flaws in the premises, you can find the unspoken assumptions that weren't visible and might disrupt a valid conclusion. For me to be persuaded of something, I need a good argument, I need time to digest that argument and not start to reject its points, and I need to see it first hand for myself. I have seen a lot of persuasive rhetoric and arguments here. I haven't encountered anything that actually changes my experience of play at the table


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> Player stuff = "the fiction at the table,"; source code = "The GM's conception of the living world". And on a certain level, I can kind-of, sort-of see the the connection.
> 
> But isn't it also fascinating that _Skyrim _is hands-down the game that has been modded more than any other game in the history of video gaming. And why is that?
> 
> _Because the players want to experience things that its original designers never thought of in the first place_.




We agree but disagree on this. The italicized bit is what makes a human GM so important and the RPG as a medium different from video games. In a video game your prep lays down the code but, unlike a video game, the GM can adapt, expand setting, extrapolate, invent and respond when the players want to go beyond. That is why is said it isn’t all a foundation of stone. You want sone foundation for there to be a sense of a consistent believable world but it is the ability of the players to try anything they want in that world, even to force the GM to stretch it when they exceed the programming, that makes it immersive for me. Things like living NPCs are tools that make this kind of extrapolation and invention plausible but also connected to the idea of a world that is consistent and external


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> And I know you've said that you don't really feel your world is all that "precious" to you; that you try to downplay and curb that instinct.
> 
> But isn't it still there? Just a little?



no, not since I realized running the game is far easier when you aren’t precious about it. I think it is easy to have this tendency when you are younger, but the older I get, the less this sort of thing really has any weight. I like to speak evocatively about settings, I like to handle NPCs similar to how players handle NpCs, but I genuinely don’t care if the players decapitate one of those npcs. And I am much more interested in what the players find interesting in the world to explore. I also don’t mind one bit pulling the curtain back and showing players notes, tools, telling them what a particular box was planning to do etc


----------



## Bedrockgames

Cadence said:


> Thinking it over, I think there are a lot of people I've played D&D and the like with who think they are doing the former, but are actually doing a lot of the later.
> 
> The difference feels like at what stage they do it (after every die-roll/declaration, between encounters, between sessions) and how much they let on to the players that that is what's happening.  I wonder if just as many DMs want to think they are doing the former, many players say they want their DMs to be doing that ...  even if they like how the second changes their experience as long as they aren't made to be aware of it.



The way I would describe it is as neither. You are basing it on extrapolation of what you know about your setting but also with regard to what the players have done and where that night naturally lead. Of course this is all in a vacuum. If someone provided a clear situation (an unloaded one, not a trap) that might help


----------



## Manbearcat

Cadence said:


> I was unaware there were systems where the DM couldn't simply say the Duke was gone on a trip because that's what their preconceptions/notes said.  Any two systems that would allow that but give different answers would be greatly appreciated.




If you're this far in this thread, then I assume you may have encountered some of my excerpts from one of the two Dungeon World games I'm presently running?

I'll stay with the one that I'm running with @darkbard , because that is the one I've excerpted in this thread.

Two features of this system (that yield the sort of "optimal Protagonistic Play" that I've spoken about upthread) address the above:

1)  The setting is entirely rendered around either/or Player Input and/or PC Dramatic Need.  Consequently, there is no such thing as "GM preconception/notes" that doesn't have regard to that Player Input and/or PC Dramatic Need.

2)  If "the Duke was gone on a trip" emerged as a facet of a social conflict, it would be because either (a) this framing was necessary to honor a prior, table-facing piece of fiction (this would be fallout table facing action resolution or an instance of “ask questions and use answers” prior) or (b) I used this as a GM move (_Reveal an Unwelcome Truth_) when a player move yielded a complication. 

However, both (a) and (b) would be downstream of the aggregate of the game's agenda + principles (fill their lives with danger/adventure, play to find out what happens, follow the rules, be a fan of the characters and follow their lead, ask questions and use the answers, make moves that follow from the fiction, etc) and action resolution procedures (6 or less on a move = hard move/failure and earn xp, 7-9 = success with complication/cost/hard decision, 10 + = you get what you want).

If you need clarification, have questions, or if it would be easier with a play excerpt, let me know.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> I would say three things about this:
> 
> 1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).



I think player input and DM responsiveness to that input is on that continuum for sure.  A Sandbox, though, probably wouldn't even make it to M.  The whole point of a Sandbox game is player freedom to choose where they go and what they do.  It some point as you head down the alphabet, you've taken too much of that freedom away and it's no longer a Sandbox.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> I now want to rank systems and play styles on this A..Z scale.



That would be tough.  I have played some Zzzzzzzzzz, games, though.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> I grew up in a town of approximately 400.  Even there everyone knew everyone else.  THE cop once pulled my father over when my dad got a new car.  The cop was like, "Oops, Marc.  I didn't know it was you." and let him go.  When I had a library book that was due, I just walked to the librarian's house which was closer than the library and left it with her.



You define "town" as something different than I do. 

To me a town (in real life) is something much bigger - 5000+ at least.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> You define "town" as something different than I do.
> 
> To me a town (in real life) is something much bigger - 5000+ at least.



Aren't you in Canada?  I thought you defined places over 5,000 people as "provinces".


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> If anyone in this thread has run more hours of Trad Sandbox play than me, I would be utterly shocked. From 84 - 04, it was exclusively either Moldvay Dungeon Delving, BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl.



As DM: 84 - present day, with two year-long gaps in there somewhere.  Some of that time, two sessions a week.  Probably over 2300 sessions total.

Also played a fair bit during that time, and still am.

And even with that I'll freely admit you probably know more about Sandbox theory than I do, in that you seem to spend more effort thinking about this stuff than I can be bothered to do. 


Manbearcat said:


> 20 years (and I’ve run plenty more in the last 17). Only GMing. No playing. Probably averaging 6 hours per week. Folks can do the math.
> 
> If I’m coming at this from a position of ignorance then the whole of D&D culture has a pretty stark purity test!


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> I think I referred to the fictional setting as a "mental holodeck" a few pages back, what you're describing is pretty close to my meaning.
> 
> The general sense for this type of play is that the GM's NPCs can act more like PCs and have input in the play space that's orthogonal to the current play agenda.  Let's say the PCs wrong a certain powerful NPC, and then the NPC takes actions "behind the scenes" to hire some bandits and ambush the PCs while they're in the middle of another quest 6 game-time months and 5 real world sessions later.  That would be applauded as good "living world/sandbox" play, because the PCs actions had repercussions they couldn't anticipate and displaying those consequences helps generate verisimilitude.



Correct, for my part.

What I don't understand is why anyone would have a problem with this.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> Sure, but in the "living world" no PC action is needed.  It's assumed that the GM followed a chain of causal logic, utilizing the capabilities that would be consistent with the NPC as PC analogue (although they may have access to capabilities the PC couldn't gain, like if the antagonist is a lich), to arrive at the point where the bandits can execute their ambush.
> 
> A lot of the Paradox Entertainment games on PC (I'm thinking Crusader Kings 3 here) follow this model; you can literally just watch those games run with no input from the player.  Thousands of NPCs will follow algorithms to try and conquer territory for hundreds of years.



Yet when the player does give input, one assumes that imput has the potential to change what happens next, and-or redefine some of the parameters the algorithm is using - right?  (I've never played these games, which is why I'm asking)


----------



## Lanefan

innerdude said:


> The issue is, even if I accept that the "living world" conception can exist as an idea outside of the "shared fiction taking place at the table," it's only explorable by the GM. Which is lovely for the GM, to explore the wonderful conception of the world they've created inside their own head. And lest you think I'm being overly critical, I've done it myself, dozens and dozens of times. It is a lovely experience to spend time inside my own headspace, imagining and dreaming of this fictional place I've generated.
> 
> But the players don't get to explore that conception. They only get to explore the game fiction happening at the table in front of them. The sole, single, and ONLY avenue the players have for exploration is through the parsed-down version of the ur-"living world" being given to them through the GM.



Not quite true.

A player, once given enough said information, can always use that as a jumping-off point for conceiving elements of that world inside their own head; and how their PC might interact with said elements.  Example: GM has mentioned a town name in passing; and between sessions you-as-player find yourself thinking about this town and in your own head filling in what's there.

This might not agree with what the GM has in mind, of course, and the GM's word is final; but to say that only the GM gets to solo-imagine things about the fictional world isn't right.


----------



## innerdude

@Bedrockgames  --- I'd say there are 2 very distinct events as an RPG participant that formed my eventual dissatisfaction with "living world" play.

The most recent was in 2018, when a very good friend of mine made a valiant attempt at running a "living world" campaign using the Shaintar campaign setting for Savage Worlds. Unfortunately, his efforts were thwarted in a number of ways.

One, he didn't seem to trust himself to improv or create elements on the fly, nor adapt well. To the point where he wouldn't even create names for things himself; he literally looked up a name generator online to create names of anything that wasn't locked down by the campaign setting.

Two, while he was clearly doing some GM prep, it was all very "wrote," or generic, with almost all of his ideas based on things provided in the campaign setting. There was no imagination, no attempts to connect the characters to the greater setting, nothing.

Third, there were just general gaps in his knowledge/experience as a GM that could have improved the experience. I made a few very casual attempts to suggest some things, carefully trying to couch the language as something I was interested in seeing and doing, rather than something he wasn't doing---"Hey, I've been thinking, I think it would be cool if my character and Player X's character maybe had a connection to this guild, I think it would create some cool synergy for the group." "Hey, I really like way you framed the situation with the Kalimar Empire, what do you think about giving us some way to change how they're oppressing their people?" But he was obviously swamped just trying to keep up with all of the normal "operational overhead" of GM-ing, because he'd nod and say all the right things, but you could just see he was suffering from deer-in-the-headlights-itis trying to process it all.

And none of this is due to lack of ability. He's a senior software engineer, who largely self-taught all of this coding knowledge. He's more than capable of digesting large, complex bits of data.

The result was one of the more frustrating games I've experienced as a player. Not because it was entirely unfun, but because it had the potential to be so much more. It was very emblematic of what I suspect most "average" RPG players experience with an "average" GM, participating in an "average" fantasy campaign setting. There were bits of fun, some occasional hijinks and laughs, and while I don't regret doing it, by the end you could basically see every piece of the facade he was throwing up. You almost had to force yourself to not look behind the curtain. And it was all the more frustrating because I personally was invested in my character's backstory, and felt like there were so many hooks just waiting for him to use that just got left dangling.


Equally formative was a game I ran myself back in 2014. It was again Savage Worlds, this time in a homebrew fantasy campaign of my invention. This was a campaign I had lovingly detailed. I created my own world map in Photoshop. I outlined factions, leaders of factions, rulers of the various nation-states. Key NPCs, key organizations.

At this point in my GM career I had already started to implement "best practices" for sandboxes as I understood them --- create scenes and situations, not plots. Be open to player input. As much as possible, say yes or roll the dice. Be fans of your players, but don't let them off easy.

And for the first 8 months of the 15-month campaign, the whole group, players and myself included, were having too much fun to really worry about more than the next session ahead. It was going _great_. It was everything you hope a campaign to be.

But somewhere around the 9-month mark, I began noticing something that bothered me. The magic of the "living world" started to wear thin. The thrill of the players "exploring the world" wore off. Despite all my hard work, the artificiality of the construct was starting to show through the seams.

It started to feel like that challenges were ultimately being solved in one of two ways---either I had prefabricated 2-4 solutions, and the players were just supposed to figure out how to get to one of them, or I was saying "yes" to as many player suggestions as possible, and then just letting their solution stand. And it's not as if I was trying to actively thwart them, or use "secret backstory" to cut off avenues of success. Perhaps I simply wasn't giving them the right kinds of challenges, or at the right difficulty level.

But eventually it started to feel very dissatisfying. It felt like I was just pulling strings, or play was devolving into "Mother-may-I?" Occasionally I started wondering, "Would it be better to just railroad them to Scene 24, because that's what's interesting and connects to all of these other super cool things they've somehow managed to avoid or ignore?"

Looking back, I still recall the campaign fondly, but there's still this shred of unease when I reflect on it, like somehow I failed my players in getting the second half of the campaign to live up to all it could have been. And it's not that there weren't threads for the players to pull on. My goodness, there were so . . . many . . . threads. So many things they could have tugged on and ran with if they'd straight up told me, "We want to do _this_."

And here's the final kicker --- one of the players in the campaign was and is my undisputed best friend on planet earth. We've known each other since high school, and have maintained that friendship ever since.

He and I both share a love of theater; we both acted in plays in college. He has all the chops and know how to really dig in to a character and make it his. But yet oddly, his character was the _weakest_ characterization in the campaign. Despite having every tool in the toolbox to really "immerse" in his character, he was by far the biggest pawn-stance player in the game. So whatever merit my "living world" sandbox had, it didn't even rise to the level of getting my best friend, who's a talented stage performer, to have an "immersive character experience."

So despite everything---all my preparation, all my loving intent, all of my best effort to run a player-facing sandbox---the experience fell short in some ways. There were many, many moments of tremendous fun and energy, but there were enough missteps, gaps, and holes in the experience that I couldn't say it was an unqualified success. A success, yes, but not an unqualified one.

Truthfully, I began to question, "What exactly am I expecting from my RPG play in the first place?" Part of me felt I roleplayed because eventually it would lead to some truly satisfying character exploration (as I outlined in this EnWorld thread early last year). But that wasn't happening. And despite the fun and early energy my "living world" had produced, by itself it wasn't able to sustain engagement in the way I was looking for.

So when I poke and prod at the construct of a "living world," it's partially coming from a perspective of dramatic tragedy---it's an ideal that simply cannot live up to the expectations I have for it. "Living world" play feels like it should be the perfect cure for making roleplaying exactly what I want it to be, but my own experience demonstrated that it was insufficient by itself.


----------



## hawkeyefan

So I think some of the confusion, or perhaps friction, in this conversation is due to the idea of a “playstyle”. 

Some games....most notably D&D....have (for a number of reasons) developed multiple approaches to play. And I don’t mean of the Sandbox/Linear type, but even more just in how you GM the processes of the game. Some DMs always provide DCs, for instance, while other DMs will call for a roll without even telling the player what it is that’s being rolled. The actual rules and/or play advice over the years has either been vague in the exact application of rules, or things have changed from one edition to the next, and DMs have accumulated their preferred methods across editions. 

So what you get is different groups playing the game with surprisingly different methods. Some may be pretty obvious, others can be quite subtle. But each DM or group of players can be seen to have their own style of play. 

But this is not true of all RPGs. 

Many RPGs have a very clearly defined process of play. Usually, the process has been designed to deliver a specific experience. These games really only have one style. 

So the idea of “our style” and “your style” as it is often used in this thread doesn’t really make sense. 

When I GM 5E D&D, I do so with a much stronger influence on the fiction as GM than in many games. My “notes” influence the game much more. I’d still describe it as a sandbox, because the players are free to go wherever they like and do whatever they want, and they can impact the fiction in any way that makes sense. So the players have a good deal of freedom, but that freedom is constrained by what I have in mind as GM. Yes, there is a good amount of back and forth....a lot of what I come up with takes the players’ ideas into consideration, probably much more so than most 5E play, but it’s still very much determined by the world I’ve created.

Mothership is even more GM driven. I don’t mean that the players can’t go anywhere and do whatever, but they have made PCs within that world. What happens is very much up to me as a GM. The system is very traditional in the authority it grants the GM, but it also suggests fewer rolls, which means the GM must apply his judgment very often. 

With Blades in the Dark, it’s again very different. We have the sketched out setting as given in the book as a starting point. And then, I’d say play is framed not by GM Notes so much as by Player Notes. The world is shaped around the players’ characters. Everything I do as a GM has the PCs in mind. They have goals and desires and enemies and friends...and all of that is the focus of play. 

The mechanics of each of these games are different. The GM authority level of each game is different. The style or play approach of each game is different. Yet each of them produce “living worlds” as the metaphor has been used in this thread. 

This is why, to me, that phrase isn’t all that enlightening. Different games with different mechanics can yield that result. So then, to me, it seems you have to talk about what you do rather than what the goal is.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> I think player input and DM responsiveness to that input is on that continuum for sure.  A Sandbox, though, probably wouldn't even make it to M.  The whole point of a Sandbox game is player freedom to choose where they go and what they do.  It some point as you head down the alphabet, you've taken too much of that freedom away and it's no longer a Sandbox.




So this is an interesting question:

"Can a game be considered a Sandbox if it is basically 100 % Setting Solitaire and player input is relegated entirely to color/characterization?"

That would be the Z on my continuum.  The volitional force that players expect to erect upon play is entirely smoke and mirrors.  In order to ensure play is funneled toward interaction with particular features of the setting, the GM is deploying Force at a 100 % rate when a question of play trajectory arises.

You have the aspect of a Setting having a model run, with a lot of different parameters considered and even authentic interactions with those parameters collide (Faction A collides with Faction B with Situation C also giving expression to the collision).  However, all of the interactions are player-proof.  They don't have a parameter in the model run.  They think they do, but its a complete illusion.

My inclination is to say that the sort of 100 % Setting Solitaire that I've depicted above with 100 % Illusionism GMing (as it pertains to player input onto the trajectory of play) is still a Sandbox.  Players can interact with all the constituent parts of the Sandbox and they _perceive _their influence on the trajectory...its just that their perception is mistaken...its an illusion.  

They can build a house, they can do the dungeon (as the dungeon is to be done), they can order pastries from the baker, make friends with the mayor, protect the merchant caravan, slay the invading force.  But its all either color/characterization that doesn't impact the trajectory of play or its Railroaded Setting Solitaire.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> Sure, but in the "living world" no PC action is needed.  It's assumed that the GM followed a chain of causal logic, utilizing the capabilities that would be consistent with the NPC as PC analogue (although they may have access to capabilities the PC couldn't gain, like if the antagonist is a lich), to arrive at the point where the bandits can execute their ambush.
> 
> A lot of the Paradox Entertainment games on PC (I'm thinking Crusader Kings 3 here) follow this model; you can literally just watch those games run with no input from the player.  Thousands of NPCs will follow algorithms to try and conquer territory for hundreds of years.



The second paragraph took me back to @Manbearcat's post about "setting solitaire".

Re the first paragraph: I agree about the difference between _causal extrapolation_ and _introducing an element to provide adversity, perhaps as a consequence of a failed check_. What I was trying to convey that methods _other than_ that sort of GM extrapolation can still generate the verisimilitudinous sense of a world, NPCs etc acting independently of the PCs.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> the model of the living world has been explicitly called out as running _without_ the intervention of the PCs, that was the point of the "asleep for 10 years" example called out several pages ago.  The PCs can't be both "primary" and "nonessential" by my understanding of what those words mean.



Right. How can both claims be true?


----------



## Cadence

Manbearcat said:


> If you're this far in this thread, then I assume you may have encountered some of my excerpts from one of the two Dungeon World games I'm presently running?




I confess to only reading/skimming about the first 1/4 and last 1/4 of the thread.



Manbearcat said:


> 1)  The setting is entirely rendered around either/or Player Input and/or PC Dramatic Need.  Consequently, there is no such thing as "GM preconception/notes" that doesn't have regard to that Player Input and/or PC Dramatic Need.
> 
> 2)  If "the Duke was gone on a trip" emerged as a facet of a social conflict, it would be because either (a) this framing was necessary to honor a prior, table-facing piece of fiction (this would be fallout table facing action resolution or an instance of “ask questions and use answers” prior) or (b) I used this as a GM move (_Reveal an Unwelcome Truth_) when a player move yielded a complication.
> 
> However, both (a) and (b) would be downstream of the aggregate of the game's agenda + principles (fill their lives with danger/adventure, play to find out what happens, follow the rules, be a fan of the characters and follow their lead, ask questions and use the answers, make moves that follow from the fiction, etc) and action resolution procedures (6 or less on a move = hard move/failure and earn xp, 7-9 = success with complication/cost/hard decision, 10 + = you get what you want).




Thank you very much for the description and for the offer of taking questions. I think I have two:

1) So, when the DM says the Duke is out of town for three months (as either an answer or GM unwelcome truth move), where did the particular of "the Duke is out of town for three months" come from?  Presumably because the DM thinks it will fill a dramatic need of the players(and I think I understand what you mean there).  But it feels like there are lots of ways that the Duke being unavailable could have been done.  How much of this is it being spontaneously being drawn from the mental ether that would be common to anyone who had been listening to the game, and how much of it is influenced by the particular thoughts and musings the DM might have had about where the game was going.

2) So, after the Duke is declared to be on a three month trip, is there a mechanic in the game that lets the player postulate that he returned early with some chance of success?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Cadence said:


> I confess to only reading/skimming about the first 1/4 and last 1/4 of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for the description and for the offer of taking questions. I think I have two:
> 
> 1) So, when the DM says the Duke is out of town for three months (as either an answer or GM unwelcome truth move), where did the particular of "the Duke is out of town for three months" come from?  Presumably because the DM thinks it will fill a dramatic need of the players(and I think I understand what you mean there).  But it feels like there are lots of ways that the Duke being unavailable could have been done.  How much of this is it being spontaneously being drawn from the mental ether that would be common to anyone who had been listening to the game, and how much of it is influenced by the particular thoughts and musings the DM might have had about where the game was going.
> 
> 2) So, after the Duke is declared to be on a three month trip, is there a mechanic in the game that lets the player postulate that he returned early with some chance of success?



Not @Manbearcat, but I hope he doesn't mind if I offer my answers to these -- his may differ.

1)  It's up to the GM, within some constraints.  Usually, this won't at all be prep, because the way these games work, by the time your here, any prep you may have had is likely way out the window (or at least that's my experience), but it might be related to some prep.   The GM has the authority to narrate the consequence, but, as I said, this is constrained by the game.  The failure must run counter to the intent and goal of the action declaration -- if they need the Baron before a deadline that's 2 1/2 months away, the, yes, 3 months is probably required.  If it's just an immediate need, the GM is free to ad lib this within the established fiction and the genre of the game.  Genre is very important to these styles of games, because it provide a framework to the logic used in success and failures.  If it's a game that has tropes of medieval times, for instance, travel is usually extended for nobility, so 3 months seems appropriate, genre-wise.  If none of this applies, it's just up to the GM to make as hard a move as they want to.

2) No, unless lots of effort is put into it.  One of the key things to approaching games like this is that successes and failures stand.  You don't let players easily walk back a failure, and the GM doesn't similarly walk back player successes.  If the players put together a plan to get the Baron to return early, and put effort into it, then, sure, that's something that they can do.  They cannot, however, just incorporate this ask into a follow-on action declaration and expect it to flow.  That the Duke is gone for 3 months is now part of established fiction, and, as such, is not up for revision without taking direct action to revise it.  And, that action should not be trivial, but painful.


----------



## Ovinomancer

By the by, @Cadence, you represent my win condition for these kinds of threads -- honest curiosity about a new way to play.  If you decide you don't like it, or never even try it, that's cool, I'm more happy for you to learn a way you don't like than some cockamamie idea that you'll be a convert.  I'm just excited someone's encountering these ideas newly, and is asking good questions while listening to the answers.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> Those would count as notes you are using?



I would call those starmaps _notes_. Doubly so when coupled with the half-a-page or so per world, which (as per Classic Traveller conventions) sets out basic information about the physical, social and economic aspects of the world.

They serve two main functions in play. One is to inform framing of actions - eg if the players are at Byron and want to travel to Olyx and their starhip is Jump-1 then they will have to make two jumps, via Enlil. This feeds into a resource minigame - each jump takes time which generates salary and maintenance costs, and also requires fuel. It also establishes fiction that can inform subsequent narration - the more time the PCs spend in jump space, the more feasible it becomes for me as GM to narrate changes that are taking place in the larger world without that seeming overly contrived.

The second function relates to or builds on that last point: the starmaps and notes provide fictional material to draw on in other aspects of GM narration. For instance, Enlil is a low-tech world. Ashar is a high-tech world and very cold. When the PCs spoke to a religious leader on Enlil, and learned (i) about a particular talisman having come originally from Ashar, and (ii) that in the Enlilian religion the realm of purity and virtue is a cold place, this suggested the possibility of a deeper connections between those two worlds and that the religious doctrines on Enlil might be sources of information about "higher", scientific/high-tech truths about Ashar. Which fed into the alien-civilisations-and-psionics theme of the campaign.



Cadence said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reduces the "exploring the GM's world" feel and increases the "protagonistic" feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the importance is the "feel" and how much is the actuality?
Click to expand...


Because I am contrasting two sorts of play experiences, I think that _feel_ and _actuality_ run together here. The way that the game feels "protagonistic" is because the players can see their thematic concerns for play expressed in what I am narrating (see eg the stuff just above about Enlil and Ashar). If that wasn't there it wouldn't feel protagonistic. And that being there is sufficient for it to _be_ protagonistic.



Cadence said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if a roll fails, the GM is obliged to narrate some new complication that will follow from the established fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of this new complication is completed completely ad-hoc on the spot?  If none, how are any pre-conceived notions wiped from the GMs mind?  If some, are those pre-conceived notion akin to notes in a sense (even if only mental)?
Click to expand...


In AW, the GM is expected to develop "fronts", which is - roughly - notes on antagonistic groups/forces in the setting which have agendas they are trying to bring to fruition. When the GM has to narrate a complication, if in doubt or uncertain s/he should look to the fronts s/he has prepped.

For instance, if a player has his/her PC who has encountered a NPC _try to read the situation_, and the check fails, then the GM might have the NPC turn on or taunt the PC in some fashion that is giving effect to one of the fronts s/he has prepared. The GM would then add that NPC to her list of characters associated with that particular front.

In Burning Wheel, the GM doesn't prepare "fronts" in this way and rather is expected to draw upon what is implicit in the PCs Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Affiliations, Reputations and Relationships. As an example: the wizard PC in the game I GM was broke, and wanted work from the sorcerous cabal of which he is a member. I can't now recall which of us decided that the leader of the cabal was Jabal; I do know that I narrated Jabal living in a high tower (in my mind, inspired by REH's Tower of the Elephant). The player made a Circles check, which failed; and so the only word that came from Jabal was a visit from his servitor Athog telling the PCs to leave town. None of this was preconceived, but it followed from the logic of the fiction having regard to those relevant PC attributes (Beliefs about gaining resources, Traits like Base Humility, the Affiliation with the cabal, etc).

I would say that BW is less "sandboxy" than AW. Hopefully these short examples give a sense of why. But both have this in common: the GM does not use prior conceptions of the fiction to determine if action declarations succeed or fail. Rather, it is success or failure on checks that then constrains the narration of the fiction that follows.



Cadence said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In our Prince Valiant game, the PCs had ridden north of the town of Castle Hill to confront a knight - "the best in all Britain", Sir Lionheart - who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle. The two PC knights were defeated. The third PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. The new knight then defeated Sir Lionheart (mechanically, by spending a certificate to Kill a Foe in Combat - the player chose killing and not merely knocking senseless because he intuited, from Sir Lionheart's personality as portrayed by me, that Sir Lionheart would which to continue the fight on foot if unhorsed, and the player knew that his PC had no chance of winning that fight).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you put the knight there out of your conceptions, or did they suggest there was a knight there to meet?  Was the best in all Britain yours or there idea?  Was Lionheart's portrayal as continuing on the ground your conception or theirs?   If any were yours, was that something they were discovering about the world you were presenting?  If some were not, how did they insert it into the game?
Click to expand...


The previous session had ended with the PCs in Castle Hill, having resolved the problem of the Lord of Castle Hill's missing Crowmaster. I was the one who narrated talk among the people of Castle Hill of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten.

This is the basic logic of Prince Valiant - by default the PCs are knights errant, and the GM is expected to establish situations that will permit deeds of errantry.

The stats for the knight, which make him a candidate to be the best in Britain, and his name (Sir Lionheart) I took from a scenario in the rulebook (it is the second of three Challenge from a Knight scenarios). The player inferred, from my portrayal of Sir Lionheart, that if unhorsed he would insist on continuing on foot; and my portrayal drew (inter alia) upon the following passages in the scenario write-up:

*Personality: *Hot-tempered, violent, honest. Sir Lionheart is a proud and warlike knight who has spent years training fanatically. He fears only defeat or humiliation. . .​​If irritated in any way while jousting or fighting, Sir Lionheart will immediately challenge the knight who insulted him to a fight to the death to preserve his honor. . .​​If he is defeated in a joust, he will be furious. Only a Courtesie or Fellowship success with a Difficulty Factor of 2 can stop him from challenging his opponent to a fight to the death. If he kills someone, he will be ashamed of his fury and wish to aid the deceased knight’s family. If he is defeated in personal combat, he will give up his armor, weapons, and horse in shame. He hasn’t been beaten yet, however.​
It was this same information that informed my adjudication of the attempt by the squire to go past him. Had the opposed Presence check failed, then I think I would have had Sir Lionheart respond in an angry and perhaps deadly fashion to (what he would have taken to be) the slight.

I think that this counts as discovering a "world" - or at least a character - that I was presenting. Because it falls on the "protagonism" rather than "exploring the GM's world" side of that (rough-and-ready) divide, I don't think most sandboxers would think of it as counting as a sandbox. In dramatic terms, the NPC knight served as a foil for the player of the squire to express and develop his conception of  his PC.



Cadence said:


> Thank you for the clarification.  I have to say such a thing never occurred to me.
> 
> Is the effect of the failure or the difficulty of the check based on what's in the DMs head that might not have been addressed in the fiction?  Is the DM equally allowed to say the Duke is away for three months or three hours?  Is the DM allowed to make the difficulty of the check greater if they'd rather not have them meet the Duke?  Are they required to have a roll at all? If the Chamberlain says the Duke is gone for three months can the players think he's lying and make a check about it?  If the players had seen the Duke sail off themselves can they say they think he circled around and make a check for it?  [e.g. analogy wise is the world Bayesian where no point-mass priors on anything are allowed, or are they allowed in some cases?  and are the tightnesses of the priors determined by the DM or the rules or both]





Cadence said:


> I was unaware there were systems where the DM couldn't simply say the Duke was gone on a trip because that's what their preconceptions/notes said.  Any two systems that would allow that but give different answers would be greatly appreciated.



I will give answers from two systems that I know fairly well: Burning Wheel and MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic (which I have used to play fantasy games, including a MERP/LotR game).

In Burning Wheel, the default approach to meeting with the Duke is a Circles check. So first the check would have to be framed: if its already established _in the shared fiction, at the table_ that the Duke is somewhere else out of contact then the check can't go ahead. Likewise if the character does not have Noble Circles (eg because of being a commoner) then the check isn't possible, and some other approach would be needed. The next step in framing is to set an Obstacle (= difficulty) for the check. There are rules that govern this, based on how immediately the player wants the audience to be, and how specific the NPC is whom s/he wants to meet with (obviously the Duke is very specific; contrast, say, "a noble of the court"). There are also rules that reflect how likely the desired NPC is to be where the PC is or is prepared to go to (so eg the check is easier if the PC is prepared to go and wait at court for an audience, then if the PC is hoping to encounter the Duke riding past right now). It is not part of the rules that the GM is allowed to set the difficulty based on whether or not s/he wants the character to meet the Duke. And unless it's already established at the table in some way, it would be unsporting at best to adjudicate the likelihoods by reference to specific notions like "this is the time of the assizes and so the Duke is probably travelling through his lands". The way that that sort of thing would come in, rather, is as a response to failed checks: so if a player tries to augment the Circles check by making a Court-wise check, and the latter check fails, _then_ the GM might narrate that now is the time of the assizes, and hence it is likely the Duke is away, and hence the difficulty is stepped up from what it might otherwise be.

If the check fails, then the GM can narrate this as s/he thinks appropriate given that the player isn't going to get what s/he wanted for his/her PC. I gave an actual play example earlier in this post. The chamberlain saying that the Duke is away for 3 months would be a similar example. Whether it is fair to say 3 hours or 3 days or 3 months will depend very much on the pacing and "passing of time" dynamics of the game.

In Cortex+ Heroic, there are two main ways to meet the Duke. One is to spend a Plot Point to establish an appropriate Resource (in our game that would be a Social resource). There are rules that regulate when this can be done: either during a Transition Scene, or if the GM rolls a 1 on one of his/her dice. The GM has no veto power, though is allowed to work with the player to establish fiction-appropriate narration of the Resource. The other is to establish the Duke as an Asset in an Action Scene - mechanically this is no different from any other resolution in an Action Scene (eg inflicting Stress on an opponent so as to defeat them). The GM has no veto power here, any more than - per the standard D&D rules - the GM can veto a player's declaration of an attack during combat. The GM can make it harder to establish the Asset by spending GM-side resources (Doom Pool dice) in opposition. In the fiction, this would reflect a sense of foreboding or particular challenge surrounding the endeavour. (In our LotR game, Doom Pool dice also represent the workings of the shadow.)

If the attempt to establish an Asset fails, narration of the Duke being out of town might be possible but would be mere flavour. Until the scene is resolved, it's not impossible that the attempt may not succeed on a subsequent try, which might then be narrated as the Duke's sudden return (which is consistent with MHRP's comic-book aspirations). In some circumstances if a check fails the GM can introduce new complications into the scene - these could include a hostile Chamberlain, if that made sense within the broader established fiction.

In our MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic play we have seen the Resource approach used for this sort of thing, but I don't recall an occasion where an Asset has been established taking the form of a social connection.

EDIT: I just saw this:


Cadence said:


> After the Duke is declared to be on a three month trip, is there a mechanic in the game that lets the player postulate that he returned early with some chance of success?



In Burning Wheel, there is a general principle called Let it Ride. So consequences are relatively hard to overturn. In your example, the starting point is that the player has to suck it up that the Duke is away, and find another approach to whatever it is that s/he's trying to do.

In Cortex+ Heroic, there is much less rigidity around the fiction and it is based much more on give-and-take. If the GM narrates the Duke's absence then maybe next time the player tries to establish, as an Asset, _The Duke has returned unexpectedly!_ This different framing of the Asset might affect what abilities the player can put into his/her pool, or how it feeds into some other aspects of the system; and if the GM has established a hostile Chamberlain that that could factor into the GM's opposing pool (all checks in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic are opposed).


----------



## Manbearcat

Cadence said:


> I confess to only reading/skimming about the first 1/4 and last 1/4 of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for the description and for the offer of taking questions. I think I have two:
> 
> 1) So, when the DM says the Duke is out of town for three months (as either an answer or GM unwelcome truth move), where did the particular of "the Duke is out of town for three months" come from?  Presumably because the DM thinks it will fill a dramatic need of the players(and I think I understand what you mean there).  But it feels like there are lots of ways that the Duke being unavailable could have been done.  How much of this is it being spontaneously being drawn from the mental ether that would be common to anyone who had been listening to the game, and how much of it is influenced by the particular thoughts and musings the DM might have had about where the game was going.
> 
> 2) So, after the Duke is declared to be on a three month trip, is there a mechanic in the game that lets the player postulate that he returned early with some chance of success?




@Ovinomancer 's answer is good but I'm going to go a different route.  I'm going to answer this with a play excerpt from one of my older DW games (because I find excerpt post-mortem to be the most helpful things for this kind of analysis).  It won't map 1 : 1, but it should be close enough.  In this case, sub "Duke" for "sister."

PC (Emeline) was a Fighter w/ the below build features:

Good​Defend those weaker than you (mark 1 xp at End of Session if this is fulfilled).

Bonds​I have sworn to protect my sister Eliza (mark 1 xp at End of Session and create/choose new bond if this is resolved).

Moves​Heirloom​When you *consult the spirits that reside within your signature weapon*, they will give you an insight relating to the current situation, and might ask you some questions in return, roll+CHA.

On a 10+, the GM will give you good detail.

On a 7-9, the GM will give you an impression.


Emeline's big sister Eliza was once a great warrior whose relationship with her little sister (Emeline) was inverted (she was Emeline's protector).  Eliza was lamed in a battle with a dragon and she passed the family weapon down to her little sister.  Many decades passed and they were both much older.  Eliza was stricken with a wasting disease.  At the start of play, Emeline was on an adventure and had heard a rumor of Eliza's condition and immediately came back to their home town to see to her.  The facility doctor that cared for the infirm was extremely nervous dealing with Emeline. Emeline made a Discern Realities move in the interaction.  She got a 7-9 so 1 hold.  She used that hold to ask the following question (which I have to answer true) and take +1 forward when acting upon the answers:

* Who’s really in control here?

When she asked that question, I had an orderly move across the backdrop of the scene with a chart.  Reading it aloud, the orderly says, "Cedar Point Sanitorium sent the monthly stipend for the Eliza (whatever their last name was...I can't remember it now) deal."  I'll elide the reframing of the situation after this > subsequent action declaration > resolution. Suffice to say, the Cedar Point (well up in the mountains in a cedar forest) Sanitorium had purchased Eliza from the facility.

A Perilous Journey later and Emeline and the other PC was at the Cedar Point Sanitorium to demand the release of her sister into her custody (so she could go on a quest to have her magically healed).  The parley was going poorly due to failed moves.  She got a 6- on a Discern Realities so she marked 1 xp and I revealed an unwelcome truth to her:

Eliza agreed with the transfer when the transaction was made.  She felt she was doomed and she wanted to devote her remaining time to science to help others in the future with her same condition.  Her signature was clearly on the form. They purchased the rights to Eliza to give her better care and to study and learn from her condition.

I asked the player how she felt about this.  Was this out of the ordinary for Eliza?  Was this believable?  The player answered that this was absolutely what Eliza would do...but she doesn't remotely feel like this is the whole story here and she is determined to take her sister from this place to get her cured via magics.

So the player decided to have Emeline pull a Thundercats and consult with the family weapon for "sight beyond sight."   She got a 10+.  Working with the answers that the player provided and working off her Alignment and her Bonds, I reframed:

The sword lets her see through the eyes of her sister and access her memories.  She is close.  The details provided about the transaction are true.  However, there is much more to it than that.  She has been used as an investment for more than just the just pursuit of science and the care of a great hero.  She is being used as a spectacle with wealthy nobles coming from miles to pilgrimage to the Sanitorium to spend time with the dragon slaying hero, have portraits done, have lunch with her, or have their children spar with her on her few better days.  The primary investor of the Sanitorium is making coin hand over fist.



The bad news was true because action resolution demanded something the PC didn't want (that followed from the fiction) be true.

The full reality was informed by the thematics of the PC build + ask questions and use the answers + 10+ on a relevant move.

Does that all make sense and does that address your questions?


EDIT - I see @pemerton has nina'd me with a similar approach to answering!


----------



## Manbearcat

Quick follow-up on the above post since you asked how the constituent parts of setting are created.

* Our map that we created together was Utah-ish.  The Cedar Mountains were inspired by real life Utah and created at "make a map and leave blanks" phase (session 1).

* Skull Valley that split through the mountains was created at "make a map and leave blanks" phase (session 1).  Twelve Points was the dusty, booming frontier town in Skull Valley, named after the massive Peryton bucks of the territory that brought big game hunters from miles around.  This is where Eliza had retired.

* Cedar Point Sanitorium was made up on the spot when I needed a complication so we put it on the map, high up in the Cedar Mountains (a Perilous Journey through Peryton territory and topographic hazards away).

* The corrupt investor and the plot with Eliza at the Cedar Point Sanitorium was made up on the spot when I needed a complication.



This is how Dungeon World content is generated.


----------



## pemerton

@Manbearcat has described DW content creation. The procedures for DW are based on the procedures for Apocalypse World, and these are very precisely set out by that game's author (Vincent Baker) - they are not all novel ones, but more than many RPG designers he describes the processes very clearly and matter-of-factly.

Working out the starmap in Traveller has some resemblance to "drawing maps, leaving blanks". It is less collaborative than in DW, though not entirely GM-driven: I gave the example upthread of our starting world (Ardor-3) and the world of Hallucida is on the map because one of the PCs is a baron from there (Vincenzo von Hallucida).

The servitor Athog (a quasi-anagram of Thug A) was invented in my BW game when a consequence for a failed Circles check was needed (as described upthread). This is similar to Manbearcat's corrupt investor and plot. The reason that Athog gave for the PCs to leave town was a cursed item the wizard PC was carrying - and that curse was itself a consequence of an earlier failed check, so there was an element here of what Baker in AW calls "snowballing" - fiction building on fiction with a trajectory and logic that is not pre-planned but is established via the processes of play.

A commonality across all this is that the GM is not using as-yet unrevealed elements of his/her notes to decide whether or not an action declaration can succeed; and is not using behind-the-scenes decision-making by way of causal extrapolation (of the sort that @TwoSix and @Maxperson described above) to decide when and how complications manifest themselves.

That's not to say that there is no "thinking offscreen" (to use Baker's phrase from AW), but it is being done in play, not in prep. In BW, I think offscreen - Jabal has learned of the curse and wants it out of his patch, so he sends his servitor to run the PCs out of town; we see Manbearcat thinking offscreen, about what other forces could be at work and have designs on Eliza and her status as a dragonslaying hero. This will snowball into further events - in my BW game there was the surprise announcement of the wedding to take place between Jabal and the Gynarch of Hardby; two of the PCs ended up in Jabal's pay as bodyguards; his tower was the place where one of the PCs got revenge on her evil former master, the Balrog-possessed brother of the wizard PC. I imagine that @Manbearcat's offscreen elements will come into play again down the track (or may have already done so - I'm not sure how much this campaign has been played yet).

I think this is why I agree with @hawkeyefan that, at least in the ordinary meaning of the words, these are "living, breathing worlds" although not serving the same gameplay function as the GM's world in a classic sandbox.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> That's not to say that there is no "thinking offscreen" (to use Baker's phrase from AW), but it is being done in play, not in prep. In BW, I think offscreen - Jabal has learned of the curse and wants it out of his patch, so he sends his servitor to run the PCs out of town; we see Manbearcat thinking offscreen, about what other forces could be at work and have designs on Eliza and her status as a dragonslaying hero. This will snowball into further events - in my BW game there was the surprise announcement of the wedding to take place between Jabal and the Gynarch of Hardby; two of the PCs ended up in Jabal's pay as bodyguards; his tower was the place where one of the PCs got revenge on her evil former master, the Balrog-possessed brother of the wizard PC. I imagine that @Manbearcat's offscreen elements will come into play again down the track (or may have already done so - I'm not sure how much this campaign has been played yet).




Old game.

And yup, you're correct that those offscreen elements led to on-screen and off-screen content generation.

This turned into a The Last of Us -ish scenario with Emeline - Joel - rescuing Eliza - Ellie - from her plight, but in the doing having to slay many > which fed into further content generation as a result of a sequence of moves/complications including a Spout Lore move that was driven by a provocative (but unfixed until acted upon) Lovecraftian detail of scene framing because a Druid was the other PC (Slay an unnatural menace) > the investor was actually part of a cult of a primordial being of Pestilence that bought Eliza to ensure she wasn't properly studied so a cure couldn't be developed for her ailment (monetizing her was a nice vector to spread the plague and a way to ensure that the cult's racket had consistent funding) > which led to Emeline's player taking the Paladin move Quest (to hunt down and end this cult to save her sister) > which led to more fiction around the cult (more NPCs, befouled altars, the genesis story of sickness in the world, and various sites) > which led to slaying the cult and Emeline's player taking the Paladin move Lay on Hands to cure her sister > which led to questions and conflict framing around pestilence and the responsibility to cure the blighted (particularly the vulnerable who become afflicted) vs the natural order and place of purging sickness (which put the Druid and the now Paladin-ey Fighter at odds).

It was initially a nebulous game about unnatural menace and protecting loved ones/the meek in an unforgiving world.  It transformed a bit as a byproduct of all of that snowballing of player input (via build changes, questions answered, and declared actions) and action resolution (contrast with GM imposition).


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Old game.



You do like your Dungeons in the Vineyard!


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> You do like your Dungeons in the Vineyard!




I see your Arthurian Romance themes predilection and raise you a Pale Rider/3:10 to Yuma!


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> I see your Arthurian Romance themes predilection and raise you a Pale Rider/3:10 to Yuma!



OK, I'll concede that's a hit.

EDIT: I did see the Pale Rider when it came out. Also Unforgiven. I read Shane in year 8, but can't recall if I've ever seen the film.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I can address the rest in more depth when I have more time, but I think this is a fundamental point of dispute: I think most GMs in sandbox play, and most players have a more open and fluid idea of the interaction that leads to a sense of a living world. We don't tend to embrace this concept of loops (some GMs will talk about the game being an exchange where the payers say what they want to do and the GM responds, but it is always elaborated on in much greater detail. Also I don't think most sandbox players or GMs are as worried about the GM as filter issue. We also probably see it as a two way street of communication. And one thing you also encounter is more comfort with people imagining things differently. There may be some fundamentals you want to nail down and be on the same page for (i.e. the doorway is four feet wide) but we aren't as worried about accidental qualities being different (even a few essential ones being different----unless until something requires them to be clarified).



Hmmm... This seems like a general truism of RP play rather than something meaningfully insightful about the play process of typical sandbox games or even your games. Of course the actual process of play tends to be messier at the table or the conversation between players and GM is not as rote as it's made out to be. That's basically tantamount to humans interacting over a game. 

I think that this is why some posters struggle with your posts and would also like for you to self-deconstruct the "evocative," "metaphorical," or "romanticized" language because it obscures, whether intentionally or not, the underlying play process of "how it works." It can come across as "generic," "banal," or even "trite," which results in undercutting the message of what makes typical sandbox play work and how. 

We are also _not _talking about how "most sandbox players" _feel _about the GM as the filter. What's important, at least for purposes of these discussions, is that the GM _is_ the filter and what that concretely means for how that "living world" is realized through play for the players. Again, romanticizing the GM as a human that can exceed the parameters of player inputs through human creativity doesn't exactly help matters either, as this is a feature pretty much shared with not only GM games but also a number of GM-less games (e.g., Ironsworn) as well. Obviously human creativity is present when the GM generate complications and consequences from player moves/actions in games like Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark. 



Bedrockgames said:


> It really depends on the game. Some of my games are focused on building mysteries, not pure sandboxes. One is focused on producing a ripped from the headlines style of play with story elements (Terror Network: think 24 but a little more grounded). Another is focused on character driven adventures with lots of conflict between the players (Crime Network: think Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco). Another is just a horror emulation game that doesn't attempt to advance one particular style of play (Horror Show). Another is an alternative history setting focused on mysteries, monster hunts and politics, where the players are servants of Caligula helping him wage a war against Neptune (Servants of Gaius). More recently Sertorius is a game about characters who are 'demi-god spell casters', and largely it is about leaning into what happens when player characters have that kind of power, start gaining followers (Sertorius). My wuxia/Martial Arts Fantasy game, Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate* is probably the closest to getting the kind of play I talk about here. However there was some evolution of thought over the course of the line. But that is the book where you see things like grudge tables, drama sandbox, etc. My game strange tales is specifically for one shots, not sandboxes, but monster of the week style adventures. Also should mention I am not the only hand in making these games, they all have co-designers.
> 
> *This one is free and the relevant advice begins on page 406 through to about 425



Thanks. I'll take a look at it when I have more time.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> A related thought:
> 
> Upthread I gave a brief account of the episode of play, in our Prince Valiant game, in which the squire PC was knighted by an NPC as the result of an attempt to just ride past him after he refused to joust with a mere squire. In a "neutral" approach the GM would consider the personality of the NPC, the customs of knighthood, etc and extrapolate a "realistic" likelihood of the NPC knighting the PC. But in our game I simply called for a Presence vs Presence check. This keeps the focus on _what is at stake for the character in the scene_ rather than _how often do squires get knighted by proud knights so as to create fitting opposition for those proud knights_. I think only the second would count as _exploring the GM's world_.



This is actually an interesting insight.  It likely goes to the root of why I prefer my style.  For me this is very much an immersion verisimilitude thing for me.  When I first read your example of the knight knighting the squire, I swear my first thought was “Is this Monte Python?”.  So this is useful at sussing out the “why” we have different perspectives.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> This is actually an interesting insight.  It likely goes to the root of why I prefer my style.  For me this is very much an immersion verisimilitude thing for me.  When I first read your example of the knight knighting the squire, I swear my first thought was “Is this Monte Python?



Whereas I had in mind the scene in the film Excalibur in which Percival is knighted so that he can joust to defend the honour of Queen Guinevere.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> This is actually an interesting insight.  It likely goes to the root of why I prefer my style.  For me this is very much an immersion verisimilitude thing for me.  When I first read your example of the knight knighting the squire, I swear my first thought was “Is this Monte Python?”.  So this is useful at sussing out the “why” we have different perspectives.



Gah.  No, this just displays your unfamiliarity with the genre conventions.  To someone that's familiar with Arthurian Romance tropes, @pemerton's scene is a classic example and plays straight down the verisimilitude lane for that genre.  That you're unfamiliar with this, but familiar with the spoof of that genre (Holy Grail), just shows your level of awareness, not an underlying difference in approach to verisimilitude.  There's probably tons of things in your game that read the same way to someone that's seen The Gamers but doesn't know much otherwise.  You've pointed out something that absolutely goes directly to verisimilitude of the intended genre and called it a fault -- which really doesn't say anything about the techniques but instead just about what you prefer/are aware of in terms of game genres.


----------



## Arilyn

pemerton said:


> Whereas I had in mind the scene in the film Excalibur in which Percival is knighted so that he can joust to defend the honour of Queen Guinevere.



I really like this scene in your example. Having the play squarely focussed on the squire, whose story this is, feels very Arthurian.  Actually, it's just good drama, period, centering on character motivations and needs.

This then gets me musing about immersion. We can't have complete immersion in a rpg, sitting around a table, munching on snacks. Everyone agrees on that. There's an attempt at immersion, however, and arguments over what can encourage it, or break it. Meta mechanics, bad rules, hero points, shared authoring, etc. come up frequently in these discussions. I think, for me, it's mostly casual immersion, which intensifies substantially when I'm deeply caught up in my character's dramatic needs. With protagonist or story now games this is occurring more often, thus the sense of heightened immediacy I feel with these games. No coasting. I'm not even sure immersion is the right word for these moments. It is a markedly different way of playing, which may be one of the reasons for the arguments and confusion.  There really isn't a need for all these detailed notes on locations and NPCs because the events bloom from the player characters' needs at the moment. And because these moments tend to feel more immersive? deep? real? (not sure of the best word), protagonist play is an attractive style. Player engagement is vastly increased. 

I'm rambling because it's early in the morning here, and I didn't sleep well. This was going to be just a quick response, but I got caught up. The Prince Valiant example just got me trying to figure things out and why your example, pemerton, captures Arthurian romance with protagonist play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Hmmm... This seems like a general truism of RP play rather than something meaningfully insightful about the play process of typical sandbox games or even your games. Of course the actual process of play tends to be messier at the table or the conversation between players and GM is not as rote as it's made out to be. That's basically tantamount to humans interacting over a game.
> 
> I think that this is why some posters struggle with your posts and would also like for you to self-deconstruct the "evocative," "metaphorical," or "romanticized" language because it obscures, whether intentionally or not, the underlying play process of "how it works." It can come across as "generic," "banal," or even "trite," which results in undercutting the message of what makes typical sandbox play work and how.




Well, I think part of it is we are not as interested in reshaping the core experience of play. For example DramaSystem, which I just mention because it is the game I am most familiar with that departs from general RPG approaches and really focuses on mechanics that deliver a particular experience, is all about reshaping and structuring the way scenes in games are introduced (and it is specifically structured around scenes, which most general RPGs aren't, or at least aren't in a concrete and explicit way: they may loosely resemble scenes). There is a whole procedure for establishing the scene, establishing who is in it, then characters needing to advance their agenda within the scene (and there are meta-currencies that work as carrots to drive drama). Laws clearly spent time thinking about the fundamental process and why he wasn't getting the drama he wanted in say a standard RPG. Most sandbox GMs are satisfied with the core process. For them, and for myself, the core process is working fine (and the core process might vary from group to group: but it is that fundamental exchange that most RPG books point to of the GM saying what the PCs see, the pcs saying what they do, and the GM ruling or saying what happens next---and obviously this is much more open and organic than that suggests because a lot of exchanges are fluid dialogue between characters). The things that matter to the sandbox GM are advice, tools, managing rulings, what not to do, etc. And I think that is because the big problem sandbox is interested in is avoiding railroads and avoiding GM as storyteller. I think the latter may be less true of old old school sandbox GMs (who maybe were running sandboxes prior to the 90s), but OSR sandbox GMs and people who came to it after the 90s I think were having the 3 pronged reaction against railroading, 00s encounter balance/structure and 90s storytelling.

For me it isn't a concern if the procedures are seen as trite, banal or generic. I would describe my style of GMing and the kinds of systems I gravitate towards as traditional, and there is an assumed culture of play around that. I think the focus for me is more on adventure structures, tools, making sure the table is functional, having fun, and long term campaigns.

Again I am not the best mouth piece, there are people much better than me at breaking down how to run a sandbox. I have always been much more intuitive and emotional in my explanation and descriptions of these things. All I can do is share what tools and approaches work for me (here I am answering some of the questions you raised in another post which I said I would get back to later). This all only applies to me but it is also stuff I have picked up over the years from the sandbox circles I travel in (I am definitely not a representative of 'pure sandbox'----my sandbox concept starts with Feast of Goblyns and that is very atypical):

1) Embrace that it is a game and embrace the role of surprise:  I think this is really important. If the GM isn't being surprised, then I do think that is when you can start getting into the territory Pemerton is talking about of 'playing to discover the GM's notes' (which is how I used to describe my frustration with running those EL/CL based linear adventures back in 3rd edition D&D "I might as well just hand the player my notes" is pretty much what I felt after every game).

There is a lot here but I think important elements to this include letting the dice fall where they may, disconnecting yourself from your interest in the PCs survival and success, and disconnecting yourself from wanting the campaign to go in a particular direction

As an example, I had a session last night where the party was defeated by a psycho-path granny---its a wuxia scenario so she was powerful---who put them  in coffins and dangled them over a chasm. Her method for killing was to set 'feast beetles' on the coffin which would eventually kill those inside (the process is elaborate but this is enough for the example). This was a ticking clock situation where I _decided _based on what I knew about this character that she liked to torment people and would first kill the person the party had come to rescue (who was in a coffin beside them). So I marked down a bunch of boxes indicating the number of rounds it would take for the feast beetles to reach and kill her, then marked the round at which point the old lady would set feast beetles on the party (so I had a concrete sense of how much time the players had to escape before each of these things happened, knowing it was still flexible because the old lady could react to their actions). I also clearly noted the integrity of the coffins they were in, the integrity of the ropes they were bound by. Then I made sure I ran every segment of the situation by the book, and I kept consulting with the players to see if they thought a particular ruling was fair. If I didn't have a clear answer on what a ruling would be, because of how dangerous the situation was (they were helpless in coffins so I wanted to be as fair as possible) I talked with them about things like "What do you think the Target Number should be here" or "Is it fair in your opinion for me to require an Athletics roll for you to cling to the side of the cavern after you make your jump". None of the previous information is super important, but it is just being put down so you can see my process (hopefully I have laid it out enough). We basically went round to round, taking each character's actions step by step. It was more granular than normal because of the situation (if there were not such high stakes, this moment might have moved a lot faster, but I wanted to chart every step for fairness)

The important thing here is this old lady is a serial killer in the setting whose homestead and cavern complex I have mapped out, who I fleshed out before hand. I have about two paragraphs on her (which is the most I like for any NPC, though I will do more if I need). It is a simple cavern complex but the chasm is above a pool of water that leads into a cave where another former martial hero lives (another old woman in this case) who is imprisoned and under the effects of a special poison to make her subservient (she lives passively in the cavern making baskets and coffins for her captor  even though she is technically powerful enough to beat the old lady who imprisons her, because her will is so depleted). I designed this whole arrangement as a nod to a couple of scenes in Condor Heroes and Return of Condor Heroes (where the main character (s) is cast into a dire imprisonement situation but finds themselves in the company of a great master. This is somewhat artificial. But I am okay with it from time to time. The key thing though is as this is playing out, while it would be great for the party to find themselves at the bottom of the cavern in order to _discover_ this old lady, that isn't the point of play at all here. I need to not care if they encounter her or not, so that means not doing even subtle things that would direct them to the fact that going down the chasm is possibly a safe, fun or good idea. It so happens in this game one of the characters had a really bad roll and fell into the water and they ended up there anyways. But the point here is when I run these kinds of situations, I need to be content when the players 'miss' something and never learn about it. Now it is living, so the two old ladies are 'still in play' in the game (there could be a time later when one or both of them become relevant again) but if the players just went up and escaped and never came back, that is fine by me. The other point of this scenario was I set up everything very procedurally and business like. When I talked to the players, I wasn't being dramatic or anything (my delivery is pretty dry actually). But I was intentionally making this scene the same as if I was noting stock or keeping an accounting book. Because I didn't want to save or try to kill the party. I wanted it to be as above board as possible. So there was a woman there they were trying to rescue. She was on a timer basically. If they broke out and freed themselves, they could have saved her, if they failed she would die (in this case they failed and she died). By the same token, one or all of them could have been killed by the feast beetles. The point of this kind of moment is I don't know how it is going to turn out at all (and the previous session before they arrived, it was the same, I didn't know they would end up in those coffins when they confronted the old lady (I knew that was her modus operandi, so she would definitely do that to them if she could, but I had no investment in a dramatic cliffhanging scene like that when the fight happened).

2) A world created: Definitely an established world designed with geography, structures (in the old school annales sense of the word---my world building is very Fernand Braudel inspired), pre-history, history, myth (and the reality of that myth), is the starting point. People all approach this differently. The Rob Conley posts I linked are a deep dive into pretty granular approaches to dealing with climate and weather (I am not as scientifically minded as him on that front). I liked having firm ground on which the living world concept plays out. And that means I usually begin with cosmology and some general concepts of where I want to go, then I start with a planet, followed by a continent or continents, then I start mapping out the early stages of people on that map (which will vary according to the specifics). So just as an example in Sertorius I placed the first humanoids on the map (who were all created by various gods), noted their languages, and then charted the changes in something like 500 year chunks (sometimes longer sometimes shorter). In this step I am doing one map for each era and figuring out migration, movements of language, development of things like early city states, until I eventually get to something like looks like a world at approximately the stage of the time of the Han or Rome. There might be a golden era in the past too (as there was in Sertorius where you had an orc and an Ogre Empire loosely modeled after the details of the Ramayana/Ramakien. In this case there was a cataclysmic event, the killing of a god, that unleashed magic into the world. The movement of languages is pretty important to me. I like to know how people and languages evolved in the setting over time. This helps me to name locations, and it also helps me understand how things like dungeons might be placed in the setting (I am not big into dungeon crawl but I do have a lot of underground tombs and limited complexes in the style of old conan stories). In Sertorius I spent a lot of time working out the languages. Not all of them got he same treatment (one was essentially just 'not latin'), but my 'not arabic' language actually got pretty deep because I studied Arabic and wanted to bring some of the structural elements that I liked to it, and I also wanted to play around with how things like official titles can vary by region. In Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate, I focused less on the early movement of people, and more on the development of what became the empire of the setting (which is in the setting is a song Dynasty Analog). And this was done in the way I charted out the movement of peoples in Sertorius (should note that these maps are not in the sertorius books themselves as it seemed to expansive to commission them at the time, but in Ogre Gate I was able to include most of, but not all, my maps of the different eras leading up to the present empire). I also focused the underlying principles of the cosmology in Ogre Gate (which helped me as I made the setting). After I have all that, I start focusing on present day details: cultural elements (i.e. imperial exams, calendars, institutions, sects, laws, marriage, etc). In Ogre Gate there is the geography fo the world itself and the empire and political powers. There is a lot more than this probably but the overall point is to create a place that has foundation to it, that does't feel like it is shifting around the players at my whim or their's.

3) Living World: This is the heart of sandbox play for me. At least it is very crucial. Just to repost where I take this concept from, here is the Feast of Goblyns entry:








Now, this might be considered banal here to posters. I don't know. But for me this was a light bulb moment that radically changed how I played and enabled me, at least in the context of things like monster hunts (I wasn't running sandboxes at all at the time) to have a more lifelike, surprise filled, and open type of adventure.

But the living world to me is the stuff that exists in the created world. So this is where you really bring the things like institutions, sects, NPCs to live, this is where the motion int he campaign is in terms of things existing independent of the PCs. However on a slower scale some of it is stuff like geology (i.e. earthquakes, comets, floods, etc). It serves two functions, one is simply to have a world that exists and is in motion on its own.

So when I make my calendar I often plant specific future events on the calendar (earthquakes, assassination attempts, etc). I also have a table called the Table of Future events which I can roll on periodically. It has three stages after you roll on the initial table to find where the event occurs. The first is for monthly events. Usually this is something like "A new local magnate emerges", "Disaster Strikes a village or town", "A new song, poem or work of literature gains populatrity", or "bandits plague the region". Typically not terribly important and the table I find needs regular updating simply to improve the entries and refine them. But if you get "Roll on Table II" that brings you to Major Event or Development (this is a result of 2 on a 2d10 roll). Table II has results like "Two martial sects go to war", "Minor Invasion", "Key figure in martial world dies", "Natural Disaster", or "Minor Uprising occurs". This table has a result of TABLE III: HISTORICAL TURNING POINT; which is a result of 2 on the table (maybe higher chance than the real world but good enough for a game setting). Table III includes things like "new trade good discovered", "Moral Panic Spreads", "State Collapses", "Major Invasion", "Major Uprising Occurs", "Government Starts Major Project such as a canal or other works", etc. This stuff can sometimes be exciting, but mostly it is to keep the world moving and in a state of change around the PCs.

The other function is more directly connected to the players and that is so the world reacts to them, and is filled with characters who are not just sitting there waiting for them to go on an adventure and find them. If the players become involved in the martial world for example and start wheeling and dealing, they will start meeting characters who have goals of their own and things could pan out in any number of ways depending on what the players do and what the NPCs do (either as a product of their motivation on its own or as a response to something the players do). These characters form groups, move around, change plans, adapt, etc. The way this is done is primarily around making NPCs with clear motivations, charting out alliances and group relationships, tracking what these NPCs are doing as the players do what they do. So say they meet scholar Han and piss him off for some reason (like they don't like some scheme he has going on and put an end to it), but they leave it at that. He might go and hire three men to help him kill the party and come after them (or maybe he goes to the empire and seeks their help, informing officials that the players are wanted men. Sometimes I simply play such characters like I would a PC. I know Scholar Han is after them, so I decide what he is doing each session, and I decide what he does during the session. Sometimes I give this role to a friend not in the campaign to make the NPC more ferocious (in which case I let them make decisions about actions and resources between sessions). Other times I rely on my grudge tables (if I have six NPCs or Sects after the party, that might be unwieldy, and their grudges can slip my mind, so I have a regular table I roll on that includes anyone they have a grudge with and occasionally they simply come up as a result (and the rythym of the tables feels about right to me). Mind you, this is all in the context of a wuxia setting, so grudges are important, it is the only aspect of living NPCs, and even in the wuxia setting there are lot more kinds of relationships than this. This principle extends to sects, government,s etc.

4) Exploration: This is probably where a lot of the issues are coming from in this thread. This is a hard one because every sandbox GM handles it differently. Some use hex crawls (most use hexes either way even if not crawling). Some take a more open approach. When it comes to things like local explorations (dungeons say) you often see the classic gygax or moldvay approaches. Justin Alexander has a whole in depth exploration of hex crawls for example. Rob Conley has a discussion too where he talks about the ideal size of hexes (the baseline hex in his view should be about the limit of human vision, so characters can see to the edge of each hex effectively). I don't think there is a one true way here. I am, as you might guess, much more lose and hand wavy around this. I do all theater of the mind and I am not that into rigidly doing a hex crawl or tracking turns in a dungeon. I like things fluid. Still I have my tools. In my case Survival Rolls are a big part of it. Players can say they go wherever they want, but this will require a survival roll by one member of the party (presumably the person with the highest roll). Survival is an open skill and can be taken for different terrain (cities, wilderness, underground, seas, etc). For travel, it is basically one roll a day, if you fail you have an encounter. But on the local level, or through more dangers terrain, it may be more frequent. So a dungeon might be every ten minutes make a roll (and many dungeons would have additional encounter tables on top of this). With cities, I use wards or quarters as dividing lines, so rolling survival anytime you move from one quarter to another (and players can always roll survival in a city for things like trying to get information: though the point of contact with an information roll will usually be played out in 1st person). There is obviously a lot more to explication than just this, but it is a big topic so I will leave this here for now and can follow up if you have any questions on it.

5) Encounter Tables: This are a pretty important tool in most sandboxes and I have found there is a real art to putting together workable tables. Again they are tool, and most sandbox GMs consider tools optional. But I use them consistently int he ways mentioned above. I like to layer my tables and pin them to regions. And so the first table might be things more like local law enforcement, bandits, fated encounters, imperial officials, grudge encounters, local sects, etc. The next table will be more dangerous threats: sheriffs, large numbers of bandits, imperial agents, et. Rolls on these tables can lead to Local and World personality tables (where I put all my characters in the setting who are local, followed by a table for all the characters in the setting itself). On top of all this, I am always free to just have an encounter happen. And again I do drama sandbox, so sometimes my encounters will be more than just rolls on a table.

6) Rulings: This is pretty fundamental to most sandbox games I have been in. Obviously it depends on system, but the idea is, when the players propose doing something that isn't covered strictly by the rules, you elaborate on existing mechanics to provide a resolution for that request. This is so it doesn't feel like they are always pushing on buttons and that taking specific actions can have more specific outcomes. There are other ideas in rulings as well but this is just the simplified version. It isn't unique to sandbox, like most of this advice, but it is important.

7) Scenery smashing: A good sandbox game runs itself, and one way that you allow that to happen is by letting the players tear apart your world: kill NPCs, take over things, form alliances, form grudges, start their own organizations, get embroiled in conflict with groups, destroy institutions, build institutions, join institutions, etc. This is I think very important. Again this might seem pretty banal, but when you lean into allowing players to weld their power how they like, even if that means going in wild directions you don't expect, it starts to give the  campaign its own scene. And I think the GM needs to maintain a mindset where 1) he or she doesn't have strong expectations of what is to happen---you might have plans because the campaign was going in a certain direction, but your 'stance' (in the martial sense, not the GNS sense) should be neutral, relaxed, flexible. You should be avoiding feeling any resistance to the players saying that want to go this way, do this thing (with obvious exceptions like things you simply don't want to happen at the table for moral reasons or something),etc. The idea is to honestly think through what the consequences would be and go with it.  Even if the players do something outrageous like amass serious power (which you shouldn't just hand to them but if they legitimately obtain it), instead of feeling the campaign is negatively impacted and needs to get on course you adapt and realize 'this just means there are new complications and activities for them to deal with and pursue). Again, it may seem banal, but it is something we learn to resist and so it can take effort to do

8) Organizations: This is covered in living world but deserves some focus. I like to give numbers of members to my organization, stats for disciples, stats for senior disciples, stats and entries for 'named members', full descriptions of the organization, its purpose, its headquarters, its leader. If I can I sometimes provide names for all of the members if the group isn't too big (and the names often serve as clues to personality or motives). Then I usually map out the different groups, noting whose in conflict, who has alliances, what goals they are perusing etc. Often my campaigns tend to focus around organizations and institutions.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions. My mind is a little fuzzy today so I rambled a lot.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> This is actually an interesting insight.  It likely goes to the root of why I prefer my style.  For me this is very much an immersion verisimilitude thing for me.  When I first read your example of the knight knighting the squire, I swear my first thought was “Is this Monte Python?”.  So this is useful at sussing out the “why” we have different perspectives.




One of my dearest friends is a very long time gamer. Your post here reminds me of him. He is extremely critical of genre films because all he sees is trope and contrivance, whereas my position is the opposite; “Well, that is the point of these films...I don’t want to read 200 alleged genre stories with no trope through-line present so I can hopefully one day hit the lottery and find a genre story about these types of characters in this type of provocative situation that results in a collision of these particular ideals/aspirations.”

Put another way, for some reason, he takes each individual film as if they were part of a larger milieu (rather than self contained with their own inevitable literary device as propellant), and then, due to this (in my opinion extremely odd) cognitive framing of clustering these films into a population and expecting a distribution of events that leans heavily toward thematically-neutral or willfully inattendant to dramatic need or genre device, he finds himself constantly saying “well OF COURSE this thing happened (cue his eyeroll).” He sees contrivance everywhere in genre films because of this clustering and mental modeling that he does.

I can run Dungeon Delves and thematically-neutral Hexcrawls all day long for him, but that is where it ends. He stays away from the rest of my games.

I suspect you have a similar neurological disposition that you cluster things like this, impose a mental model on the population, expect a particular type of distribution, and see contrivance when that distribution is skewed. There are more than a few people like this.

As you read my Dungeon World and Blades excerpts from this thread, I imagibe you wincing at the contrivance. As you feel about @pemerton ’s Prince Valiant game, you would similarly hate the experience of my Dogs, DW, AW, Blades, 4e, and Mouse Guard games (irrespective of your issues with mechanical architecture and GMing techniques).


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> For me it isn't a concern if the procedures are seen as trite, banal or generic. I would describe my style of GMing and the kinds of systems I gravitate towards as traditional, and there is an assumed culture of play around that. I think the focus for me is more on adventure structures, tools, making sure the table is functional, having fun, and long term campaigns.





As far as I am aware no one is saying that the procedures of sandbox play are trite, banal, or generic. What's being said is that your commentary is generic and does not actually describe the play process. That it is a romanticized description of how you want to feel while playing the game. That the goal of feeling like your character in that situation and the world feeling real is not a unique feature of sandbox play, but a shared goal that applies to many sorts of play. It's a significant part of the GM's Agenda in games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark for instance.

Part of what is making this discussion difficult for me personally is that you are speaking for all sandbox GMs instead of just speaking to your own play or specific games. Your speaking about sandbox play like none of us have ever done it because we have different perspective on things. Please do not say "Sandbox GMs do this" or "Sandbox GMs do that". Just speak for yourself and games you have designed.

I have run sandbox games in RuneQuest, Stars Without Number, Moldvay B/X, D&D 3e, The Nightmares Underneath, and Silent Legions. I have utilized sandbox techniques in a host of other games. I have also played in a number of sandbox games. I do not like being talked to in a way that assumes because I have a different perspective that I lack relevant experience and knowledge.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Part of what is making this discussion difficult for me personally is that you are speaking for all sandbox GMs instead of just speaking to your own play or specific games. Your speaking about sandbox play like none of us have ever done it because we have different perspective on things. Please do not say "Sandbox GMs do this" or "Sandbox GMs do that". Just speak for yourself and games you have designed.
> 
> I have run sandbox games in RuneQuest, Stars Without Number, Moldvay B/X, D&D 3e, The Nightmares Underneath, and Silent Legions. I have utilized sandbox techniques in a host of other games. I have also played in a number of sandbox games. I do not like being talked to in a way that assumes because I have a different perspective that I lack relevant experience and knowledge.




I am trying to speak for myself, but sometimes general points about sandbox are made, and sometimes it is by people who don't seem to be very interested in sandbox play, so I try to speak generally about it. It isn't a commentary on what you specifically know or don't know (though it may be we have different experiences with sandbox play: in the same way that other posters occasionally talk about PbtA so people who don't play those games in this thread know what they have in mind). If I am saying something about sandbox play that strikes you as outrageous, questionable or not general (and more my personal take) happy to answer that or clarify.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> As far as I am aware no one is saying that the procedures of sandbox play are trite, banal, or generic. What's being said is that your commentary is generic and does not actually describe the play process. That it is a romanticized description of how you want to feel while playing the game. That the goal of feeling like your character in that situation and the world feeling real is not a unique feature of sandbox play, but a shared goal that applies to many sorts of play. It's a significant part of the GM's Agenda in games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark for instance.




I honestly don't know how I can respond to this. I am doing my best to convey what I mean. I have tried to give examples in many of my posts about the specifics. I just posted one that goes into greater elaboration. Like I said I am not the best mouthpiece. My purpose in posting in this thread wasn't to create a map of sandbox processes, it was simply to push back on the 'playing to discover the GM's notes' label being affixed to that and other styles. 

And by the way I have said many times that I don't feel 'living world' is unique to sandbox (i do think it has particular meaning in the way I am using it, but I am sure other games are striving for that). I've tried many times to explain what I mean by living world. The purpose of it isn't to attack other people styles or experience e


----------



## Bedrockgames

innerdude said:


> @Bedrockgames  --- I'd say there are 2 very distinct events as an RPG participant that formed my eventual dissatisfaction with "living world" play.
> 
> The most recent was in 2018, when a very good friend of mine made a valiant attempt at running a "living world" campaign using the Shaintar campaign setting for Savage Worlds. Unfortunately, his efforts were thwarted in a number of ways.
> 
> One, he didn't seem to trust himself to improv or create elements on the fly, nor adapt well. To the point where he wouldn't even create names for things himself; he literally looked up a name generator online to create names of anything that wasn't locked down by the campaign setting.
> 
> Two, while he was clearly doing some GM prep, it was all very "wrote," or generic, with almost all of his ideas based on things provided in the campaign setting. There was no imagination, no attempts to connect the characters to the greater setting, nothing.
> 
> Third, there were just general gaps in his knowledge/experience as a GM that could have improved the experience. I made a few very casual attempts to suggest some things, carefully trying to couch the language as something I was interested in seeing and doing, rather than something he wasn't doing---"Hey, I've been thinking, I think it would be cool if my character and Player X's character maybe had a connection to this guild, I think it would create some cool synergy for the group." "Hey, I really like way you framed the situation with the Kalimar Empire, what do you think about giving us some way to change how they're oppressing their people?" But he was obviously swamped just trying to keep up with all of the normal "operational overhead" of GM-ing, because he'd nod and say all the right things, but you could just see he was suffering from deer-in-the-headlights-itis trying to process it all.
> 
> And none of this is due to lack of ability. He's a senior software engineer, who largely self-taught all of this coding knowledge. He's more than capable of digesting large, complex bits of data.
> 
> The result was one of the more frustrating games I've experienced as a player. Not because it was entirely unfun, but because it had the potential to be so much more. It was very emblematic of what I suspect most "average" RPG players experience with an "average" GM, participating in an "average" fantasy campaign setting. There were bits of fun, some occasional hijinks and laughs, and while I don't regret doing it, by the end you could basically see every piece of the facade he was throwing up. You almost had to force yourself to not look behind the curtain. And it was all the more frustrating because I personally was invested in my character's backstory, and felt like there were so many hooks just waiting for him to use that just got left dangling.
> 
> 
> Equally formative was a game I ran myself back in 2014. It was again Savage Worlds, this time in a homebrew fantasy campaign of my invention. This was a campaign I had lovingly detailed. I created my own world map in Photoshop. I outlined factions, leaders of factions, rulers of the various nation-states. Key NPCs, key organizations.
> 
> At this point in my GM career I had already started to implement "best practices" for sandboxes as I understood them --- create scenes and situations, not plots. Be open to player input. As much as possible, say yes or roll the dice. Be fans of your players, but don't let them off easy.
> 
> And for the first 8 months of the 15-month campaign, the whole group, players and myself included, were having too much fun to really worry about more than the next session ahead. It was going _great_. It was everything you hope a campaign to be.
> 
> But somewhere around the 9-month mark, I began noticing something that bothered me. The magic of the "living world" started to wear thin. The thrill of the players "exploring the world" wore off. Despite all my hard work, the artificiality of the construct was starting to show through the seams.
> 
> It started to feel like that challenges were ultimately being solved in one of two ways---either I had prefabricated 2-4 solutions, and the players were just supposed to figure out how to get to one of them, or I was saying "yes" to as many player suggestions as possible, and then just letting their solution stand. And it's not as if I was trying to actively thwart them, or use "secret backstory" to cut off avenues of success. Perhaps I simply wasn't giving them the right kinds of challenges, or at the right difficulty level.
> 
> But eventually it started to feel very dissatisfying. It felt like I was just pulling strings, or play was devolving into "Mother-may-I?" Occasionally I started wondering, "Would it be better to just railroad them to Scene 24, because that's what's interesting and connects to all of these other super cool things they've somehow managed to avoid or ignore?"
> 
> Looking back, I still recall the campaign fondly, but there's still this shred of unease when I reflect on it, like somehow I failed my players in getting the second half of the campaign to live up to all it could have been. And it's not that there weren't threads for the players to pull on. My goodness, there were so . . . many . . . threads. So many things they could have tugged on and ran with if they'd straight up told me, "We want to do _this_."
> 
> And here's the final kicker --- one of the players in the campaign was and is my undisputed best friend on planet earth. We've known each other since high school, and have maintained that friendship ever since.
> 
> He and I both share a love of theater; we both acted in plays in college. He has all the chops and know how to really dig in to a character and make it his. But yet oddly, his character was the _weakest_ characterization in the campaign. Despite having every tool in the toolbox to really "immerse" in his character, he was by far the biggest pawn-stance player in the game. So whatever merit my "living world" sandbox had, it didn't even rise to the level of getting my best friend, who's a talented stage performer, to have an "immersive character experience."
> 
> So despite everything---all my preparation, all my loving intent, all of my best effort to run a player-facing sandbox---the experience fell short in some ways. There were many, many moments of tremendous fun and energy, but there were enough missteps, gaps, and holes in the experience that I couldn't say it was an unqualified success. A success, yes, but not an unqualified one.
> 
> Truthfully, I began to question, "What exactly am I expecting from my RPG play in the first place?" Part of me felt I roleplayed because eventually it would lead to some truly satisfying character exploration (as I outlined in this EnWorld thread early last year). But that wasn't happening. And despite the fun and early energy my "living world" had produced, by itself it wasn't able to sustain engagement in the way I was looking for.
> 
> So when I poke and prod at the construct of a "living world," it's partially coming from a perspective of dramatic tragedy---it's an ideal that simply cannot live up to the expectations I have for it. "Living world" play feels like it should be the perfect cure for making roleplaying exactly what I want it to be, but my own experience demonstrated that it was insufficient by itself.




I am definitely not here to challenge a Road to Damascus moment in gaming if you had one. Just because living world resonates with me, and just because it works for me at the table, I don't expect it will work for everyone else. 

Here is what I can say about your post in relation to me: I think we are actually seeking something very different. For example, you mention immersion and your friend's stage acting. I don't particularly care about the performative aspect of players being their character. I recognize this is a game played by people who are not professional actors, I have no acting skills myself, some people are great performers and really ham it up at the table (which is fine) but my delivery is very dry and business like. My main interest when it comes to immersion is the players feeling like they are in the characters shoes in the situation, making decisions that matter, saying things hat matter. But it isn't really about acting, it is more about everyone getting lost in what is going on. And it is also still a game. I may use language like "Living World" that people here feel is too flowery, and I a may take an intuitive, 'shamanistic' approach to feeling the world, but I am very much a 'chill GM'. I am there to have a good time, to enjoy the company of friends, crack jokes, and just see what happens in the game. I am not there hoping to have some magnificent, life altering experience. It is a game. Some sessions are great. Some are middle of the road, and some fall flat. Finally I think we just had very opposite experiences. For me the living world got better as time went on. The longer the campaign, the more it comes to life for me. I find by the two year mark the players are really invested in the world, able to navigate its characters and organizations better, and are actively contributing to the living world in ways that allow for the sandbox to 'run itself' as Justin Alexander said in the video. 

Again none of this is to take away form your experience. That is the experience you had, clearly living world and sandbox fell short of your expectations. That is fine. I wouldn't expect this style to appeal to everyone or to work for everyone. I fell out of love with adventure path type games, yet most of the hobby seems to enjoy them (so there must be something to them I am not getting).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also I want to be clear here, I am not trying to convert people to sandbox play. I am not even advocating for it. I was just defending the style against some criticisms I saw and fending off a label I though wasn't particularly fitting and a bit insulting (and there I was also defending other style of play against that label). 

But with sandbox I don't expect that most people would go for that style. And I wouldn't even advocate it for most games. It isn't the only style of game I run. For example I love Ravenloft and I have never run Ravenloft as a sandbox. It just wouldn't' hit the right notes for me as a sandbox (I know people who do run it that way, who are content with it and love using domains as these places for players to go into and contend with the lords). But for me, with Ravenloft I want something more atmospheric and more grounded on a structure like mystery or investigation (and other more mainstream adventure structures). That is why when I talked about living world and connected it to Feast of Goblyns I distinguished between Living Adventure (which is what I saw something like Feast of Goblyns being) and Living World (which is what I see as a sandbox).


----------



## Campbell

Speaking as someone who grew up in the theater the idea that good acting is performative rather than the result of an internal process that involves attempting to embody your character is pretty misguided. 'Hamming it up' is a pejorative to most actors.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> What's being said is that your commentary is generic and does not actually describe the play process. That it is a romanticized description of how you want to feel while playing the game.




This isn't what I am saying. Living world isn't about what I want the world to feel like, it is about how I, as the GM, ought to treat the world. The whole point of the NPC as alive, isn't really about convincing the players they are real (though hopefully they are lifelike---which I think is common in any kind of campaign) it is just to emphasize that I am treating this NPC as someone who has a life, goals, is always doing something even when they are 'offscreen' (and I am thinking about what they are doing). Now obviously you can't do that for every single NPC all the time (unless you are some kind of genius who can track that many different characters in his or her head at the same moment) but you can do it for important characters (like was suggested it the Feast of Goblyns "wandering major encounter" description). And you can put other living NPCs on the backburner by  placing them on tables to ensure they come up from time to time (you can also go over NPCs between sessions to figure out who is doing what). How extensive one gets with this, is personal. Some GMs might only do it for a handful of NPCs, some might regularly comb through all of them (I usually focus on a handful, use tables to bring others up periodically, and do occasional check ins with my roster of NPCs between sessions---but this is pretty casual).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Speaking as someone who grew up in the theater the idea that good acting is performative rather than the result of an internal process that involves attempting to embody your character is pretty misguided. 'Hamming it up' is a pejorative to most actors.




I know nothing about acting. It wasn't a commentary on acting and the process. My point was I don't care about the performance as a GM or player. I don't care how much of it shows. And I am not looking for everyone to always have a deep immersive experience. It is going to wax and wane. But for me the important thing is people are engaged and when important things are happening they feel like they are there. I would distinguish that between acting where the person, whatever is going on with the internal process, is conveying their characters internal emotions to the other players.

I wasn't using hamming it up as a pejorative. I was using it to describe over the top performance of the character. I don't know what it means to an actor. To me my favorite movies have performances I consider hammy and over the top. I like that kind of stuff. In terms of gaming, I just mean exaggerated performance of your character and their emotions.

To put it much more simply: I don't care if my players are playing their characters like they do on critical role. I am not looking for that kind of acting at the table


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I do not like being talked to in a way that assumes because I have a different perspective that I lack relevant experience and knowledge.




I want to be clear this isn't what I am trying to do (in fact I wasn't particularly aware of most of your posts as I was making many of these responses). When I do talk about sandbox in general or sandbox GMs, I am not saying I speak for ALL sandbox GMs (this is why for example I distinguished between post 90s and pre-90s sandbox GMs). I am speaking to my experience of sandbox when generalize (this is what I think the kinds of sandbox GMs I have in mind feel about procedure and mechanics for example). I tried to use language like "I think" "IMO". I am making no assumptions about your experience with sandbox. And like I said in my other response, if you feel what I am saying isn't true of sandbox, isn't true of sandbox GMs, or isn't true about the group of sandbox GMs I have in mind, certainly tell me so. I am just reporting my sense of things


----------



## Bedrockgames

@Aldarc Here is the notes I with the boxes I mentioned from last nights session. This would be the element of the game that would tie,  in my mind, to referring to the GM's notes. The way I did it though was put this page together in front of the players at the start of the session to help explain to them the situation (I didn't show them the sheet prior to play beginning, but asked for their input as I made it: for instance I showed them an image of the coffins they were in and asked is this "Thin wood" "Thick Wood" or "Reinforced Wood" in your opinion for the purposes of establishing TNs on breaking and Integrity. A lot of  times during play if something arises I wasn't expecting (like the player asks to find the toughest martial hero in town or the head of a local group of gamblers, and I haven't made any of that, I sketch out all the info on that character really fast in my notes, including motivations, goals, etc, so I have something tangible to work with in play, that doesn't feel like it is taking shape as the characters interact with it). I don't want to make the mistake of defining what I do in opposition to Pemerton's point about notes. It isn't that notes don't matter, or aren't important (or that setting materials in general aren't important). It is simply the 'playing to discover the GM's notes' label that I find doesn't capture my experience at the table (especially since I am actively working to make sure it isn't simply playing to discover my notes, as that is what prompted me to move towards sandbox in the first place)







This is my (very artistically rendered  sketch of the chasm from the side, just so I could have distances set:





This is my notepad map of the homestead (which I made prior to the campaign starting as I was fleshing out the area). This was an elaboration on existing setting material (I had Li Homestead on the map and a description of it and feast beetle li, but it wasn't until the campaign started and that I mapped out the homestead itself). This wasn't technically a full sandbox because the players came in as a team of constables (so there is a mission based element here). However within that framework, they can do what they want, and if they don't want to be constables (like decide to become bandits or something that is fair by me). Still I would call this more of a sandbox with a concept. In this case they were sent to find a woman who went missing, and eventually they learned that she was abducted by Feast Beetle Li (who was going to kill her in her usual method in s short span of days)

The boxes in this image are just me tracking survival roll results. But the next page had a similar set of boxes to the first in order to track how many days before the victim ended up in the coffin and killed by Feast Beetle Li (they arrived on the final day because they spent three days going after a potential witness and then got lost for a day when they made their way back---so tracking the number of days as a ticking clock was important here)





This is the image I showed them of the coffins:






and just to bring the living NPC thing to focus, even though I mapped out the homestead and the cavern complex, I didn't really see it as a "dungeon" or "location" in need of a exploring. I saw it as a residence. Feast Beetle Li was moving around as she needed (something I might simulate when the players arrive by just randomly rolling to see if she is there or out, which room she is in, what she is doing---i may also simply decide this). As the players interacted with her, it became easier to simply decide what she did and where she went. So as the players tried to get out of the coffins she started adjusting her strategy and taunting them. I decided once they stared using the chains to climb up she simply flipped the switch and had them drop one by one into the chasm. Then she retreated into a position where she could ambush them with a dart trap if they survived and came after her----but she is living so she is only staying there so long before adjusting her strategy. Since the players ending up going down into the cavern and talking with the lady who lives in the cave (Ms. Lan), I decided she is starting to get nervous and concerned and as the session ended, I have this whole week to think about what she might do in the hours the players spent talking with Ms. Lan


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Gah.  No, this just displays your unfamiliarity with the genre conventions.  To someone that's familiar with Arthurian Romance tropes, @pemerton's scene is a classic example and plays straight down the verisimilitude lane for that genre.  That you're unfamiliar with this, but familiar with the spoof of that genre (Holy Grail), just shows your level of awareness, not an underlying difference in approach to verisimilitude.  There's probably tons of things in your game that read the same way to someone that's seen The Gamers but doesn't know much otherwise.  You've pointed out something that absolutely goes directly to verisimilitude of the intended genre and called it a fault -- which really doesn't say anything about the techniques but instead just about what you prefer/are aware of in terms of game genres.



That may all be true.  I was imagining a standard D&D campaign whereas no doubt he was playing something with different assumptions.  A lot of these player authoring style games seems more focused and thus you have a lot of games that really are just variations on the same common core.  Kind of like Fate is a system or cortex plus is a system but many different games with different genre assumptions use that core.   

My reaction was no doubt driven by the fact I was thinking about typical D&D campaigns and not the specific game being played.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> One of my dearest friends is a very long time gamer. Your post here reminds me of him. He is extremely critical of genre films because all he sees is trope and contrivance, whereas my position is the opposite; “Well, that is the point of these films...I don’t want to read 200 alleged genre stories with no trope through-line present so I can hopefully one day hit the lottery and find a genre story about these types of characters in this type of provocative situation that results in a collision of these particular ideals/aspirations.”



I'm not sure where I would fall on the movie scale as I do like westerns and they seem very trope-like in many cases.  I know John Wayne is going to win in most cases.  

I think I am a combination of preferences and not a single preference.  So in addition to sandbox play, I am also very much a skilled play person.  You must prepare and buy the right resources and plan your journey and plot how to kill an especially tough monster.  To me that is the bread and butter of gaming.  

The story that emerges is not the prime driver of play.  So let's suppose I could make the story more interesting by changing something as DM.  I probably don't do it.   Now as a young man I might not have been as strict so I'm the amalgam of my experiences.  




Manbearcat said:


> Put another way, for some reason, he takes each individual film as if they were part of a larger milieu (rather than self contained with their own inevitable literary device as propellant), and then, due to this (in my opinion extremely odd) cognitive framing of clustering these films into a population and expecting a distribution of events that leans heavily toward thematically-neutral or willfully inattendant to dramatic need or genre device, he finds himself constantly saying “well OF COURSE this thing happened (cue his eyeroll).” He sees contrivance everywhere in genre films because of this clustering and mental modeling that he does.



I will admit that when not really well done and done in a heavy handed way I probably don't like those movies as much.  I do though think there are times I like some of them.



Manbearcat said:


> I can run Dungeon Delves and thematically-neutral Hexcrawls all day long for him, but that is where it ends. He stays away from the rest of my games.



It really is like every other preference.  Some people like a very broad variety of things and others like fewer varieties.   I won't say I hate anything but with limited time I play what I like best.   That is a better way to put it.  I am sure with a really good GM of a particular style I could play a single Saturday and have fun.  I just won't love it enough to devote two or three years to it.   



Manbearcat said:


> I suspect you have a similar neurological disposition that you cluster things like this, impose a mental model on the population, expect a particular type of distribution, and see contrivance when that distribution is skewed. There are more than a few people like this.
> 
> As you read my Dungeon World and Blades excerpts from this thread, I imagibe you wincing at the contrivance. As you feel about @pemerton ’s Prince Valiant game, you would similarly hate the experience of my Dogs, DW, AW, Blades, 4e, and Mouse Guard games (irrespective of your issues with mechanical architecture and GMing techniques).



Well one example, might be self sacrifice.  I would not say by any means that a PC in my campaign would not sacrifice himself for the group.  I would say that that would never be his objective on day one.  The players objectives always coincide with the characters objectives.  It's part of being your character.  So no one in my group would say "Hey it would be cool if I went down fighting to help the party escape".   That might be viewed as necessary but never a good thing.  My players view character death the same way you or I might view it in the real world.   They are less risk averse surely but I mean they avoid it always.

I think in the narrative sense of player authoring the character is a piece that can be sacrificed if it makes for a great story.   That doesn't mean you do it all the time.  I'm just saying the coolness of the story overrides what the character would really want in the game.   Character wants and player wants are identical in my games.


----------



## Emerikol

I think also that Bedrock and I are similar but not identical in our preferences.  That may confuse if anyone starts thinking we are a united front.   I speak for myself only.   Creating a secret door on the fly makes me wince just for the record.  Fidelity to the reality of the world is paramount to me.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I think also that Bedrock and I are similar but not identical in our preferences.  That may confuse if anyone starts thinking we are a united front.   I speak for myself only.   Creating a secret door on the fly makes me wince just for the record.  Fidelity to the reality of the world is paramount to me.



It's pretty darned important to me, as well.  The difference is that you're saying that the "reality of the world" is based on things you've already thought of, whereas I'm basing it on "is it possible a secret door could be here?"  That's pretty much true -- a secret door could be there, and that would retain fidelity to the reality of the world because it doesn't violate any physical laws or established truths about the world.

Now, when I run 5e, secret doors are where I put them and nowhere else, but that's not because I'm maintaining fidelity to the reality of the world (I imagined these secret doors for my make-believe game after all), but because that approach facilitates specific play goals -- namely, for us, skilled play and exploring the world the GM has created.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> I think also that Bedrock and I are similar but not identical in our preferences.  That may confuse if anyone starts thinking we are a united front.   I speak for myself only.   Creating a secret door on the fly makes me wince just for the record.  Fidelity to the reality of the world is paramount to me.



You are right and it is further complicated by the fact that I sometimes run games differently depending on the genre. If I am running a game in what I call "Chang Cheh mode" I am much more inclined to create a secret door on the fly, throw in a bunch of hooded assassins hiding in the wardrobe and under the bed, etc. If I am running in "King Hu mode", things are much more grounded and believable. I usually do try to convey to players what 'franchise' they are in before play so they understand not just the genre but the genre logic I may be using. 

I will say though on the secret door, my point was not so much about the above, as it was about even if I am running a more grounded game, if the players go into a chamber and I look at the map and see no secret door, but realize that this was actually a mistake (for example it is just painfully obvious to me that the owner of said chamber would have had the time, desire, and tactical need for such a door: I don't mind going against what is on the page). But in my mind this is in service to the reality of the world. 

That said, if I am running it in Chang Cheh mode, the physical reality of the world is less paramount than the emotional reality of the underworld they are all inhabiting. 

Also there is a gray area here: the players go inside a residence you didn't plan in advance and you need to decide in that moment if a secret door exists


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> It's pretty darned important to me, as well.  The difference is that you're saying that the "reality of the world" is based on things you've already thought of, whereas I'm basing it on "is it possible a secret door could be here?"  That's pretty much true -- a secret door could be there, and that would retain fidelity to the reality of the world because it doesn't violate any physical laws or established truths about the world.



When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase.   Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase.   Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.



No, I understood that, I'm just pointing out that your choice of euphemism is disguising this, and that fidelity to the reality of the world doesn't mean that alone.

You complain about loaded words, when the ask is just to put it plainly and bluntly and quit romanticizing it -- ie, to _un_load the language..  I mean, I did, at the end of the post your just quoted, when I explicitly said I do exactly what you're talking about in my 5e games.


----------



## Emerikol

I think for me there is also two different periods of development for a sandbox campaign.
#1.  The creation of the world.  This could be the DM doing the work as is most often the case for me, though I do revise and plugin existing adventures often enough, or it could be the DM purchasing a world and reading it.   Think of this as the pre-campaign setup phase.  Often there are periods where the GM returns to this phase.  Mostly to add to the calendar of events for the NPCs (including monsters).   It might also be for the development of a second sandbox if it appears the group may be outgrowing the one they are inside of at the moment or are showing signs of wanting to move out.

#2.  Then there is the arbiter phase.  This is where the GM neutrally interacts with the PCs and conveys details from the first phase.  The facts of phase #1 are independent of this phase.  They could come from a third party for example.  This phase is about making sure the world and rules of the world are administered as the PCs state their actions and interact with the said world.   Some improv occurs here.  Not everything can be detailed.  It is heavily informed improv though.  

In my games the players count on a good DM to be fair and impartial in phase #2.  They also expect an interesting and creative DM in #1 (or they expect him to lay his hands on something interesting and creative).


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> No, I understood that, I'm just pointing out that your choice of euphemism is disguising this, and that fidelity to the reality of the world doesn't mean that alone.
> 
> You complain about loaded words, when the ask is just to put it plainly and bluntly and quit romanticizing it -- ie, to _un_load the language..  I mean, I did, at the end of the post your just quoted, when I explicitly said I do exactly what you're talking about in my 5e games.



I'm not romanticizing it.  Something isn't real until it exists.  So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment.   The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to.   Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase.   Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.




mess this directed at me or another poster? (If me will try to clarify what I meant as I wasn’t disagreeing with you)


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> mess this directed at me or another poster? (If me will try to clarify what I meant as I wasn’t disagreeing with you)



It was NOT directed at you.  I was replying to Ovidmancer specifically and I mentioned it was an issue on occasion with Pemberton too.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I'm not romanticizing it.  Something isn't real until it exists.  So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment.   The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to.   Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.



I understand how you're using it, but the terms you've used are not actually descriptive of what you're doing and can apply easily to other approaches.  You're trying to claim "fidelity to the reality" as some romanticized wording for your approach because this sounds really good.  What you're actually doing is saying that the GM's preconception of the fiction is binding on the action resolution process.  This is clinical, though, and doesn't sound as good as "fidelity to the reality" so it gets strong pushback, and the attempt to claim "fidelity" is made to elevate your approach.  

This, though, is obscuring what's actually happening at the table.  If the players in your game search for a secret door, and you haven't previously placed on there in your preconception of the fiction, then there is no secret door there.  However, this isn't any more 'real' that a different GM using mechanics to determine if a door does or doesn't exist, because as far as 'real' goes, that only matters if it makes sense that a door can be there, not really if one is or not.  If it doesn't make sense that a door can be there, then neither system will generate one, and the "fidelity to the reality" is the same.


Emerikol said:


> It was NOT directed at you.  I was replying to Ovidmancer specifically and I mentioned it was an issue on occasion with Pemberton too.



My name is right there, and doesn't have a 'd' in it anywhere.  I know I've recently pointed this out to you, so, at this point, it's looking like it's more an intentional attempt to get a rise rather than an honest mistake.  Surely, though, this isn't the case?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> It was NOT directed at you.  I was replying to Ovidmancer specifically and I mentioned it was an issue on occasion with Pemberton too.




Cool. Thanks for the clarification. Was worried I accidentally conveyed the wrong meaning in my last post


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> My name is right there, and doesn't have a 'd' in it anywhere.  I know I've recently pointed this out to you, so, at this point, it's looking like it's more an intentional attempt to get a rise rather than an honest mistake.  Surely, though, this isn't the case?



Nor does @pemerton have a 'b' in it. There are a lot of made-up superhero names to keep track of.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> I'm not romanticizing it.  Something isn't real until it exists.  So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment.   The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to.   Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.




Also for me, when I see these kinds of quips (your 'romanticizing it', that is 'banal', or this is 'lazy writing'): they are just as opaque as the term they are attacking (you never really know how much effort a writer puts into something, lazy almost never seems to really link to effort that was put into a work, as much as it does to the work being something they've seen before elsewhere). I see them as rhetorical shaming words, where people try to get you agree by appealing to your desire to be great, to be more manly, to be intelligent, etc. With the romanticizing thing it feels similar to me. It comes up all the time in style debates. Even among people who share my style I would encounter it when I crossed lines they didn't like. I've learned to really stop worrying about these kinds of criticisms and just be who I am.


----------



## Fenris-77

In this case 'romanticizing' seems to mean using imprecise but evocative language chosen to valorize but not explain the thing at hand. That's less than ideal when what the discussion actually needs is very precise descriptions of the mechanics and practices at hand. Not much to discuss otherwise. When I read the term used upstream I didn't get the feeling it was a shot at anyone, just a pretty apt description of some of the verbiage being used. YMMV.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> In this case 'romanticizing' seems to mean using imprecise but evocative language chosen to valorize but not explain the thing at hand. That's less than ideal when what the discussion actually needs is very precise descriptions of the mechanics and practices at hand. Not much to discuss otherwise. When I read the term used upstream I didn't get the feeling it was a shot at anyone, just a pretty apt description of some of the verbiage being used. YMMV.




Except that isn't what isn't what I was doing when I said living world, and it is a term that has some amount of currency (it denotes an approach to sandbox play that sandbox gamers would recognize). Either way, I think there is a lot of this rhetorical tactic that occurs online. I am not going to stop using the term living world, but I am happy to explain what I mean by it if people want more information. I think also, when in the context of the posts people are saying you are being trite and banal, it is a little hard to not perceive it as a shot

To be clear here too. I am not trying to resurrect this fight. I am just trying to suggest to @Emerikol he can ignore the emotional impact that term has when its invoked, since IMO, the point is to trigger the emotion to get you to back off an idea or agree with people so you are not feeling like you are romanticizing, trite, etc.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Except that isn't what isn't what I was doing when I said living world, and it is a term that has some amount of currency (it denotes an approach to sandbox play that sandbox gamers would recognize). Either way, I think there is a lot of this rhetorical tactic that occurs online. I am not going to stop using the term living world, but I am happy to explain what I mean by it if people want more information.



No, I'd agree. Living World is a thing. Does that thing get romanticized as a goal for play? It assuredly does, but not so much by you. One of the problems (for this kind of discussion) with the term is that is really applies pretty specifically to a particular thing that's directly related to OSR-style sandbox play, and for a variety of reasons (both good and bad) doesn't really get at the equivalent gaming experience produced by other sorts of games. That makes comparisons between the two somewhat fraught.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Cool. Thanks for the clarification. Was worried I accidentally conveyed the wrong meaning in my last post



The current incarnation of the block feature is the worst this site has ever enacted.  It causes a great deal of confusion to people.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> No, I'd agree. Living World is a thing. Does that thing get romanticized as a goal for play? It assuredly does, but not so much by you. One of the problems (for this kind of discussion) with the term is that is really applies pretty specifically to a particular thing that's directly related to OSR-style sandbox play, and for a variety of reasons (both good and bad) doesn't really get at the equivalent gaming experience produced by other sorts of games. That makes comparisons between the two somewhat fraught.



The only thing I'm aware of that (capitalized) Living World refers to is the approach for a shared setting across many tables, with many GMs running semi-concurrent games, where game reports are shared and so update everyone's conception of the setting fiction at the same time.

I do not think that this is how this term is being used in this thread at all.


----------



## Manbearcat

These discussions would better service us, silent onlookers, and the greater community if (a) the language used to describe games was “more engineering and less art” and (b) we used play excerpts to break down the engineering concepts we’re talking about.

This is why I feel like Story Now (When is the story generated? Now) and Setting Solitaire (as I laid it out upthread) are imminently more helpful for would-be GMs and players.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> These discussions would better service us, silent onlookers, and the greater community if (a) the language used to describe games was “more engineering and less art” and (b) we used play excerpts to break down the engineering concepts we’re talking about.




I agree with B. I don't agree about the engineering bit though. Clearly there are plenty of posters in this thread who do have engineering mindsets, and there are plenty of gamers who do as well. But I think there are those of us who come at it more from an art or humanities mindset. And that impacts things like the kind of language we employ to talk about concepts, the kinds of concepts we are open to, etc. I am happy to clarify for you as best I can in terms that work for you, what I do, but I have to admit when I see the 'engineering' language you guys like to use, I just get lost. I am sure you find it very clarifying, so I don't object to you using it. It is just we are not all built like that. 

I can compare it to music theory since music is something I have some background in. I know how to write music. I know how to play music. I have some basic understandings of music theory (I learned scales, I learned some modes but they never quite clicked for me, I learned to read music---though I've mostly lost that and it takes me forever to figure out sheet music---I learned basic things like chords and intervals.....but mostly I didn't use music theory to write. I tended to think of music i my head and then figure it out on the instrument (and sometimes I would let my hands find their way too). Sometimes though I did draw on music theory. But music theory has its limits. It is basically a language to communicate musical concepts. It isn't the only way musicians communicate with one another. Most people I played music with, unless they went to berkley or something, which most didn't, had formulated other ways of communicating ideas. They might not make immediate sense to a person who is only versed in music theory, but they make sense to the musicians using it. And there are some styles of music, that music theory isn't really good at discussing (music theory is built on European music from about the 17th century and is based on twelve notes---but some styles of music around the world are based on fewer or as many as 22 notes). So I think while an engineering language can be useful, it can also become, at least for me, a bit of a straight jacket. Which is one reason I prefer more open and 'flowery' language, then if people want to know more break down the actual techniques I am using as best I can. Importantly too, as I said before, I don't think we have anything quite like music theory in gaming. We have lots of different camps with their own vocabularies (often at odds with one another and very distrustful of one another)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> This is why I feel like Story Now (When is the story generated? Now) and Setting Solitaire (as I laid it out upthread) are imminently more helpful for would-be GMs and players.




I may need some clarification on what setting solitaire is exactly. But I think if I came into the hobby and encountered Story Now and Setting Solitaire as my 'aha moment' rather than the setting is alive concept I pointed to in Feast of Goblyns (or at least the NPCs are alive), I don't know that either of those could have ever excited or resonated with me in the same way (I am still not even sure I fully understand how story now operates: and I have never really been heavily persuaded to the validity of GNS as a whole)


----------



## Manbearcat

The way I look at it this:

* Those who are artists because of savantry or because of something inherent that they cannot deconstruct and then articulate to a group of people who are wanting to learn (I am this way with Jiujitsu...I would NEVER attempt to teach it a la Ryan Hall) are not teachers.

These are the absolute tail of the distribution types. The only way they can teach is by merely doing and letting tactile and visual learners assimilate the craft.

* Then there are the rest of the population. They learn craft in classes and in conversations by engagement with well-deconstructed, well-articulated, digestible chunks of information.

They practice and improve.

Rinse/repeat that loop until they’ve attained a level of mastery.


The first group and approach offers very, very little to the faculty of everyone who is not a savant. I think this explains why D&D culture has been plagued by such a dearth of GMs (in proportion to its user base) and such a disproportionate amount of crap GMs; because this Master : Padawan relationship was how the craft was passed down historically (and, simply, it didn’t work at scale and created an enormous amount of discontent). So therefore demystifying the process so that people can actually learn it is how we get better (at large) as a culture of craftsfolk.


TLDR - GMs aren't Jedis and the only Force they wield is the kind that wrests the trajectory of play from the players/system to themselves...and acting like they are Jedis has made our hobby worse than it could be (because it doesn't produce capable Gamesmasters at scale).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> The first group and approach offers very, very little to the faculty of everyone who is not a savant. I think this explains why D&D culture has been plagued by such a dearth of GMs (in proportion to its user base) and such a disproportionate amount of crap GMs; because this Master : Padawan relationship was how the craft was passed down historically (and, simply, it didn’t work at scale and created an enormous amount of discontent). So therefore demystifying the process so that people can actually learn it is how we get better (at large) as a culture of craftsfolk.




I don't think this is about savants versus everyone else. I think this is about people having different ways of thinking and learning games. I mean the fundamentals of play for something like D&D are explained it the rules. It isn't the theoretical language you use, but the basic elements of play are broken down. You've found a language (for convenience we'll just say the engineering language of RPGs) which works for you and demystifies for you. My point is it doesn't do that for a lot of people. I don't find your descriptions or language demystifying at all: I find it mystifying. It makes it harder for me to understand (and a lot of the concepts just never click for me). 

Just asserting we should all talk about games the way you do: I don't think that is going to be helpful


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I may need some clarification on what setting solitaire is exactly. But I think if I came into the hobby and encountered Story Now and Setting Solitaire as my 'aha moment' rather than the setting is alive concept I pointed to in Feast of Goblyns (or at least the NPCs are alive), I don't know that either of those could have ever excited or resonated with me in the same way (I am still not even sure I fully understand how story now operates: and I have never really been heavily persuaded to the validity of GNS as a whole)




1)  I would guess that (again, at scale) the excitement and resonance of TTRPGing doesn't come from the talking about it or reading about it.  It comes from (a) beholding the emotions of people who do talk about the prospects of play, (b) beholding the play itself, and, most importantly, (c) the actual playing of the game.

2)  On Setting Solitaire, I posted this upthread when I introduced it into the conversation so I'm just going to copy/paste:



Manbearcat said:


> * The GM has all the extra-PC pieces in play and their interactions. *Setting.*
> 
> * They could run “the game” without player input. *Solitaire*.
> 
> *Setting Solitaire*
> 
> When the players do play, it becomes an input into the game’s model run.






Manbearcat said:


> I would say three things about this:
> 
> 1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).
> 
> 2) “Players being secondary” (as you put it) here would be to the right of M (the median point of the alphabet-as-continuum), more toward Railroad. So that leaves a hell of a lot of room left of M (closer to A).
> 
> 3) A in this arrangement would be fully Protagonistic Play where the Sandbox is constructed entirely around Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> The Dungeon World Sandbox in my game with @darkbard and his wife would be an A. 100 % No Myth setting where everything in that setting is a byproduct of Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.
> 
> My Blades game with @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 is probably around a B or even C with certain elements in the game being driven by a high res (but modified to our requirements and constantly being modified during play to our needs) pregenerated setting and related machinery that is required to address the premise of the game.
> 
> That doesn’t make the Dungeon World game better than the Blades game. They’re both awesome. They’re just slightly different.






Manbearcat said:


> So this is an interesting question:
> 
> "Can a game be considered a Sandbox if it is basically 100 % Setting Solitaire and player input is relegated entirely to color/characterization?"
> 
> That would be the Z on my continuum.  The volitional force that players expect to erect upon play is entirely smoke and mirrors.  In order to ensure play is funneled toward interaction with particular features of the setting, the GM is deploying Force at a 100 % rate when a question of play trajectory arises.
> 
> You have the aspect of a Setting having a model run, with a lot of different parameters considered and even authentic interactions with those parameters collide (Faction A collides with Faction B with Situation C also giving expression to the collision).  However, all of the interactions are player-proof.  They don't have a parameter in the model run.  They think they do, but its a complete illusion.
> 
> My inclination is to say that the sort of 100 % Setting Solitaire that I've depicted above with 100 % Illusionism GMing (as it pertains to player input onto the trajectory of play) is still a Sandbox.  Players can interact with all the constituent parts of the Sandbox and they _perceive _their influence on the trajectory...its just that their perception is mistaken...its an illusion.
> 
> They can build a house, they can do the dungeon (as the dungeon is to be done), they can order pastries from the baker, make friends with the mayor, protect the merchant caravan, slay the invading force.  But its all either color/characterization that doesn't impact the trajectory of play or its Railroaded Setting Solitaire.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think this is about savants versus everyone else. I think this is about people having different ways of thinking and learning games. I mean the fundamentals of play for something like D&D are explained it the rules. It isn't the theoretical language you use, but the basic elements of play are broken down. You've found a language (for convenience we'll just say the engineering language of RPGs) which works for you and demystifies for you. My point is it doesn't do that for a lot of people. I don't find your descriptions or language demystifying at all: I find it mystifying. It makes it harder for me to understand (and a lot of the concepts just never click for me).
> 
> Just asserting we should all talk about games the way you do: I don't think that is going to be helpful




That isn't what I'm saying. 

Of course people learn in a myriad of ways.  I've invoked neurological diversity (and how it pertains to learning) more than anyone on this board would be my guess.  

What I'm saying is, at scale, the approach of D&D Jedi : Padawan and treating it as more mystic art than craft has served to deplete the theoretical ranks of GMs (in both breadth and effectiveness) over the course of 40 years.

And the way I speak and the technical language I use for discussing TTRPGs is of course not for everyone.  I'm sorry that it mystifies you.   Certain people on here have long bitched at me for the way I write/the language I use.  With respect to those people, the number of people who I have actually helped understand TTRPGing is a not-insignificant amount....WAAAAY more than you are aware of (because most of the exchanges are private PMs with people thanking me for a particular deconstruction of a TTRPGing thing that was helpful to them).

So, with absolute humility, I'm 100 % certain that I'm a more effective communicator on these subjects than you (and a few others) probably think I am.  And the language that I use is a medium for that assist that I've given to a great many people.  I'm sorry it doesn't work for you (truly), but it works for a lot of people.

But, again, it doesn't have to be my language or me.  But the Jedi : Padawan relationship and mystification of Gamesmastering needs to end (if we want more and better GMs) because it doesn't work at scale.  If it did, we would have a hell of a lot more GMs and a hell of a lot better ratio of extremely capable GMs with those we do have.


----------



## Manbearcat

Here is an example of D&D's metaphorical approach to language (the "natural language" focus of D&D 5e would be another example) causing harm to the player-base.

Its an example from a game I love:

"Skip the gate guards and get to the fun!"

Remember that one from D&D 4e?

Well, that one caused a hell of a stir...and it didn't actually technically help a great deal of people.  I mean, a lot of people were all "BUT I LIKE GATE GUARD CONFLICTS, SCREW YOU!"

But they weren't saying that gate guards aren't fun.  What they were saying was, for this game, "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" or "cut to the action."  The first of those axioms is from Vincent Baker in Dogs in the Vineyard.  The second of those axioms is from a myriad of games including John Harper in Blades in the Dark.

THAT is what they were trying to say.  But they said something that was crappy instead because (a) it unnecessarily incited people while (b) simultaneously not explaining exactly what the hell they were saying in a concise, technical manner.

Gate guards can be conflict.  Gate guards can be action.  But a lot of time in D&D, they're just color and characteriation. For _this _game (D&D 4e), everything on screen, every moment of play should be conflict/action...so if you have gate guards...make sure they're _bite _and note _all bark _(yes, the metaphorical language here is meant to be ironic)!


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> The only thing I'm aware of that (capitalized) Living World refers to is the approach for a shared setting across many tables, with many GMs running semi-concurrent games, where game reports are shared and so update everyone's conception of the setting fiction at the same time.
> 
> I do not think that this is how this term is being used in this thread at all.



No, I'm aware of that definition and, as far as I know, that's where the term comes from. However, common usage, currently, has broadend to mean more whatbit does in this thread. Here I've taken it mean a sandbox game where the gears in the background turn and change both with and without player input. The current usage tends to be very much the above but as a GM activity, based on notes, which is different than, say, Blades.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> No, I'm aware of that definition and, as far as I know, that's where the term comes from. However, common usage, currently, has broadend to mean more whatbit does in this thread. Here I've taken it mean a sandbox game where the gears in the background turn and change both with and without player input. The current usage tends to be very much the above but as a GM activity, based on notes, which is different than, say, Blades.



I don't see this term as helpful at all.  It actually appears to function in a harmful manner, because while you've assumed it means these things, it might not to someone else, even someone claiming it as their approach.  It's a romanticized term that doesn't speak to the actual methods of play, and, as such, harms understanding more than helps it.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> To someone that's familiar with Arthurian Romance tropes, @pemerton's scene is a classic example and plays straight down the verisimilitude lane for that genre.





Arilyn said:


> I really like this scene in your example. Having the play squarely focussed on the squire, whose story this is, feels very Arthurian.  Actually, it's just good drama, period, centering on character motivations and needs.



Thanks both for these posts.

To try and add something about the relationship between in-fiction situation (including character, both PC and NPC) and technique: the player has made a move - trying to proceed past Sir Lionheart after the latter refuses to joust with a mere squire - that demands some sort of response. The response has to come from me as GM - in AW terms, this is one of those moments where everyone looks at the GM to see what comes next. And given the set-up in the scene, the response in the fiction has to come from Sir Lionheart.

One obvious possibility, and I assume the one @Emerikol has in mind, is for Sir Lionheart to just yell at the squire, or perhaps punch him or cut him down. But there are complexities: Sir Lionheart has already refused to joust him, so does drawing swords go against that? Or if rather than a duel Sir Lionheart just cuts him down, I know from the scenario description that he will regret this afterwards, because it is dishonourable. The player hasn't read that description, but has a sense of Sir Lionheart's personality - it's a fairly clear genre trope - and is playing into that.

A different possible circuit breaker is that Sir Lionheart knights the squire so he is eligible to be fought as an equal.

In the context of adjudicating the action in the course of the session, these possibilities are implicit. I think they're implicit for the player. They go through my mind fairly quickly. And then the question becomes, _how to decide what happens?_ _Which of the conceived-of possibilities is the "real" one?_

My understanding of sandbox play in the classic sense, as being articulated in this thread, is that the GM is entitled and even expected to extrapolate from the notes about Sir Lionheart, the broader understanding of the setting (in this case, faux-historical mediaeval) and a feeling about "what makes sense". A reaction roll or CHA check or similar mechanic might be called for if the GM is not sure, but if the GM can make a decision without calling for a check that is permitted and even desirable.

In the sort of play Prince Valiant is designed for, and especially in my case drawing also on the influence of more recent RPGs that have been inspired (in part) by Prince Valiant but state some of the relevant GMing principles more clearly, the GM is not expected to decide. The GM is expected to call for a check. There are various ways for setting difficulty. But on option is an opposed check - in this case Presence vs Presence. (Note how in the passage I quoted upthread replying to @Cadence, for a different but related possibility the scenario does not use an opposed check but sets a Difficulty of 2. I can't now recall if I was remembering that passage when I set out adjudication for this action. But given the PC in question an opposed Presence check - the PCs 4 dice vs Sir Lionheart's 3 dice - was harder than a Fellowship check (7 dice for this PC, maybe only 6 at that point) vs a difficulty of 2 and perhaps also harder than Courtesie (I think at that time probably 5 dice) vs that difficulty. I could of course have called for a higher difficulty. But in the heat of play I went for an opposed check, which is well within the "permissibility" limits for the system.

And the job of the check is not _just_ to determine what happens next, but to do so in a way that will answer that question from the point of view of the dramatic needs of the PC. _Does s/he get what s/he wants? _On this occasion the player rolled well, and so the answer was _yes_!

(And @Arilyn, I've got nothing to add to the rest of your post which I fully agree with.)


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Creating a secret door on the fly makes me wince just for the record.  Fidelity to the reality of the world is paramount to me.





Emerikol said:


> I'm not romanticizing it.  Something isn't real until it exists.  So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment.   The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to.   Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.





Emerikol said:


> When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase.   Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.



It's not about words being "loaded". It's about not making assumptions, in one's analysis, that aren't true for other RPGers.

I think we've established in this thread that fidelity to the "reality" of the world is pretty important for most of us as posters. (When I played an AD&D one-shot generating a dungeon using Appendix A, I didn't care about fidelity to the reality of any world. And when I played a Dying Earth one-shot it was close to "anything goes" as that's the nature of the setting. Those are the only exceptions I can think of at the moment.)

I've put "reality" in inverted commas because of course it's a metaphor. Literally, as you say, reality entails existence. And these imagined worlds of RPGing don't exist and hence aren't real. What is real are moments of imagination, and the records ("notes") we make of those. As you explain, in advance of play you imagine things about the gameworld and write those down - this is the _campaign construction phase_ that occurs _outside the session_,_ prior to the players learning about the world_. You then use the record of your imaginings to decide the outcomes of some action declarations, like "I search for secret doors."

That's one possible resolution technique, that also shows us a distinctive use for GM's notes. It's not the only way of resolving such action declarations, and it's not the only way that enables maintenance of fidelity to the "reality" of the gameworld. That's also not the only use that GM's notes might have.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> It's not about words being "loaded". It's about not making assumptions, in one's analysis, that aren't true for other RPGers.
> 
> I think we've established in this thread that fidelity to the "reality" of the world is pretty important for most of us as posters. (When I played an AD&D one-shot generating a dungeon using Appendix A, I didn't care about fidelity to the reality of any world. And when I played a Dying Earth one-shot it was close to "anything goes" as that's the nature of the setting. Those are the only exceptions I can think of at the moment.)
> 
> I've put "reality" in inverted commas because of causes it's a metaphor. Literally, as you say, reality entails existence. And these imagined worlds of RPGing don't exist and hence aren't real. What is real are moments of imagination, and the records ("notes") we make of those. As you explain, in advance of play you imagine things about the gameworld and write those down - this is the _campaign construction phase_ that occurs _outside the session_,_ prior to the players learning about the world_. You then use the record of your imaginings to decide the outcomes of some action declarations, like "I search for secret doors."
> 
> That's one possible resolution technique, that also shows us a distinctive use for GM's notes. It's not the only way of resolving such action declarations, and it's not the only way that enables maintenance of fidelity to the "reality" of the gameworld. That's also not the only use that GM's notes might have.



Does thought exist?


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't see this term as helpful at all.  It actually appears to function in a harmful manner, because while you've assumed it means these things, it might not to someone else, even someone claiming it as their approach.  It's a romanticized term that doesn't speak to the actual methods of play, and, as such, harms understanding more than helps it.



I'd disagree.  Romantic notions aside I know what the term means and its a specific and useful term. That said, the way some people use the term isnt useful, so there's that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd disagree.  Romantic notions aside I know what the term means and its a specific and useful term. That said, the way some people use the term isnt useful, so there's that.



Sure, okay, please define it, specifically.  Let's see if everyone using it agrees with your definition, then.  I keep being told that this is a useful term, but no one seems to want to actually define it in stark terms.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Does thought exist?



Yes. Some people think it is a type of non-physical thing or event. Others think that it is a state of, or event in, the brain. At least when speaking loosely, one might also refer to linguistic items - spoken or written words - as encoding thoughts.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd disagree.  Romantic notions aside I know what the term means and its a specific and useful term. That said, the way some people use the term isnt useful, so there's that.



As a useful term, does it largely overlap with what @Manbearcat is calling _setting solitaire_?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Yes. Some people think it is a type of non-physical thing or event. Others think that it is a state of, or event in, the brain. At least when speaking loosely, one might also refer to linguistic items - spoken or written words - as encoding thoughts.



If thought exists, then thought is real.  That means that the RPG game worlds do exist and have reality.  They just have a reality comprised of thought.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> If thought exists, then thought is real.  That means that the RPG game worlds do exist and have reality.  They just have a reality comprised of thought.




The work that “real” does in a conversation about an imagined space for a collection of people to participate in a TTRPG is as it pertains to the following:

* Does it have an actual persistent state that is detached from the attendance of those imagining it.

The answer to that is no. It ceases to exist without the participants.

* Does it have actual volition detached from the attendance of those imagining it.

The answer is no. It has no volition detached from the attendance of those imagining it.


Those are the minimum prerequisite for “real” here. Otherwise, Ouija Boards (and a host of other activities) could not be falsified.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don't think going down the hole of 'is thought real' will answer any relevant questions to how best to run games, what terms to use to describe a sandbox, etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> As a useful term, does it largely overlap with what @Manbearcat is calling _setting solitaire_?




Well I am definitely not going to start calling a living world, setting solitaire. But based on what he saw it didn't look to me entirely like what I would consider a living world to be (but I had trouble understanding his definition of setting solitaire)


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If thought exists, then thought is real.  That means that the RPG game worlds do exist and have reality.  They just have a reality comprised of thought.



This is wrong. There's a huge literature on this topic.

Thought exists. It doesn't follow that the things thought of are real. Right now I'm thinking of Gandalf. My thought is real - an actual event just took place in my brain. (Or, if you prefer, my mind.) It doesn't follow that Gandalf is real, anymore than unicorns are. (Which everyone who read that sentence and understood it just thought about.)

There are various ways of elaborating on what it means for something to be real, or exist. As @Manbearcat has pointed towards upthread, _participating in causal relationships_ is a good test. My thought does - for instance, thinking of things sometimes makes me write them down or type them up.

Gandalf, and unicorns, and the City of Greyhawk, do not participate in causal relationships.

This is why _exploring a gameworld_ is metaphor, whereas _having the GM tell you what s/he is thinking of_ is literal. Only the latter can actually take place.


----------



## Older Beholder

Manbearcat said:


> The first group and approach offers very, very little to the faculty of everyone who is not a savant. *I think this explains why D&D culture has been plagued by such a dearth of GMs (in proportion to its user base) and such a disproportionate amount of crap GMs;* because this Master : Padawan relationship was how the craft was passed down historically (and, simply, it didn’t work at scale and created an enormous amount of discontent). So therefore demystifying the process so that people can actually learn it is how we get better (at large) as a culture of craftsfolk.
> 
> 
> TLDR - GMs aren't Jedis and the only Force they wield is the kind that wrests the trajectory of play from the players/system to themselves...and acting like they are Jedis has made our hobby worse than it could be (because it doesn't produce capable Gamesmasters at scale).




Is this true though? I find more young people DMing than ever, and while new DM’s might not be as good as someone that’s been doing it for 20+ years. Personally I’ve found 1st time DMs these days are much better than when I was starting out in high school in the late 80’s.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is wrong. There's a huge literature on this topic.
> 
> Thought exists. It doesn't follow that the things thought of are real. Right now I'm thinking of Gandalf. My thought is real - an actual event just took place in my brain. (Or, if you prefer, my mind.) It doesn't follow that Gandalf is real, anymore than unicorns are. (Which everyone who read that sentence and understood it just thought about.)



This is a Strawman of what I said.  I said that the game world was real as a thought, not that a real world suddenly sprang into being because you thought about it.  When I said that the game world is real, it is real as a thought.  It has reality, even if it's not a tangible reality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> This is why _exploring a gameworld_ is metaphor, whereas _having the GM tell you what s/he is thinking of_ is literal. Only the latter can actually take place.




This I think though simplifies greatly what is going on. The experience isn't simply one of being told what the GM is thinking, you are exploring the model the GM is thinking in his head, and you do so by telling the GM what you want to do, how you are looking, and the GM responds by telling you what you see, resolving any actions you take. The GM can be imagining a model in his mind that has parameters and is mapped out objectively. And that is different than if the GM were making it all up as you went along (there is a difference I think if you are facing a house with two doors, and the GM has decided in advance what is behind those two doors (say a dire wolf in one, and a healing priestess in the other), and what doors and chambers lie beyond the rooms behind the doors, than if the GM makes sure the first room you go into has a dire wolf and doesn't really have it mapped out in his mind.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> This is a Strawman of what I said.  I said that the game world was real as a thought, not that a real world suddenly sprang into being because you thought about it.  When I said that the game world is real, it is real as a thought.  It has reality, even if it's not a tangible reality.



All "real as thought" means here is _imagined_. Unicorns are also "real as thought" in exactly the same way. But that doesn't mean they're real. In fact they're not. And their non-reality is not just a lack of tangible reality. It's a lack of reality per se.



Bedrockgames said:


> This I think though simplifies greatly what is going on. The experience isn't simply one of being told what the GM is thinking, you are exploring the model the GM is thinking in his head, and you do so by telling the GM what you want to do, how you are looking, and the GM responds by telling you what you see, resolving any actions you take. The GM can be imagining a model in his mind that has parameters and is mapped out objectively. And that is different than if the GM were making it all up as you went along



No one is disputing the difference between _the GM telling you something s/he already worked out_ - for convenience, let's call it "notes" - and _the GM telling you something s/he is making up now._

But neither is any literal sense an exploration of anything. You're not "exploring" the GM's mind. You're asking questions and getting answers. When you say _I open the door _and the GM says _you see a dog behind it_, the action declaration poses the question _what is behind the door _and the GM answers it by reference to his/her notes (on the premise that she's not just making it up).

This isn't terribly opaque or complicated as a process. I read explanations of it when I was a child. There's no need to shroud it in obscurity.


----------



## Aldarc

ModestModernist said:


> Is this true though? I find more young people DMing than ever, and while new DM’s might not be as good as someone that’s been doing it for 20+ years. Personally I’ve found 1st time DMs these days are much better than when I was starting out in high school in the late 80’s.



There are a number of videos out there on DMing. Some of them have a "DM as mystic" approach, while others are about "demystifying DMing." I find that its these latter ones that are the most helpful for newcomers, while the former seem to mostly exist to aggrandize the DM and their sense of authority.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> This I think though simplifies greatly what is going on. The experience isn't simply one of being told what the GM is thinking, you are exploring the model the GM is thinking in his head, and you do so by telling the GM what you want to do, how you are looking, and the GM responds by telling you what you see, resolving any actions you take. The GM can be imagining a model in his mind that has parameters and is mapped out objectively. And that is different than if the GM were making it all up as you went along (there is a difference I think if you are facing a house with two doors, and the GM has decided in advance what is behind those two doors (say a dire wolf in one, and a healing priestess in the other), and what doors and chambers lie beyond the rooms behind the doors, than if the GM makes sure the first room you go into has a dire wolf and doesn't really have it mapped out in his mind.



I have read through your posts, and I'm thankful for all that you posted clarifying your approach. I feel that we are approaching some progress in our discussion, which is always welcome. Some of my own personal takes to those posts have already been said by @Campbell, so I would mostly be repeating things. 

This is a fairly nice summation of the underlying process though. However, here this does make it metaphorically sound like "GM as spirit medium" or "GM as telephone operator." In order to engage the world, the players are primarily engaging the GM in order to decipher and interact with the apparitional fiction. IMO, this post also shows that there is a difference between "GM as spirit medium" who prioritizes a living world and one who does not. Also, this somewhat comes across as "playing to discover what the GM is thinking," where "playing to discover the world" for players requires first "playing the GM," which is a situation I think nearly all of us have experienced firsthand. 

@Manbearcat's whole "Setting Solitaire" analogy does seem apt. A lot of sandbox games, including Kevin Crawford's fantastic distillation thereof, focus on providing the GM with tools to help support their role in generating a sandbox campaign. When we look at what those tools are doing, many of those tools are a lot about generating/running kingdoms, factions, and NPCs in the background of and (at least partially) independent of the PCs. The PCs may affect through their actions which things get generated by the GM first, but the GM is still running other setting programs in the background until the PCs decide to engage them. This also seems fairly contingent with what @Lanefan's approach where the setting is much bigger than and self-reliant from the PCs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> This is a fairly nice summation of the underlying process though. However, here this does make it metaphorically sound like "GM as spirit medium" or "GM as telephone operator." In order to engage the world, the players are primarily engaging the GM in order to decipher and interact with the apparitional fiction. IMO, this post also shows that there is a difference between "GM as spirit medium" who prioritizes a living world and one who does not. Also, this somewhat comes across as "playing to discover what the GM is thinking," where "playing to discover the world" for players requires first "playing the GM," which is a situation I think nearly all of us have experienced firsthand.




I don't see it as GM as spirit medium. I see it as the GM is literally imagining a model, and the players are trying to explore the model the players are imagining [EDIT: GM is imagining] through a two way street of communication. My problem with Pemerton's description is he tends to reduce it to a one way street (the GM tells the players). And I think overall a lot of the description of what is going on just feels reductive to me, a bit constraining. But what the players try to assert they are doing in that mental model is an important piece of the exchange here. The idea is what the GM is thinking is a mental model of a world. On a small scale that is very possible. I can imagine a house with six rooms, what is in those rooms, or better yet, I can imagine a house with six rooms lived in by a family of four (and know who each of those people are, what kinds of things they like to do, and what they have in the house). And the players can force the GM to expand this model ("who lives next door"----which will force him to form a model of another place). My point is it isn't the telling of things that matter here. What matters is the models the GM keeps producing in his head, and how the players tackle that model. I can also imagine very broad scale a world (who the gods of the world are, what the rough sketches of its past are, what key places there are etc). This is where notes, maps, etc help the GM to elaborate on the mental model and pin things down for the purpose of memory. So the model can get quite extensive. Still you will always have those moments of expansion (whether the PC are literally pushing beyond the established geography or exploring the established geography in greater granularity. My sense is the GM is always imagining something clearly in their mind. And that is the thing being explored. I think where the world can "disappear here" is those expansions can get lost to memory (this is why taking notes can be helpful). And if the players play in such a world long enough, it does reach the point where it feels like the sandbox is running itself (like Justin Alexander said). I have had long campaigns where that happens (where the players are familiar enough with the setting that is more like they live there, whereas when it started, even if they were born in the world and their character was 20, they were initially more like a visitor to a new place (they constantly ask the GM questions about who lives where, what religions there are, etc). But a year or so in they could easily be the pope of a church in the setting and know enough about it to  be making meaningful decisions. They also know the geography, the institution, and inhabitants enough that they can just say "I want to go south into the banyan and speak with Lady Plum Blossom to convince her people to support the church's efforts". Before a year in, the players would have to ask "What sects are in the  Banyan Region", "Who is Lady Plum Blossom and what does her sect believe?", etc

I do think it is is pretty clear no one is probably imaging the same model. My banyan might appear different when I think about it than when player A does, or player B. But there are still agreed upon points: there is a banyan, it is south of Li Fan, there are many sects there hiding from the empire, one of them is purple cavern sect (located in the far south of the banyan in the purpose caverns), they are led by lady plum blossom. And having an actual map makes it easier to get everyone on the same page. And again, notes and maps, these all matter. They all serve as foundation. They just aren't dead. We are all able to imagine something very vivid happening in those spaces, helped by the fact that we have notes and a map, but still something that makes the players very much feel like they are there in Li Fan, ruling their own sect from the court of Bone Kingdom.  And ultimately that is the point of this style: that people feel like they are there. As long as that is achieved, and as long as they are able to make meaningful choices, as long as things and people around them interact with them in ways that feel real, then I would say it is more than the GM telling them, or more than them discovering what is in the GM's notes (especially if you are leaving plenty of room for the GM to be surprised---to me this later point is key).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> @Manbearcat's whole "Setting Solitaire" analogy does seem apt. A lot of sandbox games, including Kevin Crawford's fantastic distillation thereof, focus on providing the GM with tools to help support their role in generating a sandbox campaign. When we look at what those tools are doing, many of those tools are a lot about generating/running kingdoms, factions, and NPCs in the background of and (at least partially) independent of the PCs. The PCs may affect through their actions which things get generated by the GM first, but the GM is still running other setting programs in the background until the PCs decide to engage them. This also seems fairly contingent with what @Lanefan's approach where the setting is much bigger than and self-reliant from the PCs.




Sure and these tools exist in a variety of forms (I mentioned my tables for having world events for example). But I think the issue is: this is not the purpose of play. All that stuff you do in the background (and mind you not all GMs tend to that in the same way in a sandbox) is just to create a sense on the large scale that they live in a world (because that is how our world works: things change). But the purpose is more about the small scale. More what that Feast of Goblyns entry was talking about: the change that occurs immediately around the players when they are contending with enemies and allies who are treated as active players----where the GM is running them intelligently, emotionally, etc; making decision about what the NPCs try to do in response to what the players do. That is really the focus here. I do care that the empire in the background is believable, and so through tables or fiat I may occasionally introduce changes (I like having them marked on my calendar in advance if I can---and I find tables are helpful of breaking me out of the same mental patterns, as well as more fair). This is also why I still very much like to use encounter tables on the local level. Sometimes I know enough about the immediate situation that I don't need a table (in the Feast of Goblyns example the players are already embroiled in a plot with Harkon Lukas, so I can simply decide if he tries to meet them on the road or not---in my game probably giving him a survival roll to meet them and asking the players to make one to see if they are able to see him first and avoid him if they choose). Or maybe, instead of going to the PCs, he tries to get to where they are going first and plant false clues or information. It all depends on the situation. 

So if setting solitaire describes that the setting can be managed by the GM alone. That is fair, except the isn't the point of play. I can manage a setting in a vacuum I suppose. But what purpose would that serve? I can't really have this situation with Harkon Lukas come to life unless I have active players with wills of their own pushing against it. It just isn't the same. For me the fun is my own discovery as GM of what this whole situation leads to. Again, I would invoke here the character driven-situational GMing I spoke of earlier as a part of this process.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> But neither is any literal sense an exploration of anything. You're not "exploring" the GM's mind. You're asking questions and getting answers. When you say _I open the door _and the GM says _you see a dog behind it_, the action declaration poses the question _what is behind the door _and the GM answers it by reference to his/her notes (on the premise that she's not just making it up).
> 
> This isn't terribly opaque or complicated as a process. I read explanations of it when I was a child. There's no need to shroud it in obscurity.




Except the GM isn't simply referencing notes. This is why the notes are called a 'snap shot'. Whether the dog is there when the PCs open that door, is up to the GM (based on what is going on, based on some random method for determining these things). The whole point of the living world and the whole point of the feast of goblyns text is you can  have monsters, NPCs and other things in the setting that don't just sit and wait in the rooms for the party. So it isn't as simple as "the gm consults the notes". And it isn't as simple either as the GM just makes it up arbitrarily (if the GM has been playing these monsters and NPCs, there is going to be a logic to where they are in that moment).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> @Manbearcat's whole "Setting Solitaire" analogy does seem apt. A lot of sandbox games, including Kevin Crawford's fantastic distillation thereof, focus on providing the GM with tools to help support their role in generating a sandbox campaign. When we look at what those tools are doing, many of those tools are a lot about generating/running kingdoms, factions, and NPCs in the background of and (at least partially) independent of the PCs. The PCs may affect through their actions which things get generated by the GM first, but the GM is still running other setting programs in the background until the PCs decide to engage them. This also seems fairly contingent with what @Lanefan's approach where the setting is much bigger than and self-reliant from the PCs.




And I am a fan of Crawford as well. Most sandbox GMs are (even those who take different approaches than he does). His material is widely respected for a reason. But he also talks about living worlds in Stars without Number:









The only area where I'd quibble, at least form an underlying assumption in this section and the one that comes before it, I think sandboxes and living worlds can have genre conventions baked into them. The world doesn't have to be purely run on what I'd call "History logic" or "game of thrones" logic, it can be run on Seven Deadly Venoms logic, or Goodfellas logic. I always like to talk about establishing what franchise the players are in for example. I do agree though on having the NPCs act when they'd act, rather than a dramatically appropriate time (even when I am doing genre stuff: you can see that kind of thinking in the boxes tracking how many days before Feast Beetle Li kills the abductee and in the boxes tracking how long before she drops the beetles on the PCs themselves-----part of the reason for doing this is to make sure I am not tempted to have a final moment rescue (the possibility is there, but more likely the players arrive well before or well after). And the one part here I might actively disagree with, though it has been a while since I've read this whole section so I might simply be misunderstanding his point, is NPCs acting without reference to what the PCs are doing or have done. I don't think he intends this meaning, though he may, but that doesn't seem to leave as much room for the NPC to be responding to actions the players are taking and to adjust their plans accordingly. For example I often pay a lot of attention to intelligence gathering done by NPCs. An NPC who is dealing with the party, very likely will send people to follow them, or use an information network to acquire info about them. And if any of that is done, I will actively be tracking how that is happening (in order to give the players a fair shake: so they might potentially see someone following them, or might hear someone has been asking about them). I doubt Crawford is against this. But I think that phrasing might suggest something more like the setting solitaire Manbearcat talked about, that I don't think living world is meant to capture (I can at least say for me, the player characters, their actions, and the synergy that creates with NPCs are very important in a living world)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also I want to be clear about something I just said: I think one could probably have a sandbox where the NPCs acted at dramatically appropriate moments, but I don't know how you would do it while avoiding the problem of it feeling like the NPC is just waiting for the players to show up at the lair at the right time, or the NPC is destined to appear at a dramatic moment regardless of what choices the players have made. I like to do genre, but this is one area I have been cautious around because, at least as far as I can see, it seems to undermine some of  the living world assumptions I find important. I just might have not thought about it enough. Maybe someone has tackled this issue. What I find tends to happen with genre in sandboxes I run, is there are genre features and logic you can easily pull into a living world sandbox, and there are some that feel at odds with the core idea. I don't think it is a choice between 'historical realism' on one hand and 'flash gordon' on the other though


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I have read through your posts, and I'm thankful for all that you posted clarifying your approach. I feel that we are approaching some progress in our discussion, which is always welcome. Some of my own personal takes to those posts have already been said by @Campbell, so I would mostly be repeating things.



This is something at least. Lol, I disagreed with most of Campbell's points though, so I think i should probably assume we still disagree. But if we at least understand one another better, that is an improvement.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't see it as GM as spirit medium. I see it as the GM is literally imagining a *spirit*, and the players are trying to explore the *spirit* the players are imagining through a two way street of communication *via the GM (Game Medium)*.









Little difference to me. 



Bedrockgames said:


> But what the players try to assert they are doing in that mental model is an important piece of the exchange here. The idea is what the GM is thinking is a mental model of a world. On a small scale that is very possible. I can imagine a house with six rooms, what is in those rooms, or better yet, I can imagine a house with six rooms lived in by a family of four (and know who each of those people are, what kinds of things they like to do, and what they have in the house). And the players can force the GM to expand this model ("who lives next door"----which will force him to form a model of another place). My point is it isn't the telling of things that matter here. What matters is the models the GM keeps producing in his head, and how the players tackle that model. I can also imagine very broad scale a world (who the gods of the world are, what the rough sketches of its past are, what key places there are etc). This is where notes, maps, etc help the GM to elaborate on the mental model and pin things down for the purpose of memory. So the model can get quite extensive.



So playing to discover the GM's models? Either way, the major emphasis that repeatedly comes up in your descriptions of your play process is that the players are primarily engaging the GM, whether that's the GM's mind, notes, or models in order to suss out the world. The GM is basically the sole intermediary (and adjudicator) - i.e., the Pontifex Maximus, the Primate of the Table, the Vicar of Fiction, the Supreme Pontiff of the Imagined Setting, etc. - between the players and the GM's world in this process. IMHO, any formulation of "playing to discover X_____" for such a game will have to take stock of the GM as the predominate intermediary/filter of this fictional discovery process. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Sure and these tools exist in a variety of forms (I mentioned my tables for having world events for example). But I think the issue is: this is not the purpose of play.



I didn't say that they are the purpose of play, but, rather, that they are meant to support that "Setting Solitaire" process, so to speak.



Bedrockgames said:


> So if setting solitaire describes that the setting can be managed by the GM alone. That is fair, except the isn't the point of play. I can manage a setting in a vacuum I suppose. But what purpose would that serve? I can't really have this situation with Harkon Lukas come to life unless I have active players with wills of their own pushing against it. It just isn't the same. For me the fun is my own discovery as GM of what this whole situation leads to. Again, I would invoke here the character driven-situational GMing I spoke of earlier as a part of this process.



I suspect that to some the issue with the idea of this being "character drive-situational GMing" is that it can feel, again for others who aren't necessarily you, that the characters aren't so much driving the car, but, rather, sitting in the back seats of the car and making assorted requests of the driver. They may feel like they are making choices, but they are still at the whim of the driver. It may feel like a difference of semantics, but that's where the rub may lie. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Also I want to be clear about something I just said: I think one could probably have a sandbox where the NPCs acted at dramatically appropriate moments, but I don't know how you would do it while avoiding the problem of it feeling like the NPC is just waiting for the players to show up at the lair at the right time, or the NPC is destined to appear at a dramatic moment regardless of what choices the players have made. I like to do genre, but this is one area I have been cautious around because, at least as far as I can see, it seems to undermine some of  the living world assumptions I find important. I just might have not thought about it enough. Maybe someone has tackled this issue. What I find tends to happen with genre in sandboxes I run, is there are genre features and logic you can easily pull into a living world sandbox, and there are some that feel at odds with the core idea. I don't think it is a choice between 'historical realism' on one hand and 'flash gordon' on the other though



Have you tried Clocks?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that to some the issue with the idea of this being "character drive-situational GMing" is that it can feel, again for others who aren't necessarily you, that the characters aren't so much driving the car, but, rather, sitting in the back seats of the car and making assorted requests of the driver. They may feel like they are making choices, but they are still at the whim of the driver. It may feel like a difference of semantics, but that's where the rub may lie.




Sure, this is subjective. And I've certainly been in purported sandbox/living world games where I felt like my stated actions and words were not really being given consideration and due weight. And for some people this may be an insurmountable problem (they may simply never be happy with a model where the GM has this kind of power). For me, and in my games, I like being surprised as a GM, and I like feeling like the players are driving the direction of the campaign. All I can say is for myself, and for the players I've spoken with when we've run these games, everyone seems to have the same sense of the players choices really mattering, of them not being passive passengers but active forgers of the campaign. Again, this might simply be an experience that sandbox can never make you feel. It might not click. But what I am saying is not that different from what Crawford talks about in the sandbox entry of Stars without Number.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Have you tried Clocks?




I have been reading BitD, and these were the reason I picked up the book in the first place. I may use them, but one issue I think could emerge, and its an issue anytime I've tried to develop similar tools for managing things like sect wars and criminal campaigns, is they might be too abstract and not specific enough. It may depend on the group of players though. I've just always had a little trouble deploying tools like this in my games because a lot of the fun for the players is the specifics. However, I may simply not understand clocks well enough. i definitely don't have an issue with clocks. I think they are fine. I just tend to get into specifics when dealing with gang wars, heists, and sect conflict. I've been reading BitD among other RPG books so I still need to set aside a weekend to try out the mechanics rather than just read them. My view so far is it definitely has a different philosophy than I do when it comes to a sandbox, but I think that is welcome (like I said, I think more schools of thought and styles around sandbox are good: I just think making distinctions between them can also be helpful)

That said I have used things like clocks in the past. Not that same model. But just as an example, I've made a lot of rulings in my wuxia campaign when players try to do something like invent a new technique in response to an existing one that is really powerful and needs a counter (think snake in the eagle's shadow), that they need to make a relevant skill roll until they get a 10, and that every ten advances them towards devising the technique (and how many tens they need can vary depending on the technique itself, but lets say they need 5 tens). I might also space out the number of rolls they can make by day or weeks depending on the technique. When players are managing sects similar things have come up (i.e. they want to recruit 200 new disciples, so I rule on how that can incrementally progress in a similar way: and progression may be the result of a roll, or it may be the result of particular actions or achievements). However I've always found it hard to codify and reduce this to one thing (like a clock). I've tried for many years now and always end up running into holes. I've had the same issue with sect building rules. Been making those for years too (have a bunch of documents). And the specifics always end up punching holes in them, so I've leaned on rulings instead. I think I mentioned here or in another thread how this even happened to my official Crimes and Rackets rules I made for Crime Network, where in my own house games I eventually jettisoned them in favor of just handling it based on specifics).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> So playing to discover the GM's models? Either way, the major emphasis that repeatedly comes up in your descriptions of your play process is that the players are primarily engaging the GM, whether that's the GM's mind, notes, or models in order to suss out the world. The GM is basically the sole intermediary (and adjudicator) - i.e., the Pontifex Maximus, the Primate of the Table, the Vicar of Fiction, the Supreme Pontiff of the Imagined Setting, etc. - between the players and the GM's world in this process. IMHO, any formulation of "playing to discover X_____" for such a game will have to take stock of the GM as the predominate intermediary/filter of this fictional discovery process.




I am certainly not denying the GM has power over the world. The  GM is arbiter of the setting. That is, I think, part of the point of contention here. But I don't think that power is absolute even in the hardest old school sandbox. The GM still has to consider the sensibilities of the players. What I mean is, my rulings, my decisions about what happens in the setting, they can only steer so far away from the players sense of what is believable. It isn't just about satisfying my own sense of believability. I have a group of people before me, who will make their opinions known if I make a questionable call, if they feel they are not being given adequate freedom to explore, if they feel something should have succeeded that didn't, etc. Their power isn't codified into mechanic like it is in Drama System, and that lack of codification does make for a different experience, and I think that different experience is very important in a living world sandbox, but its still a more fluid and porous conversation than the GM just telling players what they see and what happens. The players have input. But yes, everyone at the table in this kind of game is on board with the GM being the intermediary. That is considered the feature and what makes it work. But it is important for the Gm to be guided by principles that make a living world sandbox functional. A GM who imposes a story on the players, a GM who doesn't follow a lot of the kind of advice you see in the stars without numbers GM section, is going to provide a frustrating sandbox experience to the players (and I think in a sandbox frustration usually emerges as players feeling like there is no sense of direction OR feeling like their agency is being thwarted)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I didn't say that they are the purpose of play, but, rather, that they are meant to support that "Setting Solitaire" process, so to speak.




Fair enough. But why call it setting solitaire if that isn't the main purpose? I can say I keep getting hung up on 'the solitaire' bit and my mind goes to an idea of the GM literally playing the game on their own.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Little difference to me.




The difference is, spirits don't exist (or at least their existence is very much in dispute and not acknowledged by science), but mental models of concepts do exist (at least as thoughts). When you call it being a spirit medium, you are pointing to it being all illusionary and con-artistry. When you describe it more accurately as the GM imagines a model in his mind, and the players explore that model (by communicating with the GM) that is a more ground depiction of what is going on (and I think a lot less dismissive---EDIT: not trying to accuse you of being dismissive, just saying that the term feels like a dismissive term).


----------



## Ovinomancer

I had a thought this morning, dunno how illuminating it is, but here goes:

It occurs to me that there's some similarity in the objectives of GMing, even playing, an RPG and some of the things that surround artificial intelligence.  I'm not talking about simulation of a world, a la a video game, but actually what defines artificial intelligence.  This is a murky line, so, in that regard, is similar to what defines successful approaches to game goals.  I'm sure we're all familiar with the Turing test, but for clarity, it's simply the idea that a system achieves AI when it can hold a conversation with a real person and that person cannot tell they are not conversing with another real person.  This is muddy, but I bring it up because of one of the refutations, or criticisms, of the Turing test seems to have some similarities to the topics discussed here -- the Chinese room.

For those unfamiliar, the concept here is that you have a sealed room, where you communicate through an input where you insert things written in Chinese (and this is just the original example, it can be any language), and then the receive a response, also in Chinese, that is so realistic that one can be convinced that there's an actual Chinese speaker in the room.  In reality, the concept is that there's a program, presented as a man in the room, who has a detailed set of responses in books (memory/storage) and just looks up the input in the book and responds with the listed output.  If these books are sufficiently detailed and structured, then the result is indistinguishable from a native speaker, even though the man/computer does not actually speak Chinese.

So, what's my point?  To start, in a number (most? all?) of the approaches, the GM is the man in the room.  The job is to take the inputs from the players (action declarations, questions, etc.) and provide a response that feels like it represents a world so well as to fool the receiver into thinking/feeling that it is real.  The obvious difference here is that we see the man in the room, and we know the 'world' is make-believe, but still this is the fundamental goal, I think, of RPGs -- to feel like/convince yourself that the action/world/story you're playing has some reality.  And, now, we get to my point -- various approaches to GMing are built on both how the instructions "in the room" are encoded and also how these operations are obfuscated so as to increase the level of "convincingness."

The goal that's based on the GM as the central font of fiction for the setting/resolution of actions is much closer, in effect, to the original Chinese room throught experiment.  The GM is receiving the inputs and providing outputs in a way to make the players feel like they're interacting with a "real" world.  I think a large problem in these discussions is that the GMs have convinced themselves of this as well, and it's hard to step back at look at the role clinically.  Still, this is, obviously, an effective approach to generating the "feel" sought.  In this example, the GM is using a strong set of "instructions" to respond to inputs -- the prep or conception of the fiction based on prep and forethought.  The GM has put a lot of work into their instruction books and so is creating responses to inputs that have a coherence and "feel" that is convincing (as always, I'm assuming competent and good faith play).

Other approaches, such as story now, modify this in various ways.  They focus more on an algorithmic instruction set rather than a detailed one.  This produces results, but those results are far more dependent on the inputs because the algorithm doesn't have a detailed set of instructions/responses and so must create based on input.  

In both cases, there are large windows into the room where players can actually watch the operations, if they're inclined.  Or, they can not look in the windows and focus on the outputs.  I think a lot of discussions here get bogged down in claims that you can see through the window of approach 2, but not through approach 1, when, in reality, the windows are just in different places, or look into different parts of the room.

This makes sense to me, and seems to put the different approaches into the same place -- attempting to model/create/describe a world that feels "real" to the players.  It addresses the different approaches, and how they work, within the analogy to the Chinese room.  It, to me, also explains why it's difficult to grasp the differences in approach if you're unwilling to look critically at how your chosen approach works.  For me, I use a lot of different instruction sets in my rooms, depending on the game I want to play and what I want out of it.  None of them are creating an actual "real" world, just like the Chinese room doesn't create an actual "real" Chinese speaker, but we can all hope to pass our own Turing tests, right?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> All "real as thought" means here is _imagined_. Unicorns are also "real as thought" in exactly the same way. But that doesn't mean they're real. In fact they're not. And their non-reality is not just a lack of tangible reality. It's a lack of reality per se.



Either thoughts are real, or they are not.  If they are real, and you've already stated that they are, then so are the the worlds comprised of such thought.  They are real while you are imagining them, and are not when nobody is thinking of them.  In a group playing roleplaying games, the world is a shared imagined(thought) reality.  And yes, unicorns are also just as real while you are thinking of them.  They just don't have an independent reality like my car does.


----------



## Manbearcat

ModestModernist said:


> Is this true though? I find more young people DMing than ever, and while new DM’s might not be as good as someone that’s been doing it for 20+ years. Personally I’ve found 1st time DMs these days are much better than when I was starting out in high school in the late 80’s.






Aldarc said:


> There are a number of videos out there on DMing. Some of them have a "DM as mystic" approach, while others are about "demystifying DMing." I find that its these latter ones that are the most helpful for newcomers, while the former seem to mostly exist to aggrandize the DM and their sense of authority.




My statement was about the totality of the last 40 years. Over that course of that span, the output of GMing (in any/all of % of user base, base competency, upper level competency, breadth of competency) has not been good. If we’ve seen a recent upward tick in any/all of the above 4, that doesn't make a case for the 40 year model of Jedi : Padawan relationship and the mystifying of the craft as being helpful. In fact, it’s almost surely has to be the opposite (as @Aldarc notes above) given the regime change we’ve seen as of late with respect to this (recent spate of extremely well-designed games, more robust analysis on game design and how to design to specific play priorities, how to GM to specific play priorities, and greater access to functional/technical tutorials) would be the corresponding factor to any uptick in GMing capability.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> I think a lot of discussions here get bogged down in claims that you can see through the window of approach 2, but not through approach 1, when, in reality, the windows are just in different places, or look into different parts of the room.




This is a great post and I agree with most of it.  I think I would add the following however:

* A much larger part of the output of this instantiation of a "Turing Test" is the product of observer bias vs the classical Turing Test.

There are serious culture war echoes, native cognitive states, and applied exposure to alternative approaches to play that haunt this discussion whereas the typical Turing Test isn't saddled with baggage like an "AI Culture War" and/or humans who are neurologically or experientially positioned such that they are challenged when tasked with grokking the nature/veracity of interaction with other humans (or simulacrums thereof).

The above creates a situation where its more than just haggling over location of the windows in various approaches.  Its that + one side is all windows and the other is no windows + "the first rule of Window Club is we do not talk about Window Club + "these window washers have brain damage and here is a deluge of academic theory that turns off 99 % of humans on the planet" + "these ivory tower window washers have these wrong ideas about how we play, they think they're better than us, they're douchey Swine, don't cede any point/term/piece of analysis to them ever."


----------



## Campbell

My personal opinion is that any world that is small enough to fit inside the confines of a single person's head is not worthy of its label. That professional actors spend months preparing to take on the role of a single person where their words are provided for them and still often feel like they could have done better. I feel like we can do an adequate of reasoning about the fiction in extremely limited contexts, but the idea that we could ever hold a whole world in our head is fanciful. By the way that does not mean that the pursuit is not valuable, but if we want to do the best we can as GMs in whatever discipline I think we should not delude ourselves as to the enormity of the task and the fact that we will all fall short.

That's all fine because in falling short we still accomplish a lot. We create something that has meaning to us. We get to experience our own world in a different way through the barest glimpses of another world.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Either thoughts are real, or they are not.  If they are real, and you've already stated that they are, then so are the the worlds comprised of such thought.  They are real while you are imagining them, and are not when nobody is thinking of them.  In a group playing roleplaying games, the world is a shared imagined(thought) reality.  And yes, unicorns are also just as real while you are thinking of them.  They just don't have an independent reality like my car does.




I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.

But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter. 

It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you, in the name of all that is just and good to stop.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> My personal opinion is that any world that is small enough to fit inside the confines of a single person's head is not worthy of its label. That professional actors spend months preparing to take on the role of a single person where their words are provided for them and still often feel like they could have done better. I feel like we can do an adequate of reasoning about the fiction in extremely limited contexts, but the idea that we could ever hold a whole world in our head is fanciful. By the way that does not mean that the pursuit is not valuable, but if we want to do the best we can as GMs in whatever discipline I think we should not delude ourselves as to the enormity of the task and the fact that we will all fall short.
> 
> That's all fine because in falling short we still accomplish a lot. We create something that has meaning to us. We get to experience our own world in a different way through the barest glimpses of another world.




Justin Alexander is an actor do I would be curious about his input here since he talks of sandboxes and living worlds (and I have an actor in my group do I would be happy to get his input). But again these are models emulating a combination of life and fiction. And the point of notes is to help expand that model beyond the bounds of your normal capacity to visualize one (and to retain the parameters, details and boundaries you might forget). No one is arguing that something with the details of a real world is being created. But it is world building in the mold of people like Asimov, Herbert, Howard and Clarke. It is essentially, in my view a thought experiment. I do think I do a pretty decent job, and I think one area I am pretty good at is institutions, npcs and what I would call Braudelian structures structures of daily life and forces of history. But it is still a game. It is still meant to be fun. It is still a world largely governed by things like random rolls.
In terms of language. Sone people comprehend through analogy, sone parables, some the kind of language we see on this thread: I find Living world a powerful image to help crystallize the concept. It is a goal, similar to his being a fair arbiter is a goal.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> My personal opinion is that any world that is small enough to fit inside the confines of a single person's head is not worthy of its label. That professional actors spend months preparing to take on the role of a single person where their words are provided for them and still often feel like they could have done better. I feel like we can do an adequate of reasoning about the fiction in extremely limited contexts, but the idea that we could ever hold a whole world in our head is fanciful. By the way that does not mean that the pursuit is not valuable, but if we want to do the best we can as GMs in whatever discipline I think we should not delude ourselves as to the enormity of the task and the fact that we will all fall short.
> 
> That's all fine because in falling short we still accomplish a lot. We create something that has meaning to us. We get to experience our own world in a different way through the barest glimpses of another world.




The implications of this on what I was speaking about above shouldn't be overlooked as well.

How many would-be GMs have passed on trying their hand because of exactly what you're depicting above?  When you make something sound like its reserved only for the most profoundly gifted (those who can functionally model an entire world in their head; eg no one) while simultaneously failing to demystify the actual process and limits of GMing, you're ensuring a low % of the user base confidently working toward being functional GMs.

This hasn't exactly helped our hobby.  More GMs, better GMs, more and better GMs make for more games and more better games.  And I suspect most of us feel that running games and partaking in TTRPGs cognitively enhances people (and absolutely kids in their developmental stages).

So basically what I'm saying is that with great power comes great responsibility.  D&D culture is Spider Man who turned evil.  It could have saved the world.  We could have world peace and Humanity 3.0.  Instead we have genocide and climate change and profound civil strife and wealth inequality and pandemics and the Yankees and people that don't understand that Michael Jordan is the GOAT and space shuttles that don't work.

Thanks D&D.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.
> 
> But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.
> 
> It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you, in the name of all that is just and good to stop.




D&D <head shake>


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> How many would-be GMs have passed on trying their hand because of exactly what you're depicting above?  When you make something sound like its reserved only for the most profoundly gifted (those who can functionally model an entire world in their head; eg no one) while simultaneously failing to demystify the actual process and limits of GMing, you're ensuring a low % of the user base confidently working toward being functional GMs.




But no one is saying that. I hope you understand that the way you talk about games, comes across as if it is a language "... reserved only for the most profoundly gifted". I am not saying RPG theory and vocabulary doesn't have utility, but I find it deeply, deeply confusing. And that isn't a statement against you. I probably process and understand things differently from you (I am not a science guy, not a jargon guy and not an engineering guy, my background is history, philosophy and music----and I generally don't like to make my gaming language as confusing as philosophy because philosophy literally comes with a dictionary of terms you need to understand in order to navigate it----and philosophy takes a long time when you are reading individual books, essays and articles to understand). And I am really not trying to knock how you approach analyzing and speaking about games. I am just trying to get you to appreciate I really can't approach RPGs that way. I find it makes the whole process that much more difficult for me. And I very often find myself at odds with your conclusions (and the certainty with which you hold your conclusions creates a lot of frustration on my part: not saying this to anger or debate, simply saying it so you can see my point of view)  

But we are only talking about the use of living world in sandbox campaigns, which are niche: this is not generally an entry point into the hobby. There are tons of other adventure structures out there that are more mainstream and more likely to be entry points (and I think many of those do get good treatment). Even so, people here have pointed to and praised the description of living world sandboxes by writers like Kevin Crawford (who specifically addresses readers who may feel overwhelmed, intimidated by, or confused by the concept and what it entails). And most descriptions of this sort of thing merely begin with concepts like the living world, they almost always delve deeper into what is going on (I linked a series of step by step posts by Rob Conley for example; and Justin Alexander frequently breaks down many different kinds of adventure structures in ways that are meant to be understood by people who haven't run them (including Sandboxes and Hex Crawls).


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.
> 
> But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.
> 
> It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you, in the name of all that is just and good to stop.




I think this is actually a bit of a linguistic chaos overall, but I think maxperson isn't any more responsible than anyone else. He is simply asserting that the thought of something is a real thought. He is, I believe and he can correct me if I am wrong, expression the same thing I am trying to convey when I talk about how one can in fact imagine a model with details and parameters that are set in the way that a real place would be (i.e. my real house has 5 rooms, and the house I am imagining has 5 rooms). 

I have to admit Hawkeye, when I see posts like this, they seem a little bullying to me. One of the things I respond to negatively in these threads is the sense that I am sometimes being sneered at or belittled (or thought of as less intelligent) and that is reinforced when I see posters crap on something I say and dismiss it with statements like they could understand the conclusions even as a child (suggesting that those of us who don't agree, are childlike or even less intelligent than children). This is the kind of shaming rhetoric I pointed to earlier.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> But no one is saying that. I hope you understand that the way you talk about games, comes across as if it is a language "... reserved only for the most profoundly gifted". I am not saying RPG theory and vocabulary doesn't have utility, but I find it deeply, deeply confusing. And that isn't a statement against you. I probably process and understand things differently from you (I am not a science guy, not a jargon guy and not an engineering guy, my background is history, philosophy and music----and I generally don't like to make my gaming language as confusing as philosophy because philosophy literally comes with a dictionary of terms you need to understand in order to navigate it----and philosophy takes a long time when you are reading individual books, essays and articles to understand). And I am really not trying to knock how you approach analyzing and speaking about games. I am just trying to get you to appreciate I really can't approach RPGs that way. I find it makes the whole process that much more difficult for me. And I very often find myself at odds with your conclusions (and the certainty with which you hold your conclusions creates a lot of frustration on my part: not saying this to anger or debate, simply saying it so you can see my point of view)
> 
> But we are only talking about the use of living world in sandbox campaigns, which are niche: this is not generally an entry point into the hobby. There are tons of other adventure structures out there that are more mainstream and more likely to be entry points (and I think many of those do get good treatment). Even so, people here have pointed to and praised the description of living world sandboxes by writers like Kevin Crawford (who specifically addresses readers who may feel overwhelmed, intimidated by, or confused by the concept and what it entails). And most descriptions of this sort of thing merely begin with concepts like the living world, they almost always delve deeper into what is going on (I linked a series of step by step posts by Rob Conley for example; and Justin Alexander frequently breaks down many different kinds of adventure structures in ways that are meant to be understood by people who haven't run them (including Sandboxes and Hex Crawls).




Good post broadly.

Just a couple things:

1) The way I write and the way I talk when I’m analyzing any subject isn’t remotely the same way I run games. I probably talk and think and write (short-hand) about 3-4 different ways depending upon what I’m doing.

So here I’m just saying that a certain sort of faculty with language (the type you’re talking about here) is no indicator  of the ability to run games well.

Theatrical ability (or lack there of) isn’t either.

2) 

*Creativity

* Empathy and the ability to read social cues

* Efficiency in language

* Comprehension and information uptake (the ability to be mentally disciplined/organized/coherent)

* The ability to mentally cross-reference and integrate multiple axes of information simultaneously

Those are all key areas of GMing aptitude. My position is that your self-described aptitude make you more “gifted” in these things. The last 2 are skills that need to be honed. By anyone and everyone GMing. There are only a few ways to get better at those:

* Exposure to cognitive frameworks + tricks and training

* Practice, structure, and discipline 

Put another way, “practice doesn’t make perfect...perfect practice makes perfect.”

That is why my interest lies in making this area improved for all TTRPG players and would-be GMs especially.


----------



## Manbearcat

Quick addendum to the above post.

My position on these things is surely driven by my martial life (not academic). “Perfect practice makes perfect” is an axiom in sports and martial arts but it absolutely applies to GMing. What it means is:

1) Fundamentally understand what you’re trying to do:


1st principles.
Discrete concepts and holistic concept.

2) Develop your base and be technically sound in doing so.

3) Attack your weaknesses and be technically sound in doing so (make them your strengths).

4) Improve your strengths and be technically sound in doing so.


It defies all logic how GMs are encouraged to just jump right in whole hog without this path above. If you don’t fundamentally understand what you’re doing and don’t work on fundamentals and developing your base, it’s inevitable that you’re going to pick up technical flaws and bad habits (overwhelmingly cognitive habits in the craft of GMing). Those become hardwired because theyre formed in the crucible of a high stress situation of full-on running a game. And then you have to put in a lot of work to undo them and rewire yourself.

Or...more likely...people just quit.

New GMs should practice the constituent parts of their GMing with a friend or friends, for a nice stretch, long before they ever run a full game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Good post broadly.
> 
> Just a couple things:
> 
> 1) The way I write and the way I talk when I’m analyzing any subject isn’t remotely the same way I run games. I probably talk and think and write (short-hand) about 3-4 different ways depending upon what I’m doing.
> 
> So here I’m just saying that a certain sort of faculty with language (the type you’re talking about here) is no indicator  of the ability to run games well.
> 
> Theatrical ability (or lack there of) isn’t either.



To be clear here I wasn't assuming anything about how you game at the table. I was talking purely about communication of game concept s and analysis. 

Also I agree about faculty with language and theatrical ability. My style is very non-actor like (I speak dryly, mostly I am concerned about what the characters say, not how they say it). I have a handful of theatrical players and they can add to a game, but I am on the opposite side of that spectrum (I can occasionally jump into 'comedian mode' and exaggerate an NPC persona for effect, but that is more an out of character commentary usually.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Quick addendum to the above post.
> 
> Ny position on these things is surely driven by my martial life (not academic). “Perfect practice makes perfect” is an axiom in sports and martial arts but it absolutely applies to GMing. What it means is:
> 
> 1) Fundamentally in derstand what you’re trying to do:
> 
> 
> 1st principles.
> Discrete concepts and holistic concept.
> 
> 2) Develop your base and be technically sound in doing so.
> 
> 3) Attack your weaknesses and be technically sound in doing so (make them your strengths).
> 
> 4) Improve your strengths and be technically sound in doing so.
> 
> 
> It defies all logic how GMs are encouraged to just jump right in whole hog without this path above. If you don’t fundamentally understand what you’re doing and don’t work on fundamentals and developing your base, it’s inevitable that you’re going to pick up technical flaws and bad habits (overwhelmingly cognitive habits in the craft of GMing). Those become hardwired because theyre formed in the crucible of a high stress situation of full-on running a game. And then you have to put in a lot of work to undo them and rewire yourself.
> 
> Or...more likely...people just quit.
> 
> New GMs should practice the constituent parts of their GMing with a friend or friends, for a nice stretch, long before they ever run a full game.




I don't know, I think there is room for lots of different approaches to GMing, and I do think this should be fun (not something where people feel like they are training for a big fight every session). Definitely experiment with different techniques, different approaches, but I think we can run into issues if we hold up this ideal of the perfect GM (especially when tastes are so varied: for some folks a GM like matt mercer is perfect, for others they want someone who is more interested in micromanaging the local economy or in bringing really great tactical combat to life at the table.

Maybe it is the striker in me but the idea of being thrown to the fire is one I tend to think  is informative (it is also usually how things were done around here when I started----I realize this does vary by region). I like to think of GMing more like being a stand up comedian, where you only get good by doing it. There is craft to it, but 1) there are different types of comedians, and 2) to improve your craft you have to risk bombing and you need to understand what is happening when you do bomb. One technique I use is when I have a bad session I try to mentally detach myself a little, so I am not troubled by the fact that the session is going badly and instead focusing on figuring out what is going wrong---why the session is going off the rails and seeing and testing techniques to see how much they can push it back. We can have craft and technique, but the goal of all those things in martial arts, is to make them instinctual. If you are taking even a split second to think, that's too much time. In gaming there is a flow and rhythm too and I find I GM best when I am doing so naturally, without really having to think about what I am doing. Occasionally I will be very conscious of something (like "I am going to try this technique now" or "I am going to make a point of thinking about the consequences of what the party just did and how that will play out in the enemy organization").


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Fair enough. But why call it setting solitaire if that isn't the main purpose? I can say I keep getting hung up on 'the solitaire' bit and my mind goes to an idea of the GM literally playing the game on their own.



Ditto, which is why I've thus far avoided engaging with the term.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to admit Hawkeye, when I see posts like this, they seem a little bullying to me.




I don’t see it as bullying. A little hyperbolic, sure....but otherwise a legitimate request to avoid a line of discussion that is a dead end. You said as much yourself.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> New GMs should practice the constituent parts of their GMing with a friend or friends, for a nice stretch, long before they ever run a full game.



For all your talk about wanting to open the doors to more GMs, this idea seems completely counterproductive in that - to me at least - it puts up a rather significant barrier.  If I'm going to GM I'm going to do it now, dammit, not a year from now after a bunch of training and practice. 

Far better that a new GM (first) make sure the players are alright with a rookie GM and (second) just dive in and do it, "learning on the job" through trial and error as things go along.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t see it as bullying. A little hyperbolic, sure....but otherwise a legitimate request to avoid a line of discussion that is a dead end. You said as much yourself.



My post wasn't directed at him. I thought the overall discussion from both sides of it wasn't going to help shed any light on the topic. And I didn't like the direction it was taking. Maybe I read too much into your tone. I feel like people were starting to nitpick his posts on the topic


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.
> 
> But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. *It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.*
> 
> It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you,* in the name of all that is just and good to stop*.



There are posters here, one in particular, that like to use, "But it's not real." as a means of dismissing the other side.  Removing that worn out excuse is a good reason for this tangent, and if you really wanted me to drop it, you wouldn't use language like I bolded above.  I have no inclination to drop something that I feel is valid for a request delivered in a backhanded manner.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Except the GM isn't simply referencing notes. This is why the notes are called a 'snap shot'. Whether the dog is there when the PCs open that door, is up to the GM (based on what is going on, based on some random method for determining these things). The whole point of the living world and the whole point of the feast of goblyns text is you can  have monsters, NPCs and other things in the setting that don't just sit and wait in the rooms for the party. So it isn't as simple as "the gm consults the notes". And it isn't as simple either as the GM just makes it up arbitrarily (if the GM has been playing these monsters and NPCs, there is going to be a logic to where they are in that moment).



I said "the GM answers it by reference to his/her notes (on the premise that she's not just making it up)." I didn't use the word _arbitrarily. _Of course one way of referencing notes is to use them as the basis for non-arbitrary extrapolation.

_Referencing notes _and _making it up _between them cover the field of possibilities. It doesn't take a lot of words to make that point.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Either thoughts are real, or they are not.  If they are real, and you've already stated that they are, then so are the the worlds comprised of such thought.



This is just a non-sequitur.

The following sentence _The Wizard of Oz lives in Emerald City _is a real thing. I just wrote it down. I'll write it down again: _The Wizard of Oz lives in Emerald City_. English speakers can understand it: even those who don't know the story of the Wizard of Oz can tell that the sentence has the  syntax _The [person/entity X] live in [place Y]_ and hence can work out that _the Wizard of Oz_ is a person, and that _Emerald City _is a place.

It does not follow that the Wizard of Oz or Emerald City are real. In fact they're imaginary.

One of the reasons your sentence is a non-sequitur is that you refer to _the worlds comprised of such thoughts_ but there are no such worlds. The sorts of things that are built out of thoughts include _theories_, _novels_, _poems, essays_, perhaps _axiom sets_. But not worlds.

If you're interested in learning more about this, you might read Wikipedia entries on _philosophy of language_, _semantics_, _reference_,_ Frege_, _Russell_ and _Meinong_. One of the best accessible treatments remains Russell's 1912 book _The Problems of Philosophy_ in which he discusses the semantics of _Desdemona's love for Cassio_. (Spoilers for Othello: the point of the example is that _Desdemona loves Cassio_ is a meaningful sentence, but false, because in fact there is no such love - Iago is telling a lie.)



Maxperson said:


> They are real while you are imagining them, and are not when nobody is thinking of them.



No. Dreams aren't real - neither when I'm dreaming nor when I'm not. Nor is Doctor Who. Nor is Elminster. What's real, when I'm imagining these things, is the event of my imagining them.



Maxperson said:


> In a group playing roleplaying games, the world is a shared imagined(thought) reality.



No. Two or more people can think the same sentence (eg _The Wizard of Oz lives in Emerald City_ or _Desdemona loves Cassio_). This is what happens when people get together and create a shared fiction. The fact that they imagining the same things is real. The things they're imagining are not. That's part of the point of using the verb _imagining_!


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is just a non-sequitur.
> 
> The following sentence _The Wizard of Oz lives in Emerald City _is a real thing. I just wrote it down. I'll write it down again: _The Wizard of Oz lives in Emerald City_. English speakers can understand it: even those who don't know the story of the Wizard of Oz can tell that the sentence has the  syntax _The [person/entity X] live in [place Y]_ and hence can work out that _the Wizard of Oz_ is a person, and that _Emerald City _is a place.
> 
> It does not follow that the Wizard of Oz or Emerald City are real. In fact they're imaginary.



Repeating a Strawman does not prevent it from being a Strawman.  I never claimed or argued that they were real places.  You know that, though.  Or should if you're the language expert you portray yourself as.


pemerton said:


> One of the reasons your sentence is a non-sequitur is that you refer to _the worlds comprised of such thoughts_ but there are no such worlds. The sorts of things that are built out of thoughts include _theories_, _novels_, _poems, essays_, perhaps _axiom sets_. But not worlds.



They are not built out of thoughts.  They ARE thoughts.  If they could be built out of thoughts, such that they are no longer thoughts, then they would have some sort of independent reality.


pemerton said:


> No. Dreams aren't real - neither when I'm dreaming nor when I'm not. Nor is Doctor Who. Nor is Elminster. What's real, when I'm imagining these things, is the event of my imagining them.
> 
> 
> No. Two or more people can think the same sentence (eg _The Wizard of Oz lives in Emerald City_ or _Desdemona loves Cassio_). This is what happens when people get together and create a shared fiction. The fact that they imagining the same things is real. The things they're imagining are not. That's part of the point of using the verb _imagining_!



If thoughts are real, and the things we think about(such as worlds) are thoughts(and they are), then those worlds are real in the same sense that the thoughts are real.  They have an intangible existence only when actively being thought about.  It's really an easy concept.


----------



## Bedrockgames

This is exactly the kind of conversational direction I was hoping it wouldn't go. One major problem our hobby has had is people lording degrees over others and humiliating people for not having the same knowledge. If anyone here really wants to help someone learn more, that can and ought to be handled in PM. I am not interested in watching someone with an advanced degree intellectually kick around posters who presumably don't hold those same kinds of degrees.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This is exactly the kind of conversational direction I was hoping it wouldn't go. One major problem our hobby has had is people lording degrees over others and humiliating people for not having the same knowledge. If anyone here really wants to help someone learn more, that can and ought to be handled in PM. I am not interested in watching someone with an advanced degree intellectually kick around posters who presumably don't hold those same kinds of degrees.



His argument amounts to, "Only the event of thinking is real, but the thoughts themselves are not."  I don't care what his degree is, I know that when I'm thinking of something, that thought is real.  The contents of the thought don't have an independent reality, but while I'm thinking the thought, the contents have a reality in that thought.  When I think about Superman, he really exists in that thought, because the thought itself is real.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.





Maxperson said:


> There are posters here, one in particular, that like to use, "But it's not real." as a means of dismissing the other side.



It cannot _possibly _be dismissal of anyone's RPGing to observe that the things that RPGers imagine in the course of play are not real. Anymore than it is dismissive of LotR to note that JRRT made it all up (except for some of the linguistic elements that he derived from Old English and Gothic).

What I am critical of is _accounts of the process of play_ that assert or imply that the fiction is real. Typically this is done in an attempt to deny that the GM is exercising agency in making up fiction. Which is utterly bizarre: the first thing that you learn about GMing, if you read Moldvay Basic or Gygax's AD&D rulebooks, is that the GM has to make some stuff up:

Gary Gygax, _Players Handbook_:​​[O]ne player must serve as the _Dungeon Master_, the shaper of the fantasy milieu. (p 7)​​Sometimes, however, because of close interaction (or whatever other reason) two or more Dungeon Masters will find that their games are compatible to the extent that participants in these individual campaigns can use the characters created in one to adventure in the others. In such cases the Dungeon Masters have created a very interesting "world" indeed, for their milieux will offer interesting differences and subtle shifts which will pose highly challenging problems to these players. (p 8)​​When you go on an adventure, you, and in all probability one or more other characters, will go to explore some _underground_ labyrinth or area of land outdoors. Your Dungeon Master will have carefully prepared a map of the place you and your party are to enter, a map showing all outstanding features of the place, with numbers and/or letters to key encounter/special interest areas. Your DM will give you certain information prior to the odventure - you might have to ask questions of the local populace, or you might have heard rumors or know of legends - so your party can properly equip itself for the expedition, hire men-at-arms, and obtain mounts or whatever in order to have the best possible chance for success . . .  since none of the party will know the dungeon’s twists and turns, one or more of the adventurers will have to keep a record, a map, of where the party has been. Thus you will be able to find your way out and return for yet more adventuring. (p 101)​​_Do not be sidetracked._ A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible. The mappers must note all such things, and another expedition might be in order another day to investigate or destroy something or some monster, but always stay with what was planned if at all possible, and wait for another day to handle the other matters. (p 109)​​​Gary Gyagx, _Dungeon Masters Guide_:​​You, as the Dungeon Master, are about to embark on a new career, that of universe maker. You will order the universe and direct the activities in each game . . . (p 86)​​You are probably lust learning, so take small steps at first. The milieu for initial adventures should be kept to a size commensurate with the needs of campaign participants - your available time as compared with the demands of the players. This will typically result in your giving them a brief background, placing them in a settlement, and stating that they should prepare themselves to find and explore the dungeon/ruin they know is nearby. As background you inform them that they are from some nearby place where they were apprentices learning their respective professions, that they met by chance in an inn or tavern and resolved to journey together to seek their fortunes in the dangerous environment, and that, beyond the knowledge common to the area (speech, alignments, races, and the like), they know nothing of the world. (pp 86-87)​​Set up the hamlet or village where the action will commence with the player characters entering and interacting with the local population. Place regular people, some "different" and unusual types, and a few non-player characters (NPCs) in the various dwellings and places of business. Note vital information particular to each. Stock the goods available to the players. When they arrive, you will be ready to take on the persona of the settlement as a whole, as well os that of each individual therein. Be dramatic, witty, stupid, dull, clever, dishonest tricky, hostile, etc. as the situation demands. The players will quickly learn who is who and what is going on - perhaps at the loss of a few coins. Having handled this, their characters will be equipped as well as circumstances will allow and will be ready for their bold journey into the dangerous place where treasure abounds and monsters lurk. . . .  The general idea is to develop a dungeon of multiple levels, and the deeper adventurers go, the more difficult the challenges become - fiercer monsters, more deadly traps, more confusing mazes, and so forth. This same concept applies to areas outdoors as well, with more and terrible monsters occurring more frequently the further one goes away from civilization. (p 87)​​​Tom Moldvay, _Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game Basic Rulebook_:​​It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. . . . The dungeon is carefully mapped on paper . . . [T]he DM must be willing to spend more time in preparation than the players. . . . An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon . . . [T]he DM describes what the characters can see. One player should draw a map from the DM's descriptions . . . As the player characters move further into the dungeon, more and more of the dungeon is mapped. Eventually, the DM's map and the players' map will look more or less alike. (pp B3-B4)​​When the players have rolled up their characters and bought their equipment, the DM will describe the background of the adventure. This might include information about the place the characters start from, the name of any NPC companions or retainers they will have, and some rumors about the dungeon the party is going to explore. (p B19)​​Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map . . . This section gives a step-by-step guide to creating a dungeon. (p B51)​
Both Gygax (DMG pp 97-100) and Moldvay (pp B59-B60) also provide examples of play, in which we see the players asking questions and declaring actions which trigger the GM to describe some of what s/he has made up.

From Moldvay, p B60:

Morgan: "Fred will force open the door."​DM (rolling): "It opens. You see a square room, 30' on a side and 20' high. Your door is in the west section of the north wall. You don't see any other exits. The room appears to be empty."​
From Gygax's DMG, p 99:

OC: "Wait! If those fish are iust blind cave types, ignore them, but what about the stone formations? Are any of them notable? If so, I think we should check them out."​​DM: "Okay. The fish are fish, but there is one group of minerals in the deepest part of the pool which appears to resemble a skeleton, but it simply - "​​OC: "If the pole will reach, I'll use the end to prod the formation and see if it is actually a skeleton covered with mineral deposits from the water! I know the Shakespearean bit about a 'sea change'!"​​DM: "You manage to reach the place and prodding it breaks off a rib-like piece. You see bone beneath the minerals. As you prod, however, a piece of the formation is caught by the current - a cylindrical piece about a foot long - and it rolls downstream."​
In that last bit from Gygax, we (as readers of the DMG) know that the GM has referred to the notes that Gygax modelled for use earlier (DMG p 96):

THE LIMED-OVER SKELETON OF THE ABBOT is in this pool of water, but it appears to be merely a somewhat unusual mineral formation. Clutched in the bony fingers is the special key which will allow the secret door at location 28to open to the treasury room (29.) rather than to the steps which lead down to the caverns (steps down at 30). If the remains are disturbed in any way, a cylindrical object will be noticed, the thing being dislodged from where it lay by the skeleton, and the current of the stream carrying it south (downstream) at 6” speed.​
None of this should be remotely controversial: the GM makes up some stuff (canonically, a dungeon with map and key) and the players declare actions for their PCs (canonically, involving interaction with the architecture, fittings and contents) and the GM narrates stuff - some of that is what s/he already made up, and some of that is extrapolated therefrom based on the details of what the players say their PCs are doing.

The idea that the rooms, the creatures, the cave-fish, the limed-over abbot skeletons, etc are _real_ is just bonkers!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The idea that the rooms, the creatures, the cave-fish, the limed-over abbot skeletons, etc are _real_ is just bonkers!




No one as far as I can tell is literally saying they are real. The only thing I believe being asserted is they are real thoughts in your mind (you are holding an image of the thing in you mind and this has parameters that you could quantify and to an extent measure: the house is 70 feet tall; has 8 rooms, 3 people, etc). If MaxPerson is asserting more than that, he can certainly contradict me. But I don't believe he is.

I can as an example imagine a melody in my mind. And I can convey this melody perfectly to others playing it on an instrument or putting it down in notation----if I am sufficiently versed it may even be in notated form in my mind. It is even possible to imagine multiple instruments, chords, and a complete song in my mind. The thought fo the song is real. And it can be replicated in the real world. This is not to say there actual music being played or brought into existence. But it has objective qualities and those could be explored by people from the outside. It is the same with the mental model.

Either way though, I really don't think there is much value in us getting into debates about reality itself. We are just trying to establish what is going on at a table when gamers play in a sandbox setting. That shouldn't require bringing Bertrand Russel into the conversation


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> it is world building in the mold of people like Asimov, Herbert, Howard and Clarke.



To the best of my knowledge none of these authors ever asserted that the things they made up were real.

The only one I know much about is REH, by way of the critical editions of Conan and Kull that came out 15 to 20 years ago edited by Patrice Louinet. He adopted the Hyborian Age as a literary device, so that he could write historically-flavoured fiction without having to worry about actual historical details. He could just make stuff up, and if he wanted to evoke an Iberian feel would refer to Zingara and if he wanted to evoke a sense of pyramids and mummies and giant snakes would refer to Stygia.

The whole thing works because it draws on the reader's familiarity with the relevant tropes.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If thoughts are real, and the things we think about(such as worlds) are thoughts(and they are), then those worlds are real in the same sense that the thoughts are real.  They have an intangible existence only when actively being thought about.  It's really an easy concept.



I don't understand what you're saying.

I do understand that your inference _if thoughts are real then the things that we think about are real in the same sense_ is a non-sequitur.

Here is a sentence: _This circle is square. _It's a grammatical sentence of English. It doesn't follow that any square circles exist. It doesn't follow that square circles are as real as the sentence. The sentence is a real thing which anyone reading this post can testify too. Square circles don't exist which I think most people reading this post can also testify to.



Maxperson said:


> His argument amounts to, "Only the event of thinking is real, but the thoughts themselves are not."



No. My argument is _The fact that thoughts are real does not entail that what those thoughts are about is real_.

Your thoughts about Elminster are real. Elminster is not. Not when you're thinking of him. And not otherwise. He's purely imaginary.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> To the best of my knowledge none of these authors ever asserted that the things they made up were real.
> 
> The only one I know much about is REH, by way of the critical editions of Conan and Kull that came out 15 to 20 years ago edited by Patrice Louinet. He adopted the Hyborian Age as a literary device, so that he could write historically-flavoured fiction without having to worry about actual historical details. He could just make stuff up, and if he wanted to evoke an Iberian feel would refer to Zingara and if he wanted to evoke a sense of pyramids and mummies and giant snakes would refer to Stygia.
> 
> The whole thing works because it draws on the reader's familiarity with the relevant tropes.




And I never said they did. You are misreading the intent of my post. 

The point is, even with Conan, he was creating geography, cultures, bits of history. I understand the part about him setting it in pre-history so he could throw in any trope (and frankly I think more RPGs should do this because I am getting a bit tired of the historical and cultural accuracy trends lately: conan is fun and isn't limited by history). He is still building a world (not one that is real like a bagel or the cup of coffee in my hand, but one where he established details and built on them---though obviously Howard isn't as involved in his world building as Asimov or Herbert). My point was just world building is a kind of thought exercise and it can get especially deep in the hands of people who really enjoy (Tolkien is probably the most notable example of that). And when this is done right, it creates a place that is explorable


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The whole thing works because it draws on the reader's familiarity with the relevant tropes.




On this we agree !


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I can as an example imagine a melody in my mind. And I can convey this melody perfectly to others playing it on an instrument or putting it down in notation----if I am sufficiently versed it may even be in notated form in my mind. It is even possible to imagine multiple instruments, chords, and a complete song in my mind. The thought fo the song is real. And it can be replicated in the real world.



Yes. I can also imagine songs in my head. I suspect I am not as musically competent as you, but if I try hard I can imagine two- or sometime three-piece harmonies.



Bedrockgames said:


> This is not to say there actual music being played or brought into existence. But it has objective qualities and those could be explored by people from the outside. It is the same with the mental model.



This is contentious. For instance, the existence of some music doesn't implicate the existence of a space. Whereas the existence of a castle does.

If I think of a melody, and I then play it on the guitar, there is a strict correlation between the notes I imagined and the notes I play. I have reproduced, in the "external" physical world, the music that I thought of.

If I think of a limed over abbot skeleton and then write down that idea, there is no such correlation. No limed over abbot skeleton has been brought into being - rather I've written down some words that might cue me on a later occasion, or some other reader, to imagine the same thing that I first thought of.

Of course it would be different if I actually built the castle or created the limed over skeleton that I imagined. But that's not part of the process of RPGing.



Bedrockgames said:


> I really don't think there is much value in us getting into debates about reality itself. We are just trying to establish what is going on at a table when gamers play in a sandbox setting. That shouldn't require bringing Bertrand Russel into the conversation



I will note that I am _not _the poster who is arguing that imaginary worlds are real.



Bedrockgames said:


> The only thing I believe being asserted is they are real thoughts in your mind



I believe I was the first poster in this thread to make that particular point. @Maxperson is disagreeing with it.



Bedrockgames said:


> you are holding an image of the thing in you mind and this has parameters that you could quantify and to an extent measure: the house is 70 feet tall; has 8 rooms, 3 people, etc



This is not what the typical mental model is like.

The typical GM does not have an _image_ of those things. Anymore than the typical geometry student doing a problem about an icosahedron (let alone a chiliagon)  has a literal image of one in his/her mind. The GM has various sentences in mind, like the ones you have written down. And then there is a map which captures some of that information via standard conventions for drawing floor plans, elevations etc.

In any event, I don't believe that any of this is contentious. Gygax and Moldvay set it all out very clearly. Everyone posting in this thread has done it. But for some reason there are some posters who seem to think it is "dismissive" or "reductive" to point any of this out.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Yes. I can also imagine songs in my head. I suspect I am not as musically competent as you, but if I try hard I can imagine two- or sometime three-piece harmonies.
> 
> 
> This is contentious. For instance, the existence of some music doesn't implicate the existence of a space. Whereas the existence of a castle does.
> 
> If I think of a melody, and I then play it on the guitar, there is a strict correlation between the notes I imagined and the notes I play. I have reproduced, in the "external" physical world, the music that I thought of.
> 
> If I think of a limed over abbot skeleton and then write down that idea, there is no such correlation. No limed over abbot skeleton has been brought into being - rather I've written down some words that might cue me on a later occasion, or some other reader, to imagine the same thing that I first thought of.
> 
> Of course it would be different if I actually built the castle or created the limed over skeleton that I imagined. But that's not part of the process of RPGing.




But you could imagine a place and then map it, you could imagine a house or castle and map it. I am not saying you could imagine a castle that would be functional in terms of architecture. The claim is you are imaging a model that is reproducible


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> world building is a kind of thought exercise and it can get especially deep in the hands of people who really enjoy (Tolkien is probably the most notable example of that). And when this is done right, it creates a place that is explorable



Now we are back to metaphor.

Gygax doesn't use the metaphor. Moldvay doesn't use the metaphor: he talks about the GM drawing a map and the players making a map based on things the GM tells them which will, over time, come to approximate the GM's map.

I don't understand why you are not prepared to discuss techniques using the same plain language as Gygax and Moldvay - who presumably were not being dismissive of the games they had authored.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> But you could imagine a place and then map it, you could imagine a house or castle and map it. I am not saying you could imagine a castle that would be functional in terms of architecture. The claim is you are imaging a model that is reproducible



All _reproducible_ means here is that someone else can think of the same thing. That is not controversial. No one in this thread denies it.

What is being discussed is _how does the reproduction take place?_ Ie how do the players learn the contents of the GM's imagination?

I don't think the answer is very hard. Gygax and Moldvay make it clear enough: the GM tells them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> This is not what the typical mental model is like.
> 
> The typical GM does not have an _image_ of those things. Anymore than the typical geometry student doing a problem about an icosahedron (let alone a chiliagon)  has a literal image of one in his/her mind. The GM has various sentences in mind, like the ones you have written down. And then there is a map which captures some of that information via standard conventions for drawing floor plans, elevations etc.
> 
> In any event, I don't believe that any of this is contentious. Gygax and Moldvay set it all out very clearly. Everyone posting in this thread has done it. But for some reason there are some posters who seem to think it is "dismissive" or "reductive" to point any of this out.



No, I don't think this is the case at all. I don't have any sentences in my mind at all. I only have images. I am not going to say I imagine a whole world or anything. But if my players are standing at the entrance of a dungeon, I see the the entrance to the dungeon, its environs and the rooms of the dungeon in my head (obviously if it is a complex dungeon I may clearly imagine the first several rooms and hold a more general pattern of the rest in my head----again this is why notes are useful). World building is a combination of that and putting it down on paper.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> No, I don't think this is the case at all. I don't have any sentences in my mind at all. I only have images. I am not going to say I imagine a whole world or anything. But if my players are standing at the entrance of a dungeon, I see the the entrance to the dungeon, its environs and the rooms of the dungeon in my head (obviously if it is a complex dungeon I may clearly imagine the first several rooms and hold a more general pattern of the rest in my head----again this is why notes are useful). World building is a combination of that and putting it down on paper.



If this was really true I do wonder how you would tell - from your mental image - whether the walls are 10' or 12' tall. Or whether the corner is a true right-angle or more like 85 degrees.

But my guess is that you supplement your image with verbal descriptions. And that you then write those things down.

And either way, I don't know where you think this is going. No one disputes that GMs can imagine things, and tell those things to other people including RPG players.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> All _reproducible_ means here is that someone else can think of the same thing. That is not controversial. No one in this thread denies it.
> 
> What is being discussed is _how does the reproduction take place?_ Ie how do the players learn the contents of the GM's imagination?
> 
> I don't think the answer is very hard. Gygax and Moldvay make it clear enough: the GM tells them.



And no one is denying the role of speech. What is being debated is the significance of the image you are holding in your mind and how the communication between the GM and the players on the matter plays out (it isn't simply the GM telling them, they are also asserting how they want to interact with this model and there is synergy that takes place there)


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If this was really true I do wonder how you would tell - from your mental image - whether the walls are 10' or 12' tall. Or whether the corner is a true right-angle or more like 85 degrees.
> 
> But my guess is that you supplement your image with verbal descriptions. And that you then write those things down.



The same way I estimate the height of the wall next to my house: I picture it being a certain height and then I guess at the actual footage of it (or if I want I can imagine a little line next to it indicating the height). Again, at some point you want to write these things down. My purpose in the post was to point out many of us do approach this visually and don't think about sentences at all. I think this is a big part of these disagreements. People imagine things differently. They understand things differently. Etc.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> What is being debated is the significance of the image you are holding in your mind



In the sort of play where maps and keys are important, I think that this is very important. As I've posted upthread, it dictates the outcomes of many action declarations the players make for their PCs.

I don't know anymore whether you agree or disagree with that - because upthread I thought you disagreed but now you seem to be agreeing.



Bedrockgames said:


> how the communication between the GM and the players on the matter plays out (it isn't simply the GM telling them, they are also asserting how they want to interact with this model and there is synergy that takes place there)



I don't know what _synergy_ means here. Gygax's explanation is very straightforward: there are notes that tell us how the limed-over skeleton will behave if prodded. If those notes weren't there, then the GM would have to extrapolate something from his/her notes.

In this and other threads I have referred to _players declaring actions for their PCs which oblige the GM to provide information taken from or extrapolated from his/her notes_. This is what Moldvay and Gygax illustrate for us in their examples of play.

As far as I can tell you think that something different is happening, but I don't know what the difference is. I can't tell if you think that Gygax and Moldvay are describing a different process of play from the one you favour, or not. I am describing exactly the same thing that they exemplify.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The same way I estimate the height of the wall next to my house: I picture it being a certain height and then I guess at the actual footage of it (or if I want I can imagine a little line next to it indicating the height). Again, at some point you want to write these things down. My purpose in the post was to point out many of us do approach this visually and don't think about sentences at all.



I think one difference is that if you're not sure how high your house wall is you can measure it. But you can't measure the height of the wall you're imaging. When you imagine the measuring tape hanging down the length of the imaginary wall you have to further imagine what number it shows. There is no objective standard of correctness.

This is also relevant to your remark upthread about a "thought experiment". Thought experiments in mathematics and physics have objective standards of correctness, because they are worked out applying mathematical rules.

RPGing doesn't look like this except in some corner-case instances such as correlating distances, movement rates and time passed.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If this was really true I do wonder how you would tell - from your mental image - whether the walls are 10' or 12' tall. Or whether the corner is a true right-angle or more like 85 degrees.



I think in most instances I wouldn't note something like a two foot difference. I am imagining something in my head and saying to myself "that seems about 10 feet high". But like I said, i can imagine a scale next to it if distance is very important (which it was in the session two days ago that I mentioned). The image I put on the page was in my head before I wrote it down. I am not claiming perfect measurement in my head by any stretch. I am saying I can imagine a workable model. And I think this is something you have to do a lot and cultivate if you run theater of the mind (which is what I always do because I hate tactical grids and miniatures). If you don't want players getting mad at you all the time, you have to really visualize what is going on so you can relay that to your players or note it on paper for them. This is especially the case if you are running theater of the mind, melee combat heavy (wuxia in my case) campaigns.

This is the way I imagine everything. I don't imagine my settings history as text (nor do I imagine real world history as text). I imagine a timeline with things marked not he timeline----and I imagine maps in my head----for example a map of the extent of the Roman Empire at its height. When I think about Caligula for example, I see a timeline with a focus on around 40 AD (he reigned from 37 to 41 AD). Not saying this are prefect mu head. But I am saying I see images not text. When I smell something, I don't see text or have a verbal description, I see color and texture.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I think one difference is that if you're not sure how high your house wall is you can measure it. But you can't measure the height of the wall you're imaging. When you imagine the measuring tape hanging down the length of the imaginary wall you have to further imagine what number it shows. There is no objective standard of correctness.



But numbers provide an objective measure. Again if height of a door is important, I can imagine that. Especially in the kinds of increments that are usually important to gaming (because it is ingrained).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> This is also relevant to your remark upthread about a "thought experiment". Thought experiments in mathematics and physics have objective standards of correctness, because they are worked out applying mathematical rules.



I am saying it is a thought experiment in the sense of counterfactual history or in the sense of thinking about an imaginary situation. So I am using it in the sense of "What would a culture of people who can't die from old age, but can die a violent death look like". Most game worlds are filled with these kinds of thought experiments


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> RPGing doesn't look like this except in some corner-case instances such as correlating distances, movement rates and time passed.



My point is I can imagine a place with things measurable for the purposes of an RPG and I can fill that place with imagined cultures and societies; and these things can be explored


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In the sort of play where maps and keys are important, I think that this is very important. As I've posted upthread, it dictates the outcomes of many action declarations the players make for their PCs.
> 
> I don't know anymore whether you agree or disagree with that - because upthread I thought you disagreed but now you seem to be agreeing.




I am not saying maps are unimportant. Maps matter a great deal. So do the notes. As I said earlier I want to be careful not to define what I am arguing in opposition to your position. My chief complaint is the reduction fo the game to 'discovering the GM's notes'. I think the process is much more involved than that (which I have explained I think)


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't know what _synergy_ means here. Gygax's explanation is very straightforward: there are notes that tell us how the limed-over skeleton will behave if prodded. If those notes weren't there, then the GM would have to extrapolate something from his/her notes.
> 
> In this and other threads I have referred to _players declaring actions for their PCs which oblige the GM to provide information taken from or extrapolated from his/her notes_. This is what Moldvay and Gygax illustrate for us in their examples of play.
> 
> As far as I can tell you think that something different is happening, but I don't know what the difference is. I can't tell if you think that Gygax and Moldvay are describing a different process of play from the one you favour, or not. I am describing exactly the same thing that they exemplify.




Synergy is the way a campaign setting starts to have an energy of its own as the players interact with the GM's setting. To me, it is how the moving parts (the PCs, the NPCs, etc) of the living world create unexpected developments and shift the course of the campaign. I was quoting Justin Alexander from the video I posted where he talks briefly about sandboxes and tries to explain them to people who find them daunting or have had them crash and burn. In the video he talks about this synergy and how the ultimate aim of the sandbox is really to have it run itself. 

Lol. I don't know that Gygax's description is all that straight forward. It depends on whether you are talking about the white box, the AD&D DMG, etc. I don't necessarily disagree. He did say notes were important. He did say the GM speaks to the players. But he also lays out tons of procedures for things like exploring the wilderness, and while he does contrast D&D as a Game versus other games that maybe make greater attempts at simulating realism, he is definitely giving you tools to create a believable world to explore. That said, Gygax always struck me as very engineer like in this respect and focused on maps and exploration. For me the launching point into living world is Ravenloft. I realize other people have different launching points. But the reason I keep pointing to Feast of Goblyns is because it expands on the concept from the module, and for me that was just a moment where I realized you can treat things like NPCs as living characters in the setting (which I hadn't thought to do before 1991: keep in mind I came to the hobby in '86---not by D&D but in a science fiction campaign using a system that I haven't been able to identify since; it is possible it was mechwarrior--- and didn't start GMing myself until 89 with the 2nd edition rules). I like the White Box, the 1E DMG (that was something that especially helped me get away from the EL/CL adventures I was not enjoying in the early 2000s). But my thinking is largely shaped by my discussions with posters like Rob Conley, Clash Bowley and others, various sandbox threads, as well as GM advise from a variety of sources (blogs, rulebooks, etc), the OSR and experimentation with what works and doesn't for me. 

And I like Moldvay, and I appreciate much of his advice, but I don't think I don't think I approach the game entirely the same way he does. He is pretty dungeon focused. I do very much like the Moldvay basic set though. I think it is great example of less is more in an RPG. Though it definitely depends on the type of game I am running. Right now I am talking about living world sandboxes, but that isn't the only thing I run. 

What I am talking about is pretty much not that different from what Crawford describes in stars without number (particularly in the section talking about sandboxes as living worlds).


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> For all your talk about wanting to open the doors to more GMs, this idea seems completely counterproductive in that - to me at least - it puts up a rather significant barrier.  If I'm going to GM I'm going to do it now, dammit, not a year from now after a bunch of training and practice.
> 
> Far better that a new GM (first) make sure the players are alright with a rookie GM and (second) just dive in and do it, "learning on the job" through trial and error as things go along.




Barrier, eh?

Well, I think you're going to have to explain two things:

1)  How is it that the entire world of sport and martial arts and artisans/tradesfolk (from dance to boxing to smithing to football (both) to hockey to basketball to knitting to climbing to cobbling to skateboarding to golfing to woodworking to archery to running to weightlifting to baseball to wrestling to pommel horse to cheesemaking to pole vault etc etc etc etc) have created functional athletes/artisans in the billions (at least 1/4 of the world population is capable in some kind of martial affair or physical trade) range...that don't quit?  Its because humankind has developed a tried and true methodology (as I depicted above) that has been passed down through the ages...that spans all cultures (the overwhelming number of which were indendent from one another).

2)  Why is it that TTRPGs (D&D in particular) has failed miserably over its 40 year arc at pulling anything even close to a 10 % rate of functional GMs out of its population?  I don't know what you guys see, but in my life (physically...I'm not talking about on here or the folks I'm playing games with virtually), I've encountered about 400 TTRPG participants.  Of those participants, only about 25 or so have appreciably tried their hands at GMing for anything approaching a duration sufficient to say "I'm a GM."  Of those 25, not even half are functional to good (and several of those are oblivious to that fact and completely unwilling or incapable of acknowledging their weaknesses and working on them).  So my guess is 10/400ish.  That is a _dreadful _ratio by comparison to (1) above.

It seems like where "the barriers" need to be sussed out is in (2) above (and, again, I'd say that the daylight between the two is likely to be found in what I wrote above on it).  Humankind has done a comparatively excellent job at solving the athlete/artisan/martial artist problem.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I am saying it is a thought experiment in the sense of counterfactual history or in the sense of thinking about an imaginary situation. So I am using it in the sense of "What would a culture of people who can't die from old age, but can die a violent death look like". Most game worlds are filled with these kinds of thought experiments



I don't think it is useful to describe those as _thought experiments_. They're imaginings and speculation.

_How would a culture of people who can't die of old age but can die of violence live? _There's no single objective answer to this question. There are anthropologists and other social thinkers who could offer more or less plausible accounts. Very little RPGing looks like this, though - the only designer to have even tried something along these lines, as far as I know, is Greg Stafford in RuneQuest.

In most cases its just making things up. I don't think it does any sort of disservice to actually call it what it is.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know, I think there is room for lots of different approaches to GMing, and I do think this should be fun (not something where people feel like they are training for a big fight every session). Definitely experiment with different techniques, different approaches, but I think we can run into issues if we hold up this ideal of the perfect GM (especially when tastes are so varied: for some folks a GM like matt mercer is perfect, for others they want someone who is more interested in micromanaging the local economy or in bringing really great tactical combat to life at the table.
> 
> Maybe it is the striker in me but the idea of being thrown to the fire is one I tend to think  is informative (it is also usually how things were done around here when I started----I realize this does vary by region). I like to think of GMing more like being a stand up comedian, where you only get good by doing it. There is craft to it, but 1) there are different types of comedians, and 2) to improve your craft you have to risk bombing and you need to understand what is happening when you do bomb. One technique I use is when I have a bad session I try to mentally detach myself a little, so I am not troubled by the fact that the session is going badly and instead focusing on figuring out what is going wrong---why the session is going off the rails and seeing and testing techniques to see how much they can push it back. We can have craft and technique, but the goal of all those things in martial arts, is to make them instinctual. If you are taking even a split second to think, that's too much time. In gaming there is a flow and rhythm too and I find I GM best when I am doing so naturally, without really having to think about what I am doing. Occasionally I will be very conscious of something (like "I am going to try this technique now" or "I am going to make a point of thinking about the consequences of what the party just did and how that will play out in the enemy organization").




I don't disagree with the whole of this.  Just a couple thoughts though:

1)  I want to make it clear (and to @Lanefan ) that what I have in mind isn't some kind of Rocky montage of a 12 week fight camp with absolutely no actual "at-the-table" GMing.  I don't mean that at all.  What I'm talking about is (a) having a structured plan to both understand what you're doing and hone your craft, (b) work at those fundamentals a bit before you GM (even if its just a session of picking discrete scenes/conflicts, practicing framing, practicing handling action resolution, practicing figuring out complications/fallouts at both the action resolution and scene level, and integrating the whole process), (c) running a game with actual confidence (because of (a) and (b) ), (d) then understanding how to reflect and humbly perform a post-mortem of your GMing, (e) then continuing to practice honing your craft.

2)  I don't know how many comedians you know.  I don't know a ton, but the ones I'm familiar with (I know 2 in real life) actually describe a structured process that hews very closely to what I'm talking about.  Anecdotes of professional comics and guys I know make the tradecraft part of it look like this:

* Always be switched on.  Always have a pen ready to write new material.  You're constantly practicing the cognitive framework.

* Understand your shtick, develop it (these things don't accidentally come together), stick to it.

* Be around other comics as much as possible so you're always bouncing material off of each other.  This is practice.

* Practice your material and delivery in small clubs (even HUGE comics do this regularly) so you're constantly sharping your iron and trying out material with considerably reduced stakes.


That looks exactly like what I'm talking about.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> No. My argument is _The fact that thoughts are real does not entail that what those thoughts are about is real_.



What the thoughts "are about" ARE the thoughts.  They are one and the same.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I don't think it is useful to describe those as _thought experiments_. They're imaginings and speculation.
> 
> _How would a culture of people who can't die of old age but can die of violence live? _There's no single objective answer to this question. There are anthropologists and other social thinkers who could offer more or less plausible accounts. Very little RPGing looks like this, though - the only designer to have even tried something along these lines, as far as I know, is Greg Stafford in RuneQuest.



I think it is pretty clear we disagree on terminology. I find thought experiment a very useful way to think if these things: to me it suggests one seriously thinks through the ramifications to arrive at a compelling conclusion. That there isn’t one objective answer is the appeal (and that is also the appeal of counter factual history: no one can say for sure what the outcome would be had Caesar not been assassinated but it is an interesting exercise in historical thinking and there are are better and worse conclusions (if my thought experiment leads me to conclude Aliens would have invaded Rome had Caesar not been assassinated, that is a lot less compelling than a conclusion like ‘the civil war would have been averted’—-not saying this would be the outcome, just it is better than ‘aliens’)

I am not claiming to be Greg Stanford or an anthropologist; but I do think this approach is a fun part of world creation and can lead to interesting setting details


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> What the thoughts "are about" ARE the thoughts.  They are one and the same.



No. When _I'm thinking of the Emerald City_ and _I'm thinking of me thinking of the Emerald City_ are not synonyms.

This is even more clearly brought out by second and third person instances:

_I'm imaging Elminster in Shadowdale _is obviously not the same thing as _I'm imagining Maxperson imagining Elminster in Shadowdale._


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is pretty clear we disagree on terminology. I find thought experiment a very useful way to think if these things: to me it suggests one seriously thinks through the ramifications to arrive at a compelling conclusion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am not claiming to be Greg Stanford or an anthropologist; but I do think this approach is a fun part of world creation and can lead to interesting setting details



Every time you say this sort of thing you drive home how important you take the pre-planning to be.

Then when I refer to "notes" you complain about that.

Then when I refer to "GM's conception" you complain about that.

Then when I refer to "stuff the GM has made up" you complain about that, because you take it to imply a lack of planning or seriousness.

And then when I go back to some terminology like "notes" or "prep" to try and capture the planning and seriousness you complain about that.

For reasons I don't understand you seem to object to anyone who is not Moldvay or Gygax pointing out that there is an approach to RPGing in which the GM invents the setting details and a big part of play is these being communicated by the GM to the players, generally as a response to the players declaring actions for their PCs that trigger such communication.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> No. When _I'm thinking of the Emerald City_ and _I'm thinking of me thinking of the Emerald City_ are not synonyms.



You don't think in sentence construction.   You think in thoughts.  If you think of the Emerald City, then thinking of the Emerald City is your thought.


pemerton said:


> This is even more clearly brought out by second and third person instances:
> 
> _I'm imaging Elminster in Shadowdale _is obviously not the same thing as _I'm imagining Maxperson imagining Elminster in Shadowdale._



Those are two completely different thoughts.  One is a thought where you imagine Elminster.  The other is a thought where you imagine me imagining him.  They are not the same.  That is correct.  In both of those cases, though, what the thoughts were about were also the thoughts.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I think one difference is that if you're not sure how high your house wall is you can measure it. But you can't measure the height of the wall you're imaging. When you imagine the measuring tape hanging down the length of the imaginary wall you have to further imagine what number it shows. There is no objective standard of correctness.
> 
> This is also relevant to your remark upthread about a "thought experiment". Thought experiments in mathematics and physics have objective standards of correctness, because they are worked out applying mathematical rules.
> 
> RPGing doesn't look like this except in some corner-case instances such as correlating distances, movement rates and time passed.




God I don't want to get involved in this conversation (and @hawkeyefan 's point was to prevent exactly what is happening here!), but even when you do have actual quantitative measurements (eg a mapped 10 * 15 * 10 dungeon room where the exits have suddenly shut), the GM isn't performing the actual calculations necessary to determine how quickly the cubic volume of the room will fill up with the water that is pouring into it after a trap has been triggered.  They're eyeballing things (or following the adventure modules eyeballing of things) and using the exploration rounds as units of time and currency for action declaration/resolution as a proxy for resolving "can you get out in time or solve the trap problem"?

So even when a mental model or thought experiment actually could be accurately parameterized and run to accurately answer the question inherent to the model, no GM is doing that!  They're qualitatively abstracting and using the game's units/resolution mechanics (or they're using a Scientific Wild Ass Guess if the resolution mechanics/intersection with the game's units are wonky/lean/incoherent and/or the game is "loosey goosey") as a proxy for deciding the interactions between the players, the system, and the gamestate!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Every time you say this sort of thing you drive home how important you take the pre-planning to be.
> 
> Then when I refer to "notes" you complain about that.
> 
> Then when I refer to "GM's conception" you complain about that.
> 
> Then when I refer to "stuff the GM has made up" you complain about that, because you take it to imply a lack of planning or seriousness.
> 
> And then when I go back to some terminology like "notes" or "prep" to try and capture the planning and seriousness you complain about that.
> 
> For reasons I don't understand you seem to object to anyone who is not Moldvay or Gygax pointing out that there is an approach to RPGing in which the GM invents the setting details and a big part of play is these being communicated by the GM to the players, generally as a response to the players declaring actions for their PCs that trigger such communication.



Pre planning is important. Notes are important. Imagining the world, it’s npcs are important. What I object to is your reductionism to it just being about one of these things and the fact that all of us on the other side have said ‘playing to discover the GMs notes’ is insulting because there is so much more to it than that. I have laid out my reasons for why it is more than that. I have emphasized the importance of the living world, explained what the living world is, and talked about the role of players helping to shape things through their characters, the synergy between the players and the living world, the techniques used to help run the living world. If you are not persuaded, you are not persuaded. But I am also not persuaded by you. We might just have to accept our description of what is occurring at the table and in the world creation is not going to arrive at agreement


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> For reasons I don't understand you seem to object to anyone who is not Moldvay or Gygax pointing out that there is an approach to RPGing in which the GM invents the setting details and a big part of play is these being communicated by the GM to the players, generally as a response to the players declaring actions for their PCs that trigger such communication.





Manbearcat said:


> God I don't want to get involved in this conversation (and @hawkeyefan 's point was to prevent exactly what is happening here!), but even when you do have actual quantitative measurements (eg a mapped 10 * 15 * 10 dungeon room where the exits have suddenly shut), the GM isn't performing the actual calculations necessary to determine how quickly the cubic volume of the room will fill up with the water that is pouring into it after a trap has been triggered.  They're eyeballing things (or following the adventure modules eyeballing of things) and using the exploration rounds as units of time and currency for action declaration/resolution as a proxy for resolving "can you get out in time or solve the trap problem"?
> 
> So even when a mental model or thought experiment actually could be accurately parameterized and run to accurately answer the question inherent to the model, no GM is doing that!  They're qualitatively abstracting and using the game's units/resolution mechanics (or they're using a Scientific Wild Ass Guess if the resolution mechanics/intersection with the game's units are wonky/lean/incoherent and/or the game is "loosey goosey") as a proxy for deciding the interactions between the players, the system, and the gamestate!




but no one is asserting simulation of real world physics. They are asserting a mental model that is good enough for a game. For me personally as a player, I don’t need real world physics when it comes to filling a room with water: as long as it feels right and the GM is giving me a good indication of the time it is taking (so I can safetly figure it will take day 4-5 rounds to fill), for me that is enough.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> but no one is asserting simulation of real world physics. They are asserting a mental model that is good enough for a game. For me personally as a player, I don’t need real world physics when it comes to filling a room with water: as long as it feels right and the GM is giving me a good indication of the time it is taking (so I can safetly figure it will take day 4-5 rounds to fill), for me that is enough.




It is enough.  And its enough for everyone.

But if that is the case, then I have no idea what is being argued here about the "realness" of the imagined space.  I don't think everyone is working from the same framing.  When I initially involved myself (with persistence and volition being a requirement of a "real" imagined space and that without those two things you couldn't falsify Ouija Board play as not being "real"), I thought it was clear where people were...but now its not clear at all.

An imagined space sufficient to resolve play is wholly different from any claim to it being "real" or subsistent (its neither...just like the imagined space of Ouija Board play).

Jesus, this is as "shark-jumpey" a conversation as I've seen on here in awhile.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> God I don't want to get involved in this conversation (and @hawkeyefan 's point was to prevent exactly what is happening here!), but even when you do have actual quantitative measurements (eg a mapped 10 * 15 * 10 dungeon room where the exits have suddenly shut), the GM isn't performing the actual calculations necessary to determine how quickly the cubic volume of the room will fill up with the water that is pouring into it after a trap has been triggered.  They're eyeballing things (or following the adventure modules eyeballing of things) and using the exploration rounds as units of time and currency for action declaration/resolution as a proxy for resolving "can you get out in time or solve the trap problem"?
> 
> So even when a mental model or thought experiment actually could be accurately parameterized and run to accurately answer the question inherent to the model, no GM is doing that!  They're qualitatively abstracting and using the game's units/resolution mechanics (or they're using a Scientific Wild Ass Guess if the resolution mechanics/intersection with the game's units are wonky/lean/incoherent and/or the game is "loosey goosey") as a proxy for deciding the interactions between the players, the system, and the gamestate!



I think this gets to an important aspect of gameplay in Gygax/Moldvay mode.

Just as serious wargamers use tape measures, firing dowels etc, so in serious skilled dungeoneering play I think the GM is expected to do those calculations that are feasible - eg how much volume is there to soak up the fireball?

Where the calculations can't be done - like the filling up the room example, which I think requires is a fairly complex differential equation - then things can get quite hairy! I remember playing a sci-fi game at a convention a few decades ago - I don't recall the system (not Traveller; what was a popular sci fi game in the early 90s?) - where we were trapped in a room with no oxygen supply beyond the room's volume. The GM made an arbitrary call as to how long we could survive, which was (i) pretty low and (ii) because of its low-ness had a big impact on the sorts of actions we could declare to try and escape/achieve our mission. This caused a bit of friction at the table, especially as our group included a chemical engineer who was fairly good at eyeballing this sort of thing.

In my Traveller game my solution to this is to get the table to agree. This is how we did drilling and blasting through ice, and how I got away with very slow propeller planes on Byron!


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> But if that is the case, then I have no idea what is being argued here about the "realness" of the imagined space.  I don't think everyone is working from the same framing.



We all have different ideas of what feels right and where the lines of "realness"(realism) are drawn.  Realism is a spectrum, though, so even if we are not attempting to mirror real world physics, we can pick a place closer or farther down the spectrum for the point that feels right to us.  

By moving closer, you can make the game feel more real.  When you move farther, it can feel less real.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> We all have different ideas of what feels right and where the lines of "realness"(realism) are drawn.  Realism is a spectrum, though, so even if we are not attempting to mirror real world physics, we can pick a place closer or farther down the spectrum for the point that feels right to us.
> 
> By moving closer, you can make the game feel more real.  When you move farther, it can feel less real.




I don't disagree!

I'm not sure who does disagree.  Or who agrees.

Or how...or why.

I linked this recently in another thread but I feel its very apropos for our interlude here!

"What did we learn Palmer?..."


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> The difference is, spirits don't exist (or at least their existence is very much in dispute and not acknowledged by science), but mental models of concepts do exist (at least as thoughts).



This is such a weird rebuttal.



Bedrockgames said:


> When you call it being a spirit medium, you are pointing to it being all illusionary and con-artistry. When you describe it more accurately as the GM imagines a model in his mind, and the players explore that model (by communicating with the GM) that is a more ground depiction of what is going on (and I think a lot less dismissive---EDIT: not trying to accuse you of being dismissive, just saying that the term feels like a dismissive term).



Although I do think negatively about mystifying the GM's role, I don't necessarily think of my point here as negative or con-artistry; however, I do certainly believe that it's illusory. The point is that it's illustrative of how the GM operates as a medium between the players and the "world beyond."


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> For me personally as a player, I don’t need real world physics when it comes to filling a room with water: as long as it feels right





Maxperson said:


> We all have different ideas of what feels right and where the lines of "realness"(realism) are drawn.  Realism is a spectrum, though, so even if we are not attempting to mirror real world physics, we can pick a place closer or farther down the spectrum for the point that feels right to us.
> 
> By moving closer, you can make the game feel more real.  When you move farther, it can feel less real.





Manbearcat said:


> I don't disagree!
> 
> I'm not sure who does disagree.  Or who agrees.
> 
> Or how...or why.



I'll bypass Manbearcat's humour, because that's the sort of person I am, and cut to the issue of adjudication.

I'm sure the GM who made the call about duration of oxygen supply in my sci-fi convention game hadn't set out to make the game feel less real. When I had unrealistically slow planes on Byron, that wasn't deliberate either. I just didn't know much about the speed of military prop planes! (Or even civilian ones - I've just Googled and learned that a Focker Friendship goes faster than what I called in our game.) Surprisingly, but also helpfully insofar as it avoided any issues, apparently none of my players did either, not even the military history guy.

This drives home my point that we're not talking about "thought experiments" here. We're talking about the GM making stuff up, by reference to his/her conception of the thing which may include some stuff that's written down (ie notes). It's needless obscurantism to overlay this with metaphor such as "exploring a world" or "really existing in thought". It's stuff that someone is authoring based on whatever considerations inform those authorship decisions.

EDIT: An author extrapolating from his/her description of something to something else "that feels right" isn't a thought experiment. It's just more writing. It's not constrained by "reality" in any way beyond being constrained by the other ideas and beliefs and expectations and aspirations of the author.

There's no need to complicate this, or use metaphor. It is what it is. Gygax is upfront about that. So is Moldvay. It's an approach that obviously  puts the GM's conception of what is happening in the fiction in the forefront of framing and adjudication.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Barrier, eh?



Yes, barrier.


Manbearcat said:


> Well, I think you're going to have to explain two things:
> 
> 1)  How is it that the entire world of sport and martial arts and artisans/tradesfolk (from dance to boxing to smithing to football (both) to hockey to basketball to knitting to climbing to cobbling to skateboarding to golfing to woodworking to archery to running to weightlifting to baseball to wrestling to pommel horse to cheesemaking to pole vault etc etc etc etc) have created functional athletes/artisans in the billions (at least 1/4 of the world population is capable in some kind of martial affair or physical trade) range...that don't quit?  Its because humankind has developed a tried and true methodology (as I depicted above) that has been passed down through the ages...that spans all cultures (the overwhelming number of which were indendent from one another).



And your tried and true methodology for any given one of those produces a small percentage that are quite good at it, a slightly larger percentage who aren't very good but keep banging away anyway, another small-ish percentage who are hopeless at it and give up, and a vast-majority percentage who are not interested in bothering to try in the first place.


Manbearcat said:


> 2)  Why is it that TTRPGs (D&D in particular) has failed miserably over its 40 year arc at pulling anything even close to a 10 % rate of functional GMs out of its population?



Why is it that humanity over its many-thousand-year arc has equally failed at pulling anything close to a 10% rate of functional musicians out of its population?  Or functional archers?  Or functional pole-vaulters?


Manbearcat said:


> I don't know what you guys see, but in my life (physically...I'm not talking about on here or the folks I'm playing games with virtually), I've encountered about 400 TTRPG participants.  Of those participants, only about 25 or so have appreciably tried their hands at GMing for anything approaching a duration sufficient to say "I'm a GM."  Of those 25, not even half are functional to good (and several of those are oblivious to that fact and completely unwilling or incapable of acknowledging their weaknesses and working on them).  So my guess is 10/400ish.  That is a _dreadful _ratio by comparison to (1) above.



Let's see - by comparison (and ignoring things like convention games) I've probably played with about 75 and encountered maybe 50 (?) more that I know of.  I can't speak for the 50 as I don't know what/how much/how long they played; but of the 75 I can think of at least 20 who have tried GMing at least once; of which maybe half kept at it for long enough to matter.

Thing is, not all players - in fact, I'd say rather few - are even interested in GMing; for a host of reasons many of which revolve around not wanting to make anything more of the hobby than sitting around a table rolling dice every week or two.

For some - I dare say quite a few - it's they don't want to have to learn the rules in any depth. (yes, there's many players out there who interact with the rules as little as they can get away with and even that is too much)  I don't think it's controversial to say a GM probably needs to have or gain at least a vague familiarity with the rules of whatever system she wants to run.

For some, it's that they don't want to commit to having to show up every week (even if they already do as a player) because while the game can sail when down a player it can't sail when down a GM.

For some - and this hits your point upthread about practice - it's that they feel they need to put in considerable work and-or practice before running a game, and aren't willing (or able due to time constraints) to do so.  This one's removable, in that the "considerable work" can be reduced in various ways and practice doesn't need to be anything separate, it can be undertaken _while running a game_.


Manbearcat said:


> It seems like where "the barriers" need to be sussed out is in (2) above (and, again, I'd say that the daylight between the two is likely to be found in what I wrote above on it).  Humankind has done a comparatively excellent job at solving the athlete/artisan/martial artist problem.



Nah, it just seems that way due to the bigger pool.  1 million* post-high-school pole vaulters is a big number...until you realize that's drawn from a pool of billions and that the per-capita rate of pole-vaulters among the population is in fact really small.

* a number pulled out of thin air; I've no idea how many actual pole-vaulters there are in the world and google doesn't seem to want to tell me quickly, but there's probably not all that many in the grand scheme of things.  I personally have never met one to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Why is it that humanity over its many-thousand-year arc has equally failed at pulling anything close to a 10% rate of functional musicians out of its population?  Or functional archers?  Or functional pole-vaulters?



I'll be perfectly frank, but this is a silly line of questioning, especially since I don't think that the answer is the one you are fishing for.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> I don't disagree with the whole of this.  Just a couple thoughts though:
> 
> 1)  I want to make it clear (and to @Lanefan ) that what I have in mind isn't some kind of Rocky montage of a 12 week fight camp with absolutely no actual "at-the-table" GMing.  I don't mean that at all.



Glad you clarified this, as I took that to be pretty much exactly what you meant: non-table technique practice before ever starting to GM.


Manbearcat said:


> What I'm talking about is (a) having a structured plan to both understand what you're doing and hone your craft, (b) work at those fundamentals a bit before you GM (even if its just a session of picking discrete scenes/conflicts, practicing framing, practicing handling action resolution, practicing figuring out complications/fallouts at both the action resolution and scene level, and integrating the whole process), (c) running a game with actual confidence (because of (a) and (b) ), (d) then understanding how to reflect and humbly perform a post-mortem of your GMing, (e) then continuing to practice honing your craft.



Even (a) and (b) already make GMing sound far more onerous than it has to be; more like a workplace than a hobby.  If that's the sort of thing you're telling prospective GMs they need to do, no wonder they're running for the hills! 

Skip (a) and (b) and instead just get behind the screen and effing do it!  (c) and (e) will come naturally over time if you're cut out for GMing; not all people are.  (d) is up to the individual.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> I'll be perfectly frank, but this is a silly line of questioning, especially since I don't think that the answer is the one you are fishing for.



How so?

MBC is positing we have what seems an absurdly low rate of GMs among the player pool and compares it to the number of [various types of athlete/artisan] among the humanity pool.

I'm just trying to point out that the ratio in either case probably isn't all that different.


----------



## pemerton

On GMing: I mostly GM when I RPG, and am "the GM" for my group. One of the players first played with our group, starting in the late 90s with Rolemaster. A few years ago he did his first GMing, of Burning Wheel. He was a lot better than some other GMs I've played with!

In "no myth"-ish GMing, the hardest thing I think is coming up with consequence (you can prep some of your framings in advance). He's sometimes good at that, and sometimes only OK. Which overall is not too bad!


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> How so?
> 
> MBC is positing we have what seems an absurdly low rate of GMs among the player pool and compares it to the number of [various types of athlete/artisan] among the humanity pool.
> 
> I'm just trying to point out that the ratio in either case probably isn't all that different.



How many roles are there typically in a RPG? Now how many "roles," "specializations," or "jobs" are there in human civilization? How has the population boom of humanity affected that across time? I don't think that this is an appropriate comparison of like to like.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> On GMing: I mostly GM when I RPG, and am "the GM" for my group. One of the players first played with our group, starting in the late 90s with Rolemaster. A few years ago he did his first GMing, of Burning Wheel. He was a lot better than some other GMs I've played with!



One of our long-time players has relatively recently taken up GMing (though the whole covid thing was awful timing as she'd just started her fisrt campaign when it hit) and though I've yet to play in any of her serious games the early reports are pretty good, and her gonzo one-offs are usually hilarious.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> How many roles are there typically in a RPG? Now how many "roles," "specializations," or "jobs" are there in human civilization? How has the population boom of humanity affected that across time? I don't think that this is an appropriate comparison of like to like.



Huh?

The number of roles in humanity doesn't matter, only that you pick one to compare to the GM/player ratio.  Some will compare higher, some lower, but I think the GM/player ratio will fit right in there nicely.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> It is enough.  And its enough for everyone.
> 
> But if that is the case, then I have no idea what is being argued here about the "realness" of the imagined space.  I don't think everyone is working from the same framing.  When I initially involved myself (with persistence and volition being a requirement of a "real" imagined space and that without those two things you couldn't falsify Ouija Board play as not being "real"), I thought it was clear where people were...but now its not clear at all.
> 
> An imagined space sufficient to resolve play is wholly different from any claim to it being "real" or subsistent (its neither...just like the imagined space of Ouija Board play).
> 
> Jesus, this is as "shark-jumpey" a conversation as I've seen on here in awhile.




These conversations always jump the shark because a point about something is made, away from the initial claim or in defense of it, and we start talking about that. This simply started with a rejection of the label "discovering what is in the GM's notes" and then became a kind of playstyle debate. 

I think that is because things keep getting shifted to one of two extremes (real world physics or completely hand wavy, game physics). I think we've had this part of this conversation many times, where my side usually takes the position that the aim is to create a believable world, your side asserts that's impossible because of real world physics, we say the bar isn't that high, and then there is confusion (because it seems to be assumed we are no longer really striving for realness). I've used the term believability many times here to express what I am talking about. No one is arguing that the GM ought be a physics engine. That would basically be impossible. But the GM can be logical, emulate the kinds of things that we see in the real world, and make sure there is a kind of cause and effect with minimal loss of  continuity. If you need think of it as multiple tiers or as a spectrum: totally unrealistic cartoony worlds--pure genre emulating worlds--grounded believable worlds--worlds heavily grounded in science*--unattainable physics engine worlds. Another way to think of it is "what franchise are we in?". 

*Where the GM takes great pains to reflect as much real world stuff in his or her tables, in the mechanics etc (one version of this would be RPGs that are very heavy on simulating real life, and/or GMs who include things like plate tectonics, wind currents, climate maps, etc in their world building, and use as much real world data in getting the probability of their tables right.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> My understanding of sandbox play in the classic sense, as being articulated in this thread, is that the GM is entitled and even expected to extrapolate from the notes about Sir Lionheart, the broader understanding of the setting (in this case, faux-historical mediaeval) and a feeling about "what makes sense". A reaction roll or CHA check or similar mechanic might be called for if the GM is not sure, but if the GM can make a decision without calling for a check that is permitted and even desirable.



Yes your outcome could have happened in sandbox play just as you say.   I forgot or didn't notice that the context was a Prince Valiant game.  I was still in D&D mode.  I don't think in very many of my D&D games that tend a bit grittier would this happen but that is just genre expectations.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Huh?
> 
> The number of roles in humanity doesn't matter, only that you pick one to compare to the GM/player ratio.  Some will compare higher, some lower, but I think the GM/player ratio will fit right in there nicely.



How about you go "huh?" yourself? This is such a silly argument.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> It's not about words being "loaded". It's about not making assumptions, in one's analysis, that aren't true for other RPGers.
> 
> I think we've established in this thread that fidelity to the "reality" of the world is pretty important for most of us as posters. (When I played an AD&D one-shot generating a dungeon using Appendix A, I didn't care about fidelity to the reality of any world. And when I played a Dying Earth one-shot it was close to "anything goes" as that's the nature of the setting. Those are the only exceptions I can think of at the moment.)
> 
> I've put "reality" in inverted commas because of course it's a metaphor. Literally, as you say, reality entails existence. And these imagined worlds of RPGing don't exist and hence aren't real. What is real are moments of imagination, and the records ("notes") we make of those. As you explain, in advance of play you imagine things about the gameworld and write those down - this is the _campaign construction phase_ that occurs _outside the session_,_ prior to the players learning about the world_. You then use the record of your imaginings to decide the outcomes of some action declarations, like "I search for secret doors."
> 
> That's one possible resolution technique, that also shows us a distinctive use for GM's notes. It's not the only way of resolving such action declarations, and it's not the only way that enables maintenance of fidelity to the "reality" of the gameworld. That's also not the only use that GM's notes might have.



The problem is that I'm not making assumptions for you.  I'm stating my own approach and my own preferences.  I admit you use all sorts of words that have been extended in definition from their dictionary meaning to a game design context.   That is fine we all do that in our lives but where you lose people is assuming we know all this meta language and then getting upset when we don't.

From day one of his thread, I've just stated things from my perspective.  If I say such and such is shallow or non-immersive, that means I feel that way about such game constructs.  It doesn't mean you do.  I've stated over and over that subjective terms like immersion have to be taken as the writer's opinion.  I cannot deny that watching paint dry is immersive to another person.  I can't also claim that the greatest novel of all time is immersive for someone else either.   

You seem determined to "prove" that my own perceptions are wrong.  You can't do that no matter how long and how hard you argue your point.  Have you not heard that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?  Well immersion, shallowness, even fun are all things in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> My understanding of sandbox play in the classic sense, as being articulated in this thread, is that the GM is entitled and even expected to extrapolate from the notes about Sir Lionheart, the broader understanding of the setting (in this case, faux-historical mediaeval) and a feeling about "what makes sense". A reaction roll or CHA check or similar mechanic might be called for if the GM is not sure, but if the GM can make a decision without calling for a check that is permitted and even desirable.




I would say this is accurate. Again my only criticism is reducing it to being about the notes alone. I would also add I think the notes are not the most important thing: what is important is the GMs sense of the world (ideally you don't need to look at your notes to run the Temple Hill Gang and the Abbess who leads them---because you have their goals, motives, activities, whereabouts in your head---and you only occasionally need to refer to the notes). I have been in sandboxes for example where a GM barely looks at the notes


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> This simply started with a rejection of the label "discovering what is in the GM's notes" and then became a kind of playstyle debate.



It started with _you _rejecting that as a description of _another poster's play_ who - it turns out, unsurprisingly - may or may not play the same as you do.



Bedrockgames said:


> things keep getting shifted to one of two extremes (real world physics or completely hand wavy, game physics). I think we've had this part of this conversation many times, where my side usually takes the position that the aim is to create a believable world, your side asserts that's impossible because of real world physics, we say the bar isn't that high, and then there is confusion
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you need think of it as multiple tiers or as a spectrum: totally unrealistic cartoony worlds--pure genre emulating worlds--grounded believable worlds--worlds heavily grounded in science*--unattainable physics engine worlds. Another way to think of it is "what franchise are we in?".



No one in the history of mainstream RPGing has ever set out to create an unbelievable world. The "our side"/"your side" phrasing is nonsense, both in this case and in general (see my previous paragraph in this post).

There are complexities, though. Do you think X2 is a believable world? White Plume Mountain? Keep on the Borderlands? And of course Toon players _do_ want a cartoony world, but I don't think anyone posting in this thread is a Toon player, and I seem to be the only poster who has played The Dying Earth and only for one session.

If players in WPM want to surf doors removed from hinges down the frictionless corridor to avoid the super-tetanus pits, and one of them pulls out a first year physics text to help with the velocity and momentum calculations, is that fair game?

In my Classic Traveller game we needed to decide how long it would take the PCs to drill and blast through 4 km of ice with a triple beam laser. The time mattered because it generates resource costs - especially fuel and salaries - and it also matters to what else might happen in the rest of the galaxy (the "living, breathing" world). As a group we Googled some stuff (published papers on using lasers to melt ice) and reached a consensus. Do you have any objection to that procedure? Is it is distinctive of "my side"? And what, if anything, does it tell us about the use of the GM's notes in play?

(More relevant might be _who got to decide the alien complex is buried in 4 km of ice?_ Answer: me, the GM. Why? It's a component of framing, along with the fact that the planet was much colder than it had been 2 billion years ago when the aliens lived there, due to changes in the energy output of its star. How did I make the decision? I looked up the thickness of Antarctic ice and doubled it, because I wanted _really thick ice_.)


----------



## Emerikol

Trying to follow the thread and recent derailment into Epistemology.

I do believe there is a language that develops for communicating what the GM knows to the player in such a way that the character can now act in a way as if the character knew all along what a character should know in the situation.

I don't have a term for such words but they do facilitate communication.  For example, we have hit points that conveys, perhaps in a pretty abstract and low realism way, the overall condition of the character.  The character acts on that knowledge.   Hit points are a shorthand way of communicating the info to the character via the player.   The game typically provides some of these words to aid in communication.

When a player says his character carefully searches around the door for traps, the GM might answer "you find nothing of significance".   Now it's a given there could have been a lot to describe.  You could have went into the type of wood or the cracks in the stone, whatever.  You typically don't unless the player via the character pushes harder for more information.

So a GM will describe sufficiently and the player will fill in the details for the character.  Where this goes wrong is when the GM leaves something out that was significant or the player put something in that really wasn't there per the GM.  So this means of communicating is a skill and an experienced GM will do a better job of heading off issues as he gets more experienced.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> my only criticism is reducing it to being about the notes alone. I would also add I think the notes are not the most important thing: what is important is the GMs sense of the world
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have been in sandboxes for example where a GM barely looks at the notes



About 1 million pages upthread I offered to instead use the phrase _GM's conception_. But you didn't like that either. Yet here you use exactly the same phrase with _sense _substituted for _conception _in a context in which the two are absolutely synonymous.


----------



## Emerikol

I think some here are viewing the GM's notes as scraps of paper randomly scattered in a pile on a desk somewhere which seems to be a bit of a pejorative view.   Our problem again is underlying assumptions that lead us to speak in a certain way about certain aspects of the campaign.

For me.
1.  There is the pre-game creation of the setting which is a separate task and involves for me a good bit of work.  It is a labor of love though so I do it.  Some of this work is reused as I don't have to build a new world for every campaign.  I can just create a new sandbox.   The sandbox though is at least as much work as the rest of the world.

2.  There is the upkeep of the world.  This happens in between sessions.  It is still not done during gameplay.  The goals are similar to #1 but less effort is demanded.  You just push the calendar along.  You may make some additions notes about plans for NPCs due to events the PCs have caused to happen and which now change the calendar.

3.  There is the immediate neutral refereeing of the setting for the players.  This occurs during the game session when the other players are present.  There is some improv here based on what has been defined in #1 and #2.  Generally though I'm not inventing wholesale here.  I am just building on the underlying foundation.

Now players can be involved in all three stages.  If my players have been talking and saying they'd really love to play a campaign where they are pirates, and I react to that and build such a campaign then they are giving some input on #1.   If one of them asks me in between sessions if it would be okay if he defined the marriage rituals for his cleric's religion and we nail that down, that is #2.   BOTH of these situations involve players NOT characters.   The GM also does have final say on the world but the GM is also wanting a fun game so that issue is not a big deal at least for my games.

In #3 though there is a very strong goal.  Players ARE their characters.  They do what their characters can do.  The players don't separate their thinking from what their characters would be if those characters really existed.  There is skilled play here and the players as their characters try to prepare, plan, and overcome challenges in the setting.   There is also a high degree of agency.   Go where you want, run if you need to, pick your poison.

Now there are two more categories that I do not use.
#4  GM's creating the world on the fly.  I realize the line might be fuzzy but there is still a divide.  I know GM's who try to create an entire dungeon entirely on the fly.  

#5  Players add to the truths of the world in a way independent of the GM but respecting what has already been established and keeping genre conventions in mind.

We need words for all five of these and honestly we are using words to represent our take and others are seeing those words and not understanding or taking offense that the words are inappropriate.


----------



## pemerton

On the role of physics in RPG resolution - here is a passage from Maelstrom Storytelling (p 116):

Literal vs Conceptual
A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the scene, instead of literalisms. The scene idea is the scene concept, as imagined in the mind of the narrator [= GM], whereas that might be different from the literal elements of the description when the scene is presented. A ten foot fence might seem really toall to one person, and a little tall to another. But if the fence is described as really tall instead of 10 feet, evenone gets the idea. In other words, focus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. In this way, the presentation of each element of the scene focuses on the difficulty of the obstacle, not on laws of physics. It is the idea of how hard it is, not the actual measurement of the obstacle that is important. Everyone understands adjectives such as easy, hard, and impossible, but a wide range of argument can arise from saying that the chasm is 15 feet across. By supplying the difficult of the task, the player fills in the distance relative to the character's capabilities. . . . If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game.

The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the character's abilities ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​
Notice that this advice can generalise beyond jumping a chasm. It might apply to a trek. Or a climb. Or cleaning the Augean stables. Or even beating a giant in combat.

Notice also that it depends on adopting certain techniques in framing: as the game author says, _the scene needs to be presented relative to the character's abilities_. This is applicable obviously in the game this text is quoted from; to Cortex+ Heroic; to HeroWars/Quest; to 4e D&D skill challenges (less so to 4e D&D combat); to Prince Valiant (within some broad limits); to Burning Wheel (again within some limits).

It is not applicable to dungeon exploration of the sort that Gygax and Moldvay describe (but is broadly applicable, mediated via the hit point mechanic, to combat in those games). It is not applicable to RuneQuest. It is not applicable to Rolemaster, neither in the case of jumping (which is resolved by reference to the distance jumped) nor more broadly (all action resolution in RM is meant to be built out of details of the gameworld, not vice versa).

It's applicability to a system like Classic Traveller is interesting. Traveller presents itself as a system like RQ or RM, and so one might think the Maelstrom advice is not applicable. But it's not as simple as that. Relatively little action resolution in Traveller involves known and measurable quantities like jumping chasms, climbing walls or digging and shovelling. How hard is it to use or adapt a Traveller-style communicator to jam another communicator's signal? What processes are involved in doing so? Who knows?! So in practice a difficulty is set (I tend to default to 8+ for _seems feasible for a trained person_ and 10+ for _sounds a bit tricky even for a trained person_) and skill mods are added, and the play ends up being much closer to Maelstrom than one might expect.

In a game played using the Maelstrom approach, should the GM's notes include the appropriate adjectives? There are different approaches. HeroQuest revised answers "no" and instead has a chart to be used check-by-check to set difficulties; this is intended to reliably guarantee dramatically satisfactory pacing. Cortex+ Heroic also answers "no" because the difficulties are set, or at least heavily influenced by, the fluctuating state of the Doom Pool. Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel on the other hand come closer to using "objective" difficulties which can make notes in advance more applicable - though too much prep of framing might start to conflict with other priorities for those games.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I think some here are viewing the GM's notes as scraps of paper randomly scattered in a pile on a desk somewhere



Who do think has this view?



Emerikol said:


> I know GM's who try to create an entire dungeon entirely on the fly.



Using what system?

I've done this in AD&D, using Appendix A. And I've done it in Cortex+ Heroic, using the full repertoire of devices that system brings to the task. They're very different things.

The Appendix A approach is "just for fun": nothing serious is likely to emerge from it, and some of the game mechanics become stretched if not broken because of the lack of a basis to adjudicate them (detection magic is the most obvious example).

The Cortex+ Heroic dungeon was a great experience. There was a fire lizard, and then PCs got split up and one was lost in a room with ghouls until he found a secret door back that led him back to the others. The PCs met a Crypt Thing with teleported them deep into the depths, but they deciphered some strange runes to find a way out. This took them through the land of the dark elves. There one of the PCs betrayed the rest, and the elves, to steal the latter's gold and escape to the surface, while the others had to grimly fight their way out.

Of course that's a "story hour" description, not an account of play. Those familiar with Cortex+ Heroic might be able to fill in some blanks; needless to say the procedures of play are nothing like those for AD&D played using Appendix A.


----------



## TwoSix

Emerikol said:


> #4  GM's creating the world on the fly.  I realize the line might be fuzzy but there is still a divide.  I know GM's who try to create an entire dungeon entirely on the fly.



There's another way to do dungeons?  

I'm joking, but I can count the number of times I've actually used a pre-drawn map for site exploration on one hand.  I just usually picture what the place would look like and narrate it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> About 1 million pages upthread I offered to instead use the phrase _GM's conception_. But you didn't like that either. Yet here you use exactly the same phrase with _sense _substituted for _conception _in a context in which the two are absolutely synonymous.




Again, I think if I objected we probably got our lines crossed. But the point I have been trying to make is this still falls short of describing sandbox as living world: which is the language most sandbox GMs use (and if they don't say living world, they say world in motion). The reason the distinction is important is 'playing to discover the GMs' notes and/or 'playing to discover the GM's conception' misses the motion part (which matters). If we are just focused on the notes or the conception, then that can easily describe how I might have run a game prior to encountering the 'majoring wandering encounter/they live!' advice in Feast of Goblyns. It can easily stop at: GM has map, things are marked on the map, the players effectively move through and discover things on the map, possibly having  a random encounter here or there. The point of a living world is one of the things on the map can decide it doesn't like what the party is doing, go to another area, ally with creatures in that area, and work against he players, perhaps setting an ambush-----or the thing on the map could be somewhere else entirely because the map was a snapshot of 8 months ago. Again, we have language already that helps describe the campaign. Kevin Crawford speaks very clearly about the concept in Stars without Number. Other GMs have done so. I don't see why we need to relabel it 'playing to discover GM's notes'. If you want to call it 'the GM's conception' I certainly wouldn't object the same way I do to but I still think it falls short of capturing what a living world is (and if you reject living world, that is fair, I can't convince you-----but this is how many of us play and conceive of the game).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It started with _you _rejecting that as a description of _another poster's play_ who - it turns out, unsurprisingly - may or may not play the same as you do.




It started out with me rejecting your language of playing to discover the GM's notes and me posting out the flaw of that language as the foundation for this thread. If you want to point to an individual post where someone who may or may not play my style agreed with you, feel free, but just because someone also plays sandbox, or even uses the living world as a description, that doesn't mean we are going to be in agreement on everything (I disagree with many sandbox GMs for example on the problem of out of character mechanics: I see that as a matter of personal preference, not a matter of something that makes it not a sandbox or not an RPG: a lot of sandbox GMs would disagree with me on that point). But most use language like living world and world in motion to describe the life that takes place in the sandbox. Most talk about the synergy that Justin Alexander mentioned in his video.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> No one in the history of mainstream RPGing has ever set out to create an unbelievable world. The "our side"/"your side" phrasing is nonsense, both in this case and in general (see my previous paragraph in this post).




There are plenty of people who don't care as much about a world's internal consistency. I am not saying you don't. I am saying there is a spectrum of play where you have people who are perfectly happy to overlook believability in favor of other things, and people who are deeply invested in realism. 

There are clearly two camps in this discussion (with some posters falling in a range in between). That is just obvious


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> There are plenty of people who don't care as much about a world's internal consistency. I am not saying you don't. I am saying there is a spectrum of play where you have people who are perfectly happy to overlook believability in favor of other things, and people who are deeply invested in realism.
> 
> There are clearly two camps in this discussion (with some posters falling in a range in between). That is just obvious



I think one division here is how much an individual believes that pre-prep assists in creating internal consistency.  Personally, I don't think it helps much, but I've always been better at improv and weaker at prep.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I'll bypass Manbearcat's humour, because that's the sort of person I am, and cut to the issue of adjudication.
> 
> I'm sure the GM who made the call about duration of oxygen supply in my sci-fi convention game hadn't set out to make the game feel less real. When I had unrealistically slow planes on Byron, that wasn't deliberate either. I just didn't know much about the speed of military prop planes! (Or even civilian ones - I've just Googled and learned that a Focker Friendship goes faster than what I called in our game.) Surprisingly, but also helpfully insofar as it avoided any issues, apparently none of my players did either, not even the military history guy.



Okay, but that doesn't in any way refute what I said.  You didn't know about those planes.  Doesn't really matter unless you're playing with people who do.  If you are, then you made it feel less realistic to them.  If you aren't, it's no harm, no foul.  If the DM who made the call about the oxygen was correct or more correct about the timing and it made it feel less realistic to you, that would be very strange.  If he just made some sort of random call, then it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.


pemerton said:


> This drives home my point that we're not talking about "thought experiments" here. We're talking about the GM making stuff up, by reference to his/her conception of the thing which may include some stuff that's written down (ie notes). It's needless obscurantism to overlay this with metaphor such as "exploring a world" or "really existing in thought". It's stuff that someone is authoring based on whatever considerations inform those authorship decisions.
> 
> EDIT: An author extrapolating from his/her description of something to something else "that feels right" isn't a thought experiment. It's just more writing. It's not constrained by "reality" in any way beyond being constrained by the other ideas and beliefs and expectations and aspirations of the author.



Um.  I wasn't talking about "thought experiments" or engaging in one.  This is yet another of your Strawmen for this discussion.  Please stop doing that to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> There are complexities, though. Do you think X2 is a believable world? White Plume Mountain? Keep on the Borderlands? And of course Toon players _do_ want a cartoony world, but I don't think anyone posting in this thread is a Toon player, and I seem to be the only poster who has played The Dying Earth and only for one session.




It all depends on how these things are run. Obviously toon is going to have you fighting with mechanics (and I haven't played it recently enough to comment on it intelligently here). But even in a less realistic system, one can strive for a worlds that feels consistent and real, with characters who move around with motivations that make sense, with events arising logically from one another, etc. It is all in the execution. Take a look at a setting like Ravenloft. I run that as living adventures but not as a sandbox living world (I just personally prefer my Ravenloft horror to be less grounded, less random, less about exploration, and more about the horror, the atmosphere, the adventures, etc). I know GMs who run it as a living world sandbox. And I know GMs who run Ravenloft as non-living world sandbox (which is probably closer to 'discover what is in the GM's notes). Other GMs focus entirely on story or something else. Obviously the foundations are important. Ravenloft as presented was much more broad stroke than say HARN, and so it is either going to take more prep to set it up for a living world type situation, or take greater extrapolation (which to be honest probably fits Ravenloft well anyways). 

I think an example though is a lot of genre RPGs aren't as focused on the living world that I am talking about. They can be. I like genre. But I have been in games where the focus is on scenes, on events, and not on creating a believable world. I have also been in genre games where there is a focus on creating a believable world. But in a lot of  cases the focus was the adventure not the world, or the focus was some other thing like the story among the characters (and we weren't really sweating the setting details). I think a good example here is what you hadnwave. Do you hand wave ammo? Do you hand wave other resources? Do you worry about travel times? In some games you might use hexes for instance to decide if the party or their enemy arrives somewhere first. In another you might choose based on what is more dramatically appropriate. In a living world sandbox I think you are generally more beholden to the former rather than latter.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> I think one division here is how much an individual believes that pre-prep assists in creating internal consistency.  Personally, I don't think it helps much, but I've always been better at improv and weaker at prep.




This is one of the reasons why I reject 'playing to discover the GM's notes'. Some people are really good at having a living world function with minimal notes or prep. I had a GM who didn't prep at all but still managed to have a lot of internal consistency because he focused on the characters who were active in the setting and their relationships to one another (and he was good in presenting a world that seemed to follow real world logic: I.e. if you met a bunch of terrorists, they were not like the guys from Back to the Future but more like something out of real life with goals grounded in real world beliefs, and doing things that seemed more like what you saw on the news). It wasn't a simulation or anything. It was often very light hearted actually. But he managed to focus on the synergy I was talking about and did a very good job of tracking everything in his head that was moving around


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If players in WPM want to surf doors removed from hinges down the frictionless corridor to avoid the super-tetanus pits, and one of them pulls out a first year physics text to help with the velocity and momentum calculations, is that fair game?




This sort of thing totally depends on what the group is trying to do. That isn't the level of realism I normally strive for. Like I said I establish what franchise I am in, and for what I normally run, wuxia, I don't need to bring in a real world physics book (I just want a consistent believable world and characters). But I have gamed with people who get into these sorts of things in great detail. Not pulling out a physics book, but having very high expectations when it comes to things like how trade operates in a particular culture and time (even if we are using an analogue). In those instances I have always been happy to do my research to help meet that expectation. I hate sailing. I hate water. I don't normally think about boats much. But I had a player who kept asking me all kinds of details about the ships whenever they traveled in my Rome campaign (he was very particular about cargo capacity as I recall), so I boned up on ancient ships (found a great history book on the subject and some articles) and started catering more to those kinds of expectations. Normally this is not a level of detail I'd be overly concerned with, but it mattered to this player and he didn't make a stink about it (he understood I didn't know much about ancient ship cargo capacities---but I think he appreciated me taking some time to bring the campaign up to speed in that respect). That said, if he were in my wuxia campaign, there is so much more to focus on in terms of tracking martial arts manuals, techniques, etc, I would probably have said 'we can just hand wave that kind of thing or arbitrarily select something.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> This is such a weird rebuttal.
> 
> 
> Although I do think negatively about mystifying the GM's role, I don't necessarily think of my point here as negative or con-artistry; however, I do certainly believe that it's illusory. The point is that it's illustrative of how the GM operates as a medium between the players and the "world beyond."




I thought it was a perfectly valid distinction to draw. I do understand what you mean now. But one thing points to an entity that has a very debatable existence in reality (and if it does, is supposed to exist outside the GMs mind), the other points to something that exists as a thought in the GMs mind. One is the world beyond. The other the world inside.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In my Classic Traveller game we needed to decide how long it would take the PCs to drill and blast through 4 km of ice with a triple beam laser. The time mattered because it generates resource costs - especially fuel and salaries - and it also matters to what else might happen in the rest of the galaxy (the "living, breathing" world). As a group we Googled some stuff (published papers on using lasers to melt ice) and reached a consensus. Do you have any objection to that procedure? Is it is distinctive of "my side"? And what, if anything, does it tell us about the use of the GM's notes in play?




No objection to it. It is something that might happen in a living world sandbox (if that level of realism is important). I have certainly looked up things like that when running my games. I think it tells us that, in a living world at least, it isn't simply playing to discover what is in the GM's notes (as information on the internet is not GMs notes and the information was just being used to help resolve a situation---not as an end in itself). I don't know what it says about your style of running traveller. For all I know you run traveller as a living world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It started with _you _rejecting that as a description of _another poster's play_ who - it turns out, unsurprisingly - may or may not play the same as you do.
> 
> 
> No one in the history of mainstream RPGing has ever set out to create an unbelievable world. The "our side"/"your side" phrasing is nonsense, both in this case and in general (see my previous paragraph in this post).
> 
> There are complexities, though. Do you think X2 is a believable world? White Plume Mountain? Keep on the Borderlands? And of course Toon players _do_ want a cartoony world, but I don't think anyone posting in this thread is a Toon player, and I seem to be the only poster who has played The Dying Earth and only for one session.
> 
> If players in WPM want to surf doors removed from hinges down the frictionless corridor to avoid the super-tetanus pits, and one of them pulls out a first year physics text to help with the velocity and momentum calculations, is that fair game?
> 
> In my Classic Traveller game we needed to decide how long it would take the PCs to drill and blast through 4 km of ice with a triple beam laser. The time mattered because it generates resource costs - especially fuel and salaries - and it also matters to what else might happen in the rest of the galaxy (the "living, breathing" world). As a group we Googled some stuff (published papers on using lasers to melt ice) and reached a consensus. Do you have any objection to that procedure? Is it is distinctive of "my side"? And what, if anything, does it tell us about the use of the GM's notes in play?
> 
> (More relevant might be _who got to decide the alien complex is buried in 4 km of ice?_ Answer: me, the GM. Why? It's a component of framing, along with the fact that the planet was much colder than it had been 2 billion years ago when the aliens lived there, due to changes in the energy output of its star. How did I make the decision? I looked up the thickness of Antarctic ice and doubled it, because I wanted _really thick ice_.)




Part of the problem is you are focused on believability which is just one aspect of what I am talking about. If it turns out we don't actually disagree about anything, I would certainly welcome that. But you push back enough against my thoughts on sandbox, living world, sometimes even telling me what I say I am doing is an impossibility, that I think we must disagree here. The point of living world isn't just to make a believable world, but to make a world that is moving around the characters and feels external to them. The living part means the NPCs for example are not tethered to a particular place, are acting like PCs and doing things, responding to the players, etc. And this kind of thing, when you play it out, can produce a very consistent world experience (the players kill Scholar Han's wife; scholar Han goes to Iron God Meng then next day and hires him and his men to help track down and kill the PCs; The PCs learn Iron God Meng is after them and try to negotiate with him, outbidding Scholar Han; humiliated once again, Scholar Han decides to go into seclusion and try to achieve a martial arts break through so he is powerful enough to take on the party himself, etc)


----------



## TwoSix

Bedrockgames said:


> Part of the problem is you are focused on believability which is just one aspect of what I am talking about. If it turns out we don't actually disagree about anything, I would certainly welcome that. But you push back enough against my thoughts on sandbox, living world, sometimes even telling me what I say I am doing is an impossibility, that I think we must disagree here. The point of living world isn't just to make a believable world, but to make a world that is moving around the characters and feels external to them. The living part means the NPCs for example are not tethered to a particular place, are acting like PCs and doing things, responding to the players, etc. And this kind of thing, when you play it out, can produce a very consistent world experience (the players kill Scholar Han's wife; scholar Han goes to Iron God Meng then next day and hires him and his men to help track down and kill the PCs; The PCs learn Iron God Meng is after them and try to negotiate with him, outbidding Scholar Han; humiliated once again, Scholar Han decides to go into seclusion and try to achieve a martial arts break through so he is powerful enough to take on the party himself, etc)



I think the salient point here is that _all of us_ try to achieve coherent fiction in that regard; it's simply the method by which we do so is different depending on the system we're using.  I have no problems with moving an NPC around to another place and have his current actions be in response to something the PCs did earlier, I just don't do it independently if the game system doesn't call for it.

No matter what type of game I was playing, I'd be keeping an NPC like Scholar Han in my back pocket.  You can build a story around Scholar Han in a GM-driven game, or frame him into the story in a more narrative game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> I think the salient point here is that _all of us_ try to achieve coherent fiction in that regard; it's simply the method by which we do so is different depending on the system we're using.  I have no problems with moving an NPC around to another place and have his current actions be in response to something the PCs did earlier, I just don't do it independently if the game system doesn't call for it.
> 
> No matter what type of game I was playing, I'd be keeping an NPC like Scholar Han in my back pocket.  You can build a story around Scholar Han in a GM-driven game, or frame him into the story in a more narrative game.




I would say coherent world though in a living world.  A lot of the debate here has been whether the only thing going on is 'the fiction' (which is a term a lot of us don't embrace). I get you might be using the term more casually but mentioning this in case you are using it in the sense of 'the fiction'. But I am not saying people doing other things are not looking for consistency, or that the world doesn't matter. Its just in a living world sandbox the world as an external thing to the PCs, with the active NPCs and energy I described is incredibly important (on the other hand if I am playing something).

I am happy to play according to a system. Like I said I have run DramaSystem, and that is definitely not intended for living world style play (I would describe it as an incredibly subjective approach to immersion because words you speak in character can become reality in the setting----which is almost the opposite of living world sandbox). I can definitely enjoy myself doing that. 

And if I am running a living world sandbox, I am typically going to select a game that fits what I am trying to do. I wouldn't use Dramasystem for my wandering heroes campaign (though I have tried mixing them to see what happens). Even a game like savage worlds, I am not sure I would use for more sandbox oriented play (probably could work but I tend to use it for different things).


----------



## Bedrockgames

TwoSix said:


> No matter what type of game I was playing, I'd be keeping an NPC like Scholar Han in my back pocket.  You can build a story around Scholar Han in a GM-driven game, or frame him into the story in a more narrative game.




I wouldn't describe living sandbox as GM driven or as building a story around Scholar Han. The whole point is to make scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn. I am not particularly interested in what story that produces. He might not even get far enough to be of that much consequence. It is about treating the NPC more like a PC who is reactive to the PCs but also active and driven by his own motivations and goals.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I wouldn't describe living sandbox as GM driven or as building a story around Scholar Han. The whole point is to make scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn.




If the whole point is to make Scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn, then how do you accomplish this? Specifically you in your game....what do you do?

Because Scholar Han can be made to do things that make sense at each turn in a GM driven game or in a No Myth game, right? Those games would reach that point in different ways. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I am not particularly interested in what story that produces. He might not even get far enough to be of that much consequence. It is about treating the NPC more like a PC who is reactive to the PCs but also active and driven by his own motivations and goals.




So how do you accomplish this? Do you have a list of bullet points about Scholar Han? Do you use something like a “Faction Turn” where you look at all the different NPCs and groups and adjust their standing according to what’s happened in play? Do you make rolls for any of this as part of some formalized system, or do you simply use your judgement? 

Again, in this case I mean specifically you, @Bedrockgames .


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I thought it was a perfectly valid distinction to draw. I do understand what you mean now. But one thing points to an entity that has a very debatable existence in reality (and if it does, is supposed to exist outside the GMs mind), the other points to something that exists as a thought in the GMs mind. One is the world beyond. The other the world inside.



This is a distinction without a difference. Either way, players are sussing out information about the Spirit/Game World from the medium, whether they are a Game Medium or Spirit Medium.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> If the whole point is to make Scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn, then how do you accomplish this? Specifically you in your game....what do you do?
> 
> Because Scholar Han can be made to do things that make sense at each turn in a GM driven game or in a No Myth game, right? Those games would reach that point in different ways.




When I think of GM driven, I think of something like a linear adventure path or a plot driven adventure (like 90s storyteller). I see living world sandboxes as more back and forth, where the GM actually kind of hangs back once things really get going on their own (it is ultimately an interplay between GM and Players: not one side). But I don't know what a No Myth game is, so not sure about that one. 

You accomplish it playing him the same way players play PCs. There isn't really a magic procedure here beyond asking yourself questions and answering them (and applying any procedures or rolls you think are needed). It is more like the players go to the village and one of them gets in a fight with Scholar Han and his wife. The fight plays out according to the rules of the game, and scholar hans wife is killed, while Scholar Han runs away. At that point you ask yourself: what is Scholar Han doing? Based on what I know of him, I sure he will want revenge, but I know he is going to be a bit clever about it, so given what he knows of the area, going to Iron God Meng. Then the players go about their business and do whatever they are doing. During that time I am periodically. Maybe the next day the players have gone to Mai Cun to attempt to join the 87 Killers Gang. Checking in with Scholar Han, I see (Tung-On, where Iron God Meng lives) is about a day away; so Scholar Han is probably trying to convince Iron God Meng to turn help him get revenge against the PCs. He offers him funding for his organization to persuade him. This might become more involved (for example I may think that Iron God Meng would want Scholar Han to prove his worth first, or that there is even a possibility he would say no, despite the money) but let's say for the sake of argument he goes along with it. Now Scholar Han needs to find out where the PCs are and try to organize an ambush against them with Iron God Meng and his men. So I'd probably have him make a roll based on what kind of information network or connections he has OR I would have him make a knowledge roll related to the Martial World (to reflect him going to various people he might know in town who have heard rumors). I'd give him a roll a day and when he succeeds he may learn they were in Tung On asking about the 87 killers. Let's say that he succeeded on the 4th day, he'd go to Mai Cun and it would probably become a question fo competing survival rolls to see if he sees them first or if they see him first. And once there what the PCs have been doing will matter a great deal, if they manage to become part of the 87 killers organization for example, I think its possible Iron God Meng would withdraw his support. If that happens, the emerald monks are nearby so Scholar Han might hire them to send an assassin after the party. It is a little hard to say how all this will play out at each stage though because so much of it is dependent on what the players are doing. But let's say they haven't joined the 87 killers, its possible Iron God Meng, Scholar Han and some of Iron God Mengs men surround the party as they are walking through the city (or maybe they choose to strike them at night in an inn room). However if the players saw them first, that might change things and it could be the players either striking first or trying to lose them. If they've joined the 87 killers then I would have to wait a bit to see what the players are doing, what Scholar Han is able to learn about them and then see if he is able to find a good opportunity for sending assassins after them (for example if the players go on a mission for Lady Eighty Seven after joining the 87 killers, maybe Han learns about that and directs the assassin at them at that time) 

The point of all this isn't that there is any particular technique to use, just that you play Han like a PC, accounting for his skills and his intelligence, social standing (Scholar Han passed the imperial exams), etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> So how do you accomplish this? Do you have a list of bullet points about Scholar Han? Do you use something like a “Faction Turn” where you look at all the different NPCs and groups and adjust their standing according to what’s happened in play? Do you make rolls for any of this as part of some formalized system, or do you simply use your judgement?
> 
> Again, in this case I mean specifically you, @Bedrockgames .




I don't have a formal mechanism or procedure like "faction turns". However I do track what my factions are doing, and if there is conflict between them I make regular rolls to see who is winning, how many men are being killed etc (and I have a sect and organization shake up table I roll on on occasion anyways). Mostly I think it is about playing the factions and playing the NPCs. Just like I pointed to in the Feast of Goblyns entry. There is no formal: do this, then this, then this. I simply have the NPC stats, description (which is more of a memory aid, what is most important is the concept of the character and his motives: very rarely need to read this again during play), his kung fu techniques, etc. I do often make rolls for the NPCs (as I described above), but that often comes down to two things: 1) being uncertain about something---for instance if I were uncertain about Iron God Meng's reaction to Han I may have Han make a Persuade roll, and 2) playing the game fairly. I don't want to have Han just arrive by fiat to stage the perfect ambush as some kind of set piece. I want him to have to work for that just like the players would (this is why I occasionally outsource NPCs like this to friends no playing in the current campaign if they are available to do so: I call this long distance villainy). So Han will make skill rolls. I may make rulings on other types of rolls (for example maybe Han sends some of his servants to abduct the player's friend in another town as an ace up his sleeve: I would rule on this by assigning a general competence level to the servants of 0 to 6, and then roll a pool of d10s either against a target number of my choosing or against one of the mental defenses of the victim). If Scholar Han is moving around a lot I will often take out a map, put it on the table (if it is a live game with people I would put the map behind a screen) and place a pawn on the map to track his movement). This is really kind of an intuitive process where you are regularly drawing on what seems to be the best tool for the moment


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> 2)  I don't know how many comedians you know.  I don't know a ton, but the ones I'm familiar with (I know 2 in real life) actually describe a structured process that hews very closely to what I'm talking about.  Anecdotes of professional comics and guys I know make the tradecraft part of it look like this:
> 
> * Always be switched on.  Always have a pen ready to write new material.  You're constantly practicing the cognitive framework.
> 
> * Understand your shtick, develop it (these things don't accidentally come together), stick to it.
> 
> * Be around other comics as much as possible so you're always bouncing material off of each other.  This is practice.
> 
> * Practice your material and delivery in small clubs (even HUGE comics do this regularly) so you're constantly sharping your iron and trying out material with considerably reduced stakes.
> 
> 
> That looks exactly like what I'm talking about.




I definitely agree there is a craft to it as well. I am from Boston and comedy clubs are (well were, not sure they are open during covid) really common here. I think as a GM you are experimenting with all kinds of prep, play, ways of thinking, absorbing media that feeds how you run the game and what tools you bring to the table. I was just focusing on the phenomenon of bombing in comedy. In part because comedians talk about it a lot. But also because when they talk about it some of them describe this detachment where they are able to learn about what is going wrong (and others use it as a moment to just try other things: like that famous Bill Burr rant against the hostility crowd, that shifted to laughter). One of the most instructive moments for me as a GM is when things go off the rails or don't work. When things work, you almost don't learn anything, you just think you are awesome. But running into trouble at the table forces you to think about what didn't work, re-evaluate any ideas you take, etc. Ultimately though however much prep or craft you do, you learn by doing (like in comedy). A comedian has to perform like you point out, and a GM has to run games.


----------



## Fenris-77

Post-mortem analysis of successful play can be very enlightening.


----------



## Fenris-77

I'm going to wait here for @darkbard who is about 20 pages back but approaching quickly.


----------



## Cadence

@pemerton @Ovinomancer @Manbearcat   -  Thank you all for your answers and play examples!  They helped clarify a great deal about what I was reading in your posts - especially when you described the range of different takes the games you've played and enjoyed had on these issues. Now I just need to find the time (which I obviously didn't have this weekend to reply!) to let the things gel in my head.   

Being impatient and trying to avoid work though...

The thing I'm wondering about most immediately is how much of enjoyment of the DM and players is what they imagine they're doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing.  For example, if a player was enjoying what he thought was going through a dungeon with pre-specified difficulties, how much of that should be lost if it turns out the DCs were being made up on the fly?  If a player was having fun thinking that all of the responses hadn't been pre-imagined by the DM and showed up organically in play, how much of that should be lost if they learn the DM had a pre-imagined plot that sometimes dropped in?

And so, getting off track of the thread, this has me realizing I don't think I've ever been in a session-zero equivalent where the DM has explicitly said where they "fudge" (beyond just not doing it with the dice in some cases) and at what level they put character story in.   Do the adamant no-dice-fudgers still adjust whether reinforcements all show up or have the villain switch attacks just to save a PC?   Do they adjust what magic items were going to be found if a character dies and is replaced by a different class? etc.  And I wonder how many players would want the "no-fudge" option when picking a game style, but then want the fudging out at some level (is taking character backgrounds into account when world designing considered fudging to some).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Post-mortem analysis of successful play can be very enlightening.




i am not talking about post mortem (post mortem are always a good idea). I am talking about observing in the moment what isn't working. You can do that for when the session is going well too (though I find it very hard to analyze a game that is working and keeping it working----you are sort of in the zone). But if it is already falling apart, it is a great opportunity to pay attention to what seems to be making it all not work.


----------



## Fenris-77

There's a huge difference between a DM just making crap up and adjudicating actions and consequences with a keen eye to the unfolding narrative, both in terms of logic and content. The first sucks, while the second is dandy.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> i am not talking about post mortem. I am talking about observing in the moment what isn't working. You can do that for when the session is going well too (though I find it very hard to analyze a game that is working and keeping it working----you are sort of in the zone). But if it is already falling apart, it is a great opportunity to pay attention to what seems to be making it all not work.



No, _I_ was talking about post-mortem. I'd agree that in the moment it's tough to observe much of anything. The bad stuff might be more obvious, but that is also much easier to sort out post-mortem. I was just suggesting a moment where what works in a campaign can be a useful learning tool for GMs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> No, _I_ was talking about post-mortem. I'd agree that in the moment it's tough to observe much of anything. The bad stuff might be more obvious, but that is also much easier to sort out post-mortem. I was just suggesting a moment where what works in a campaign can be a useful learning tool for GMs.




I agree on that


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I'll bypass Manbearcat's humour, because that's the sort of person I am, and cut to the issue of adjudication.
> 
> I'm sure the GM who made the call about duration of oxygen supply in my sci-fi convention game hadn't set out to make the game feel less real. When I had unrealistically slow planes on Byron, that wasn't deliberate either. I just didn't know much about the speed of military prop planes! (Or even civilian ones - I've just Googled and learned that a Focker Friendship goes faster than what I called in our game.) Surprisingly, but also helpfully insofar as it avoided any issues, apparently none of my players did either, not even the military history guy.
> 
> This drives home my point that we're not talking about "thought experiments" here. We're talking about the GM making stuff up, by reference to his/her conception of the thing which may include some stuff that's written down (ie notes). It's needless obscurantism to overlay this with metaphor such as "exploring a world" or "really existing in thought". It's stuff that someone is authoring based on whatever considerations inform those authorship decisions.
> 
> EDIT: An author extrapolating from his/her description of something to something else "that feels right" isn't a thought experiment. It's just more writing. It's not constrained by "reality" in any way beyond being constrained by the other ideas and beliefs and expectations and aspirations of the author.
> 
> There's no need to complicate this, or use metaphor. It is what it is. Gygax is upfront about that. So is Moldvay. It's an approach that obviously  puts the GM's conception of what is happening in the fiction in the forefront of framing and adjudication.




Agree with all this.

For my part I just totally lost the plot because I thought I was contending with “thoughts are real so imagined space has subsistence” (not true) but it turned out to be “everyone’s threshold for ‘real’ is different because it’s on a continuum” (true).


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> How so?
> 
> MBC is positing we have what seems an absurdly low rate of GMs among the player pool and compares it to the number of [various types of athlete/artisan] among the humanity pool.
> 
> I'm just trying to point out that the ratio in either case probably isn't all that different.






Aldarc said:


> How many roles are there typically in a RPG? Now how many "roles," "specializations," or "jobs" are there in human civilization? How has the population boom of humanity affected that across time? I don't think that this is an appropriate comparison of like to like.




Aldarc is correct here.

You entirely changed the framework of the theoretical longitudinal study I was proposing...and you weren't changing it for the better.

The study proposes two populations:

* Homo sapiens circa about 100 k years ago till today (by this point we were effectively passing down martial arts/craft/artisanship through generations).

* TTRPGing players circa mid 70s till today.

Then,

1) Examine what % of functional (not tails of the distribution...just part of the normal distribution) martial artists (anything physical including sport), craftfolks, AND (not OR...AND) artisans emerged perpetually from the populace and how (it emerged exactly as I proposed it emerged above).  This is because (a) they're kindred in their nature and (b) kindred in the means by which they were passed down.

2) Do the same thing with GMs (and don't break it down into GMs by game or by playstyle...ALL OF THEM).


Its straight-forward.  (1) has an enormous % of functional martial artists, craftfolks, and artisans across Homo sapien history.  (2) has an extremely low % of functional GMs across TTRPGing history.  The way (1) achieved their prolific production is entirely different than the way (2) failed to achieve prolific production.

Perhaps (2) could use more of the approach of (1) to increase their production of functional GMs as a % of population.



Now if you change the longitudinal study, you'll be looking at and answering something different.  Specific subgroups such as Cobblers vs Story Now GMs for 4e is something else entirely.  If you change it from the normal distribution to studying one of the tails (are we more apt to get freakishly good Cobblers or freakishly good Story Now GMs for 4e) is, again, something else entirely.

But...why would you do that?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Aldarc is correct here.
> 
> You entirely changed the framework of the theoretical longitudinal study I was proposing...and you weren't changing it for the better.
> 
> The study proposes two populations:
> 
> * Homo sapiens circa about 100 k years ago till today (by this point we were effectively passing down martial arts/craft/artisanship through generations).
> 
> * TTRPGing players circa mid 70s till today.
> 
> Then,
> 
> 1) Examine what % of functional (not tails of the distribution...just part of the normal distribution) martial artists (anything physical including sport), craftfolks, AND (not OR...AND) artisans emerged perpetually from the populace and how (it emerged exactly as I proposed it emerged above).  This is because (a) they're kindred in their nature and (b) kindred in the means by which they were passed down.
> 
> 2) Do the same thing with GMs (and don't break it down into GMs by game or by playstyle...ALL OF THEM).
> 
> 
> Its straight-forward.  (1) has an enormous % of functional martial artists, craftfolks, and artisans across Homo sapien history.  (2) has an extremely low % of functional GMs across TTRPGing history.  The way (1) achieved their prolific production is entirely different than the way (2) failed to achieve prolific production.
> 
> Perhaps (2) could use more of the approach of (1) to increase their production of functional GMs as a % of population.
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you change the longitudinal study, you'll be looking at and answering something different.  Specific subgroups such as Cobblers vs Story Now GMs for 4e is something else entirely.  If you change it from the normal distribution to studying one of the tails (are we more apt to get freakishly good Cobblers or freakishly good Story Now GMs for 4e) is, again, something else entirely.
> 
> But...why would you do that?




except 1 wasn’t a) a straight line of transmission (there is a lot to be skeptical about when it comes to claims of unbroken lineages and oral traditions in martial arts, with many arguably being more recent reinventions. 2) There were and remain a very high percentage of not functionally good martial artists. This was something we realized with the UFC: there was and is tons of martial arts practices that don’t work because the relied heavily on theory not enough on fire. I think it is similar with RPGs: fire-the table is most important.


----------



## Manbearcat

Cadence said:


> @pemerton @Ovinomancer @Manbearcat   -  Thank you all for your answers and play examples!  They helped clarify a great deal about what I was reading in your posts - especially when you described the range of different takes the games you've played and enjoyed had on these issues. Now I just need to find the time (which I obviously didn't have this weekend to reply!) to let the things gel in my head.
> 
> Being impatient and trying to avoid work though...
> 
> The thing I'm wondering about most immediately is how much of enjoyment of the DM and players is what they imagine they're doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing.  For example, if a player was enjoying what he thought was going through a dungeon with pre-specified difficulties, how much of that should be lost if it turns out the DCs were being made up on the fly?  If a player was having fun thinking that all of the responses hadn't been pre-imagined by the DM and showed up organically in play, how much of that should be lost if they learn the DM had a pre-imagined plot that sometimes dropped in?
> 
> And so, getting off track of the thread, this has me realizing I don't think I've ever been in a session-zero equivalent where the DM has explicitly said where they "fudge" (beyond just not doing it with the dice in some cases) and at what level they put character story in.   Do the adamant no-dice-fudgers still adjust whether reinforcements all show up or have the villain switch attacks just to save a PC?   Do they adjust what magic items were going to be found if a character dies and is replaced by a different class? etc.  And I wonder how many players would want the "no-fudge" option when picking a game style, but then want the fudging out at some level (is taking character backgrounds into account when world designing considered fudging to some).




Hey Cadence.  Glad that was helpful.

What you're talking about above is "Skilled Play" as a play priority and "Follow the Rules" as a play priority.  You can have a game that isn't Skilled Play that has Follow the Rules as a priority but is more muted on the "Skilled Play" priority (even if it has it).  My Life With Master and Dogs in the Vineyard can both be played skillfully but Skilled Play (as a priority) is more muted than in another "Follow the Rules" game like Moldvay Basic D&D or D&D 4e or Blades in the Dark (where Skilled Play is extremely important in those games).

Any game where Skilled Play is a big priority or THE APEX priority of play (Moldvay Basic D&D), you MUST Follow the Rules.  If a GM goes into one of those games and fudges dice and/or results and/or deploys Force (this is a technique used by GMs which wrests the trajectory of play from players to the GM by rendering their meaningful decision points irrelevant), things go "pear-shaped" because that is a strict (and overwhelmingly deceptive) violation of the ethos of play.

So you've got 2 problems; cheating and deception.  People don't like that.

Not all TTRPGs are like this and not all forms of D&D.  In fact, I would say that the most common form of D&D (and the one that 5e pushes toward) is a "Storyteller" form of D&D where the GM is (a) EXPECTED to control the trajectory of play to (b) ensure an "exciting, memorable story" and this is overwhelmingly through (c) heavily curating/tailoring play (while playing) by way of (d) heavy-handed framing + the deployment of Force (which includes fudging, ignoring, or changing outcomes).

In that sort of game, its built-in that "GM as Storyteller" is a mandate and "Tell an Exciting, Memorable Story" is the apex priority of play.  If following the rules doesn't serve that end and players playing skillfully doesn't serve that end....well, Follow the Rules and Skilled Play become subordinated.  So players should understand that going in.  It isn't cheating or deception for the GM to do those things.  Its "doing their job."

The problem D&D has historically had (since Dragonlance and AD&D 2e really introduced this as a mainstream priority of play) is that designers/culture haven't been forthright and transparent about the interactions of these things.  How the implications of Force and "The Golden Rule" completely subvert Skilled Play.  So that has led to a lot of incoherent play or incoherent expectations at the table and a lot of downstream hard feelings as a byproduct.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> except 1 wasn’t a) a straight line of transmission (there is a lot to be skeptical about when it comes to claims of unbroken lineages and oral traditions in martial arts, with many arguably being more recent reinventions. 2) There were and remain a very high percentage of not functionally good martial artists. This was something we realized with the UFC: there was and is tons of martial arts practices that don’t work because the relied heavily on theory not enough on fire. I think it is similar with RPGs: fire-the table is most important.




Check out my post again.

I'm using "Martial Art" in the generic form here....as a stand-in here for any art that is primarily driven by the body (martial here meaning the physicality of it could turn a body into an implement for capability in combat); dance, ball sports, etc just as much as wrestling. 

And, again, I'm talking "functional across the normal distribution of a population."  Going into the octagon and getting your ass kicked by someone at the tail of the distribution of humanity doesn't mean you aren't a functional martial artist who can't defend themselves against an average attacker (and yes, I absolutely agree that there are a lot of "snake oil" martial arts out there and Kung Fu has been dealing with a comeuppance as of late - given its historical reputation as an apex martial art).

EDIT - if you (or anyone else) would like, we can just make it "physical arts"...whatever makes it so we're focused on the idea and not the details.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Check out my post again.
> 
> I'm using "Martial Art" in the generic form here....as a stand-in here for any art that is primarily driven by the body (martial); dance, ball sports, etc just as much as wrestling.
> 
> And, again, I'm talking "functional across the normal distribution of a population."  Going into the octagon and getting your ass kicked by someone at the tail of the distribution of humanity doesn't mean you aren't a functional martial artist who can't defend themselves against an average attacker (and yes, I absolutely agree that there are a lot of "snake oil" martial arts out there and Kung Fu has been dealing with a comeuppance as of late - given its historical reputation as an apex martial art).




That is fair, but that also seems very broad. For example, I would argue humans have advanced technologically in terms of warfare and tactics, but that, I think is largely also a product of going to war (was is defiantly a pressure cooker). The same with a lot of sports, there is an evolution that occurs in that pressure cooker of competition that is generating massive revenue. But have we really gotten better at acrobatics? Have we gotten physically better at fighting? (maybe in some instances, but if you asked me would I rather be put in a death match cage unarmed against a random person from today, and a random person from 100,000 years ago, I think I might go with the person from today (because my intuition tells me we've evolved away from the needs of being as physically strong and enduring as we've become more civilized: and that the person from 100,000 years ago is more likely to have killed with their bare hands).

In terms of RPGs and teaching GMs, 90s storytelling, etc I have more thoughts on that but will have to post on them when I have more time


----------



## Campbell

I would hardly use the UFC as an example of trial by fire being a good training strategy. We are after all talking about a sport where fighters often train for 6+ months for a fight that usually takes less than 15 minutes. The training required to even be a mediocre fighter requires a strong grasp of striking, wrestling, and BJJ. In my personal while fluidity and adaptation are important, an undisciplined and haphazard approach in combat and strength sports is a recipe for disaster.

Not making an argument about anything else here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I would hardly use the UFC as an example of trial by fire being a good training strategy. We are after all talking about a sport where fighters often train for 6+ months for a fight that usually takes less than 15 minutes. The training required to even be a mediocre fighter requires a strong grasp of striking, wrestling, and BJJ. In my personal while fluidity and adaptation are important, an undisciplined and haphazard approach in combat and strength sports is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Not making an argument about anything else here.




The point is that fire is how you arrived at the Striking+Grappling formula. Prior to that there were all kinds of ideas floating around about what style was supreme and a lot of us we way off in our assumptions. But  I also think if you go into an MMA gym, there is more of a trial by fire because you are sparring. And if you just look at BJJ, that is, at least as far as grappling is concerned, trial by fire because you roll against people who are trying to outdo you (and you can go pretty hard as long as people are tapping out). Same with a boxing gym: sparring at boxing gyms is pretty much like getting beat up for the first several months. 

Training strategy obviously matters as well. But if you look at striking, you don't become even a mediocre striker just hitting pads, the bag, and working on your form in the mirror: you have to spar. It is the only way to figure out how to apply the techniques you are learning. You can see this clearly when people who don't spar, but have maybe trained in a style for a while, attempt sparring for the first time or do so very irregularly.


----------



## innerdude

@Bedrockgames, thanks for taking the time to try and create a more detailed breakdown of the process you use to try and generate "living world" play.

Even if my own experience with sandbox play has not generated the same kinds of synergy/effect as described, I am grateful for the effort you put in to describing the process.

Interestingly, the things you describe are not unfamiliar. I can distinctly recall the mental flow states of _preestablished fiction -> player action declaration -> resolution -> extrapolation_. I can clearly envision myself in the middle of that process, and recall my cognitive state.

For me the beginning of disillusionment was the realization that there were still so many points where I just had to create or extrapolate whole cloth. It felt . . . like despite my best attempts, that I still had too much control over the fiction. I wanted to give my players more control, to feel more like they were driving their own success, without me-as-GM simply smoothing over the path for them.

Yet I also didn't want their victories to come cheaply either. There may be another avenue of exploration to this beyond simply the prep/notes/prefabrication, which is how to telegraph/communicate challenges to the players. The thing that's been interesting in Ironsworn, is that the players have fully embraced their role in collaboratively changing the fictional framing of challenges as their actions resolve.

They're very willing to engage with the consequences as they arise, with a strong recognition that to maintain principled play, they need to engage in the spirit of the rules and take into account the fictional framing.

So most of the time so far in Ironsworn, the players' challenges have arisen much more organically.

I actually think I need to explore BitD to look more closely at the idea of clocks, as they seem to be a mechanic that orients toward how to introduce new challenges to the players.


----------



## Fenris-77

Clocks can be and are used in just about any system to track complex tasks of various sorts. In Blades they are pretty tightly tied to the basic game of course, and used for all sorts of things. Long term projects, faction events, consequences of various sorts, plus more in-game things like complex tasks (avoiding security for example) and opposed tasks, as well as combat stuff when appropriate. Even if you don't play Blades, those rules are a great primer for what clocks can be used for and how.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> The point is that fire is how you arrived at the Striking+Grappling formula. Prior to that there were all kinds of ideas floating around about what style was supreme and a lot of us we way off in our assumptions. But  I also think if you go into an MMA gym, there is more of a trial by fire because you are sparring. And if you just look at BJJ, that is, at least as far as grappling is concerned, trial by fire because you roll against people who are trying to outdo you (and you can go pretty hard as long as people are tapping out). Same with a boxing gym: sparring at boxing gyms is pretty much like getting beat up for the first several months.
> 
> Training strategy obviously matters as well. But if you look at striking, you don't become even a mediocre striker just hitting pads, the bag, and working on your form in the mirror: you have to spar. It is the only way to figure out how to apply the techniques you are learning. You can see this clearly when people who don't spar, but have maybe trained in a style for a while, attempt sparring for the first time or do so very irregularly.




Not sure what you are trying to get at here, but in BJJ training you are provided with instruction, have technique training, perform drills, and roll. You do it all. You do not learn just by rolling. A strong grasp of theory, physical conditioning, learning individual techniques, training those techniques individually and as part of rolling. All are required. Skirt on any and progression of your skills will falter.

No one is arguing that the focus should not be on active practice, just that without intentionality, strong fundamentals, and developed technique that live practice generally will not go well. Even if you are naturally gifted training haphazardly will stagnate your growth.

Also sparring / rolling is way different than actually fighting. Sparring is part of training. Only bad training partners treat sparring like a fight.

I'll reiterate. Not making a gaming argument here.


----------



## Fenris-77

One, this metaphor has turned into a monster. Two, UFC is not the high bar that should be used to measure martial effectiveness.  That's a silly bloody idea when it's still a sport that has extensive lists of things you aren't allowed to do. Anyway, I'll be moving on now, as you were gentlemen.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Not sure what you are trying to get at here, but in BJJ training you are provided with instruction, have technique training, perform drills, and roll. You do it all. You do not learn just by rolling. A strong grasp of theory, physical conditioning, learning individual techniques, training those techniques individually and as part of rolling. All are required. Skirt on any and progression of your skills will falter.




I understand that. My point was one of the things that positioned BJJ to do so well in ufc was they rolled and could do so fully. A lot of other styles had much more minimal levels of practicing against fully resisting opponents. Not denying the important difference other elements of training. But the fire of going against a fully resisting opponent is the only way to learn how to use those fundamentals in a real way.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> Not sure what you are trying to get at here, but in BJJ training you are provided with instruction, have technique training, perform drills, and roll. You do it all. You do not learn just by rolling. A strong grasp of theory, physical conditioning, learning individual techniques, training those techniques individually and as part of rolling. All are required. Skirt on any and progression of your skills will falter.
> 
> No one is arguing that the focus should not be on active practice, just that without intentionality, strong fundamentals, and developed technique that live practice generally will not go well. Even if you are naturally gifted training haphazardly will stagnate your growth.
> 
> Also sparring / rolling is way different than actually fighting. Sparring is part of training. Only bad training partners treat sparring like a fight.
> 
> I'll reiterate. Not making a gaming argument here.




I (no surprise) agree with all of this.  One thing in particular I agree with (and was going to post on) is sparring being training.  In the most important ways (structure, constraints, trust, neurological system deployment), it in no way resembles an actual fight.  When you're in an actual fight (and its not clear to me how many commenters on here have been in actual fights...where your freedom, your life, someone else's life is hanging in the balance), all of that stuff in the parenthetical above is complete gone or disjointed.

And I will use this to make a gaming argument (to continue the argument I've been making).  One of the primary reasons I've been making this case for reorienting the training regime of GMing is precisely because of that last part of the parenthetical above; neurological system deployment. 

Back to fighting...

When you have enough applied trained as a physical combatant, being faced with actually having to lock horns with another human and defend yourself becomes a completely different ordeal neurologically.  The adrenaline and cortisol dump that would put most people into a state of extreme agitation, fog, and oftentimes negatively impacting performance and confidence becomes muted or inverted.  Trained fighters don't get swept away on a train of emotion and endocrine response, they're able to see things more clearly, able to be present, able to move better, able to de-escalate things.  And their "monkey ego" is considerably less likely to be involved in the suite of decisions to come.

GMing is similar.

New GMs who are not prepared (because their base isn't underneath them, their fundamentals aren't sound, they haven't been through a regime of training that diminishes the adrenaline and cortisol dump that comes with the responsibilities of GMing) are likely overwhelmed by their endocrine response, their neurological system is firing in ways that is actually harmful to their performance, and they aren't confident.

That needs to be fixed.  The best way I know to fix it is through the training regime I've been espousing here.


----------



## Fenris-77

Which grappling styles are you talking about there BRG? I'm thinking of Judo and various forms of wrestling here, all of which feature a heavy dose of full resistance ground work. BJJ is probably the most technical of the bunch, especially for submissions, but putting it down to full power sparring seems to be missing the point.

And this sort of crap, ladies and gentlemen, is why this metaphor is failing us badly.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> It started out with me rejecting your language of playing to discover the GM's notes and me posting out the flaw of that language as the foundation for this thread.



That phrase occurred in a reply I made to another poster on page 17. That is not the foundation for the thread. The thread began on page 1.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Which grappling styles are you talking about there BRG? I'm thinking of Judo and various forms of wrestling here, all of which feature a heavy dose of full resistance ground work. BJJ is probably the most technical of the bunch, especially for submissions, but putting it down to full power sparring seems to be missing the point.




I wasn’t thinking of grappling styles. Judo, wrestling etc all did pretty well. I was thinking about traditional striking styles and schools that avoided sparring or had very limited sparring. i am not saying it’s all about the sparring: I am saying a martial art that doesn’t have to deal with that level of reality in its training, and put the skills to the test against resisting opponents isn’t going to be as effective

Personally I like Judo better than BJJ because it is more fun for me, whereas BJJ always bored me to tears.

also don’t get me wrong, martial arts don’t have to be effective to be worth your time.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> For all I know you run traveller as a living world.



In that case why am I not on your side as opposed to being on the opposition "my side"?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Also sparring / rolling is way different than actually fighting. Sparring is part of training. Only bad training partners treat sparring like a fight.
> 
> I'll reiterate. Not making a gaming argument here.




Well fights have zero rules, so I am really talking about fully resisting opponents in the context of combat sports. Of course in sparring you often go light for technique. And I feel that is good for developing the technique. But you still need to put people in the fire before a full contact competition so they can experience the confusion that creates. Sparring a fully resisting opponent who is also trying to land hard hits, is exhausting. It is important that your first experience of that is in a safe envirornmebt and not the ring or competition. Striking schools vary. A lot of boxing gyms around here go very hard in sparring. In boxing it is almost a way of weeding people out. That is just the culture. Muay Thai gyms here tend to have lighter sparring but will increase the power. I’ve been at places too that would put a percentage on how hard to go and increase to about 90 (sometimes 100) building up to a competition


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> There are plenty of people who don't care as much about a world's *internal consistency*. I am not saying you don't. I am saying there is a spectrum of play where you have people who are perfectly happy to overlook *believability* in favor of other things, and people who are deeply invested in *realism*.



How did the three bolded phrases suddenly become synonyms?

My 4e game isn't _realistic_: among other things, it features demigods who travel through the multiverse in a flying tower. It is _believable _only in the same way that an X-Men or Avengers movie might be believable - ie it evokes established and fairly familiar tropes. The fiction is _internally consistent_.

My Prince Valiant game isn't _realistic_: it is rather sanitised faux-mediaeval. It is _believable_ in the same way that any B-grade Arthurian fiction might be. The fiction is _internally consistent_.

My Classic Traveller game isn't _realistic_: for starters, it includes FTL travel and anti-gravity. The main thing in my group that puts a strain on _believability _is the woefully underdeveloped communication and computing technology. (I explain this in the following terms: the effort that in our world went into those things, in the Traveller world went into quantum gravity and fusion research.) The fiction is _internally consistent_ provided one doesn't look too hard at the scientific impossibilities.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> How did the three bolded phrases suddenly become synonyms?




they weren’t. I was contrasting believability and realism (and internal consistency is just important to them: I wasn’t equating these things)


----------



## AnotherGuy

Aldarc said:


> How about you go "huh?" yourself? This is such a silly argument.




A tad overly-aggressive don't you think?

Especially since the original argument from MBC is flawed given that he is comparing paid professions to hobbyists - specifically GMs.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I wasn’t thinking of grappling styles. Judo, wrestling etc all did pretty well. I was thinking about traditional striking styles and schools that avoided sparring or had very limited sparring. i am not saying it’s all about the sparring: I am saying a martial art that doesn’t have to deal with that level of reality in its training, and put the skills to the test against resisting opponents isn’t going to be as effective
> 
> Personally I like Judo better than BJJ because it is more fun for me, whereas BJJ always bored me to tears.
> 
> *also don’t get me wrong, martial arts don’t have to be effective to be worth your time.*



So, for one, I've been coaching Judo for years, so yay! That said, I have an enormous amount of respect for what BJJ does in terms of the technical breakdown and practice of ground fighting. Most Judoka could learn a lot spending some time rolling with BJJ guys. As for the second thing, yeah, the lack of actual full power sparring, or some close equivalent, is a huge downside for a lot of arts, as is not practicing against anything but itself. 

The last point (bolded)  is important too, as I fully agree, and that particular point I do think speaks directly to what we're talking about here. By that I mean that there are lots of people who play RPGs for fun and who would look at this thread and shake their heads at the lot of us. If it's working for your group, great, everything else is gravy and not everyone needs or wants to know how the sausage is made. So, that said, lets get back to talking about how we make sausage,


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> So, for one, I've been coaching Judo for years, so yay! That said, I have an enormous amount of respect for what BJJ does in terms of the technical breakdown and practice of ground fighting. Most Judoka could learn a lot spending some time rolling with BJJ guys. As for the second thing, yeah, the lack of actual full power sparring, or some close equivalent, is a huge downside for a lot of arts, as is not practicing against anything but itself.




I have a ton of respect for BJJ too. I just come from a striking background, and find grappling doesn't sink in (especially very technical styles like BJJ: to me it was like doing algebra). But judo clicked a lot more. I am no expert in it, but I was able to train in it for 6 months, learn a bit and have fun. And I found that when I got into sanshou, I was able to apply some of the judo stuff


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> there are lots of people who play RPGs for fun and who would look at this thread and shake their heads at the lot of us. If it's working for your group, great, everything else is gravy and not everyone needs or wants to know how the sausage is made. So, that said, lets get back to talking about how we make sausage,



The OP of this thread does take, as a premise, that it is posted in the General RPG wing of a discussion board for RPG hobbyists. So presumably most of those who aren't interested will never even encounter it! And those who do encounter it but aren't interested can easily ignore it.

I also think there is an extent to which "amateurs" piggyback on the work of more serious devotees. A non-RPG example: my downloading of chord charts from guitar websites for songs that I can't figure out by ear depends upon there being better musicians than me who can figure those songs out!

So what we do isn't necessarily irrelevant to the rest of the hobby even if they don't want to participate.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In that case why am I not on your side as opposed to being on the opposition "my side"?




Maybe you play in living worlds and am on my side and we are talking past each other. I am not sure. But my sense is you have some fundamental disagreements with the approaches I've talked about when I've gotten into them here in the past. Maybe it is just in how we conceptualize things. I am not sure. I do notice you keep bringing it back to 'the fiction' (which isn't meant as an attack or anything). And I suspect that is the point where we have the greatest about of divergence in how we see these things (you seem more comfortable not distinguishing between the world and the fiction; I like to distinguish between the world and what occurs with the PCs in that world: if I am wrong on this certainly correct me). For instance another poster made the comment that 'there is only the fiction'. I think it is a minor but important distinction. 

That said, in case it got lost: I am for an expansive view of sandbox and living world (and I don't strictly play just that style). My attitude is if there are other approaches and other types of games that do things differently than how I normally talk of sandbox, I think having multiple kinds of sandboxes is great. I do still think it is helpful though to distinguish between the different approaches (and not categorizing the different approaches in a way that is belittling or suggests they can never be crossed together).


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> The OP of this thread does take, as a premise, that it is posted in the General RPG wing of a discussion board for RPG hobbyists. So presumably most of those who aren't interested will never even encounter it! And those who do encounter it but aren't interested can easily ignore it.
> 
> I also think there is an extent to which "amateurs" piggyback on the work of more serious devotees. A non-RPG example: my downloading of chord charts from guitar websites for songs that I can't figure out by ear depends upon there being better musicians than me who can figure those songs out!
> 
> So what we do isn't necessarily irrelevant to the rest of the hobby even if they don't want to participate.



I didn't say or mean it's irrelevant, only that most people wouldn't care (that's on them, not us). This is far more a design side thread than anything else, at least at this point. It's pretty ephemeral for you average hobbyist though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I also think there is an extent to which "amateurs" piggyback on the work of more serious devotees. A non-RPG example: my downloading of chord charts from guitar websites for songs that I can't figure out by ear depends upon there being better musicians than me who can figure those songs out!




Importantly though, even though the person who put those out may be more educated in music than you, you might be able to take those chords and be a better song writer than the person who wrote the book.


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> A tad overly-aggressive don't you think?
> 
> Especially since the original argument from MBC is flawed given that he is comparing paid professions to hobbyists - specifically GMs.




A couple things on this:

1)  In the course of human history, monetizing a martial art, a craft, the product of artisanship is an extremely recent occurrence.  Its a minor blip in the overall arc of millions of years and even when you index it to the Homo sapien record f the last 100 k years.  Overwhelmingly, martial artists, craftsfolk, artisans plied their trade as a specialist among a small collective; an individual answer to a selection pressure....an answer that they handed down generationally among their clan.

2)  Even in the last 10 to 12 k years where trade actually became a functional part of human history, martial artists, craftsfolk, artisans who actually monetized their trade is extremely small % of the total collective of those who are functional.

I'm not special, but I'm functional or better at probably 2 dozen things that I could effectively monetize.  The world is made up of people who have broad aptitude at a number of things (sufficient to be "functional") but could never enter the tail of the human distribution in any one thing (like myself...I'll never be a world class anything, but I'm functional to good at a lot).  These things would be "hobbies" to me (just like TTRPGing).


----------



## Fenris-77

You can't be too precious about the distinction of being paid as some sort of dividing line either. Many martial artists volunteer their time as part of their belting process, and in some other cases coaches, even ones who coach high-level competitive players, don't get paid for it (that would be me, for example). Monetizing the skill of being a GM is so new that it doesn't bear the weight of comparison at all anyway.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> You can't be too precious about the distinction of being paid as some sort of dividing line either. Many martial artists volunteer their time as part of their belting process, and in some other cases (like mine) coaches, even ones who coach high-level competitive players, don't get paid for it (that would be me, for example). Monetizing the skill of being a GM is so new that it doesn't bear the weight of comparison at all anyway.




Exactly, monetization shouldn't weigh into any longitudinal study.  You're just asking for a clustereff of noise about markets, opportunity, zeitgeist, and meritocracy.  

Whereas "functional" as a metric isn't remotely as fraught and is pretty damn intuitive.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> @pemerton @Ovinomancer @Manbearcat   -  Thank you all for your answers and play examples!



No worries!



Cadence said:


> The thing I'm wondering about most immediately is how much of enjoyment of the DM and players is what they imagine they're doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing.  For example, if a player was enjoying what he thought was going through a dungeon with pre-specified difficulties, how much of that should be lost if it turns out the DCs were being made up on the fly?  If a player was having fun thinking that all of the responses hadn't been pre-imagined by the DM and showed up organically in play, how much of that should be lost if they learn the DM had a pre-imagined plot that sometimes dropped in?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Do the adamant no-dice-fudgers still adjust whether reinforcements all show up or have the villain switch attacks just to save a PC?   Do they adjust what magic items were going to be found if a character dies and is replaced by a different class? etc.  And I wonder how many players would want the "no-fudge" option when picking a game style, but then want the fudging out at some level (is taking character backgrounds into account when world designing considered fudging to some).



I don't do a lot of _dungeon with pre-specified difficulties_ play. But I think if I had signed up for that, and then learned that in fact the GM was making it up as s/he goes along, I would feel a bit ripped off. I have had somewhat parallel experiences where, a certain way (eg a few sessions) into a game it becomes clear that nothing we do as players is having a substantial effect on the situations the GM is presenting to us. Generally those games have not been good ones.

When I'm playing Burning Wheel it tends to be fairly apparent to me when the GM is introducing something that was prepared or pre-imagined. This is because (i) I know him fairly well and can recognise his predictions, and (ii) they tend to have a degree of intricacy that suggests some prep rather than spontaneity. I don't really care where he draws his material from, provided that he follows the precepts of the game - that is, framing scenes that speak to player-authored Beliefs, Instincts et al; and narrating consequences (especially failure consequences) that reflect the player intent for action declarations. Because of the role of player authorship, there are going to be practical constraints on how much pre-imagining is feasible and helpful.

There are no secret rolls in the games that I play/GM at the moment, with one exception: Classic Traveller calls for secret rolls by the referee to determine if a branch of the Psionics Institute exists on a world. I have adopted a practice of making that roll at the same time that I make my other world notes as part of the process of world generation. There is also an express permission in Classic Traveller for the referee to use non-random considerations in generating worlds, and so far I have done that once in relation to branches of the Psionics Institute. I can't remember what exactly I said to the players at the time, but it doesn't worry me if they work out that I made a deliberate decision on that occasion: the trigger for it was their declared action to search for a branch on the world they were on, which had an established connection to an ancient psionics-using alien civilisation.

When I was GMing 4e, I would make decisions about reinforcements, which PC a villain might attack, etc based on what seemed sensible and fun at the time. At least one of my players adopted a general policy of not unloading all his big guns early on the basis that "pemerton always keeps something up his sleeve" in an encounter. As far as magic items were concerned in that game, these were mostly gifts or improvements of existing items; but when items were occasionally discovered I was generally going off player-authored "wishlists" to decide what they were.

In our Prince Valiant game there have been two "magic items" so far. One is a silvered dagger blessed in the waters of St Sigobert. It was a gift to one of the PCs from the Duke of York (on the occasion of another PC's wedding to the Duke's daughter Elizabeth), the recipient PC having founded a holy military order The Knights of St Sigobert. The other is a greatsword that one of the PCs (the husband of Elizabeth of York) took from a cursed ghost/haunt that the PCs defeated in the forests of Dacia. It seems likely that the greatsword is cursed in some fashion, and so far the character uses it sparingly.


----------



## Older Beholder

Aldarc said:


> There are a number of videos out there on DMing. Some of them have a "DM as mystic" approach, while others are about "demystifying DMing." I find that its these latter ones that are the most helpful for newcomers, while the former seem to mostly exist to aggrandize the DM and their sense of authority.




I can't really argue with that. 
I was more suggesting that the very existence of tutorial videos for running games means that the process is being more and more demystified all the time and thus GM's are better on average than they've ever been.

Do you have any examples of videos showing the 'DM as mystic' approach? I'm kinda curious as I'm not really sure what that would involve.


----------



## Fenris-77

YouTube videos run the whole range from useful to utter drek, so I'm sure videos on GMing are no different. Any monkey can post a video.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> A couple things on this:
> 
> 1)  In the course of human history, monetizing a martial art, a craft, the product of artisanship is an extremely recent occurrence.  Its a minor blip in the overall arc of millions of years and even when you index it to the Homo sapien record f the last 100 k years.  Overwhelmingly, martial artists, craftsfolk, artisans plied their trade as a specialist among a small collective; an individual answer to a selection pressure....an answer that they handed down generationally among their clan.
> 
> 2)  Even in the last 10 to 12 k years where trade actually became a functional part of human history, martial artists, craftsfolk, artisans who actually monetized their trade is extremely small % of the total collective of those who are functional.
> 
> I'm not special, but I'm functional or better at probably 2 dozen things that I could effectively monetize.  The world is made up of people who have broad aptitude at a number of things (sufficient to be "functional") but could never enter the tail of the human distribution in any one thing (like myself...I'll never be a world class anything, but I'm functional to good at a lot).  These things would be "hobbies" to me (just like TTRPGing).




Do you believe the percentage of sports players, artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills over the entire population are likely to exceed the number of functional GMs over the entire roleplayer community?

Furthermore
Sport is introduced as school level. It is prominent at college and university level. Furthermore club level exists. Participating in a sport could be beneficial for one's health.
Exposure to martial arts is prolific in movies and pop culture. It is valuable skill for self discipline and self-defense. Participating in a martial art could be beneficial for one's health.
Crafts and the product of artisanship are generally valuable skills to have.

Roleplaying is a useful tool for a handful of things many of which could just as easily be gained through any of the above activities.


----------



## Aldarc

ModestModernist said:


> I can't really argue with that.
> I was more suggesting that the very existence of tutorial videos for running games means that the process is being more and more demystified all the time and thus GM's are better on average than they've ever been.
> 
> Do you have any examples of videos showing the 'DM as mystic' approach? I'm kinda curious as I'm not really sure what that would involve.





Fenris-77 said:


> YouTube videos run the whole range from useful to utter drek, so I'm sure videos on GMing are no different. Any monkey can post a video.



It's much as Fenris says. I do agree with your sentiment that GMing is being demystified, though there is also some degree of backlash against that process. Plus, I don't think that anyone makes a video with the idea that they are advocating for "GM as a mystic." However, there are a number of GM advice videos that typically raise some red flags of this approach regarding how they envision the GM's role, their (power) relationship with players, fudging the dice, their "responsibility" as the GM to author a good story/world, and framing GM advice as "secrets," which treats GMing as a hidden gnosis.

Incidentally, in regards to this wider topic, Runehammer posted a video recently (Apr. 3) on "Demythifying Prep." Wherein he talks about using notes, planning scenarios not plots, avoiding pre-written outcomes, etc. (It's from a stream, so he does jump around, and by the second-half he focuses on showing how does hand-drawn character sheets.)


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> That is fair, but that also seems very broad. For example, I would argue humans have advanced technologically in terms of warfare and tactics, but that, I think is largely also a product of going to war (was is defiantly a pressure cooker). The same with a lot of sports, there is an evolution that occurs in that pressure cooker of competition that is generating massive revenue. But have we really gotten better at acrobatics? Have we gotten physically better at fighting? (maybe in some instances, but if you asked me would I rather be put in a death match cage unarmed against a random person from today, and a random person from 100,000 years ago, I think I might go with the person from today (because my intuition tells me we've evolved away from the needs of being as physically strong and enduring as we've become more civilized: and that the person from 100,000 years ago is more likely to have killed with their bare hands).
> 
> In terms of RPGs and teaching GMs, 90s storytelling, etc I have more thoughts on that but will have to post on them when I have more time



Both can be true.  The very best of today easily beat the very best of yesteryear while the average of today loses rather easily to the average of yesteryear.   The NFL is a good example.  Most of the teams in the 60's would be crushed by even an average team today.   Now, there is a limit on how far that can go and maybe the NFL is pushing it but technology matters.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I don't do a lot of _dungeon with pre-specified difficulties_ play. But I think if I had signed up for that, and then learned that in fact the GM was making it up as s/he goes along, I would feel a bit ripped off. I have had somewhat parallel experiences where, a certain way (eg a few sessions) into a game it becomes clear that nothing we do as players is having a substantial effect on the situations the GM is presenting to us. Generally those games have not been good ones.



This is a good point.  When we desire a specific type of experience, faking it does not usually work.  That is my experience at any rate.

I think if you stepped back and thought of a playstyle as a game in and of itself.  There are rules and there are expectations.   Meeting those rules and expectations is part of getting to success and hopefully fun.  We've spent a bit of time talking past each other because we really are talking about entirely different "games".   Different expectations coming in for each playstyle.  The terms are killing us too.   We spend five posts finally figuring out that we were talking about different things.

Now having said that, and given these different games exist, it is true that just like all the games in the world there are people that like both, like one, or like neither.  It's not some failing in their character regardless of their choices.  It's a matter of taste.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> This is a good point.  When we desire a specific type of experience, faking it does not usually work.  That is my experience at any rate.
> 
> I think if you stepped back and thought of a playstyle as a game in and of itself.  There are rules and there are expectations.   Meeting those rules and expectations is part of getting to success and hopefully fun.  We've spent a bit of time talking past each other because we really are talking about entirely different "games".   Different expectations coming in for each playstyle.  The terms are killing us too.   We spend five posts finally figuring out that we were talking about different things.
> 
> Now having said that, and given these different games exist, it is true that just like all the games in the world there are people that like both, like one, or like neither.  It's not some failing in their character regardless of their choices.  It's a matter of taste.



I don't think @pemerton needs to step back to realize this -- it's a fundamental underpinning of many of his arguments.  I might be wrong, he's free to correct me, but I can absolutely say for myself that this is not a new concept for me at all.

As for terms, the confusion about what they mean is limited only to those terms that have been used and not defined by the user.  I don't think, though, this is your argument, because this argument says that my use of "protagonism," for instance, wasn't confusing because I spent many posts clearly, and without jargon, explaining what was meant by this.  No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over.  Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented.  No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process.  The rest of it is arguing over who gets to define a term.  I even offered to change my term, but this offer was ignored because the point wasn't to engage the concepts, but to argue over words and prevent engaged discussion of the concepts behind them.  This is borne out by the continued refusal to accept any -- ANY -- combination of terms to define how play proceeds when the GM is the primary (usually only) source of information about the fictional world, instead resorting to euphemisms about the outcomes rather than the process.

And, your final statement is also not novel -- I've said it multiple times throughout the thread in an attempt to deflect the arguments that have plagued the thread anyway.  However, I believe that your use of it is different from mine -- I attempted to use it to say that analysis and criticism shouldn't deflect one towards or away from a thing that you like -- it's only use is to help refine what you like and do that more.  You, however, tend to deploy such statements as a means to discredit analysis and criticism -- it's pointless because people like what they like.  I, unsurprisingly, find this approach to be less than helpful to the hobby at large, and just defensive posturing to protect from perceived slights.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't think @pemerton needs to step back to realize this -- it's a fundamental underpinning of many of his arguments.  I might be wrong, he's free to correct me, but I can absolutely say for myself that this is not a new concept for me at all.
> 
> As for terms, the confusion about what they mean is limited only to those terms that have been used and not defined by the user.  I don't think, though, this is your argument, because this argument says that my use of "protagonism," for instance, wasn't confusing because I spent many posts clearly, and without jargon, explaining what was meant by this.  No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over.  Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented.  No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process.  The rest of it is arguing over who gets to define a term.  I even offered to change my term, but this offer was ignored because the point wasn't to engage the concepts, but to argue over words and prevent engaged discussion of the concepts behind them.  This is borne out by the continued refusal to accept any -- ANY -- combination of terms to define how play proceeds when the GM is the primary (usually only) source of information about the fictional world, instead resorting to euphemisms about the outcomes rather than the process.
> 
> And, your final statement is also not novel -- I've said it multiple times throughout the thread in an attempt to deflect the arguments that have plagued the thread anyway.  However, I believe that your use of it is different from mine -- I attempted to use it to say that analysis and criticism shouldn't deflect one towards or away from a thing that you like -- it's only use is to help refine what you like and do that more.  You, however, tend to deploy such statements as a means to discredit analysis and criticism -- it's pointless because people like what they like.  I, unsurprisingly, find this approach to be less than helpful to the hobby at large, and just defensive posturing to protect from perceived slights.



I suspect at this point Ovid if I said "Good day", you'd find some means of making it adversarial.

I agree we should have moved on from both Protagonism and Living World as terms and got to the meat of our meaning.   Both are loaded of course as can be seen here.  I think though it's not a shock that terms get adopted from the natural meanings to represent game constructs.  I do think in both cases those terms may implicitly have a touch of condemnation for the other side which is why both sides may push back.   I also think people are being truthful in their personal experiences.  They just have different tastes.  

To address the question "What is the point of GM notes" we have to figure otu what that means.

For someone specifically of my playstyle:
GM notes mean the entirety of the creative process a GM spends outside of the session that is brought in as established truth even if unknown to the players.  GM notes again has a dismissive connotation but I'm taking your meaning in good faith at this point and not taking any offense.

In addition some common ways GM/Player notes in general are used.
To keep track of things happening in session.  I can't imagine anyone would object to this usage of the idea of notes.  Even in a game where everyone is contributing to what is known about a world, it may for those of us with less than stellar memories, to keep some notes.  

So I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept.  I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over.  Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented.  No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process.




but people took pains to explain what living world meant. I even included sections from Stars without Number explaining it, a clip from Feast of Goblyns explaining my own personal 'aha' movement with the concept, and we talked about examples, procedures, etc. But one thing you just can't get away from: Living World has currency and means something to people who play this style. It is a term we use and we know what we mean by that term. The term isn't a problem at all as far as I am concerned. If people want to ask: what does that mean exactly, we are happy to explain it. But the term does capture something of the goal. Most of the neutral terms I've seen offered as alternatives, for me at least, don't quite get at the meaning of living world or world in motion.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I suspect at this point Ovid if I said "Good day", you'd find some means of making it adversarial.



Is this ironic?  You've again misused my name, I have to assume intentionally at this point, while claiming victimhood.  Not a great look.  I mean, I get it, it's a nice tactic, but it doesn't really bother me -- I've been called much worse.  I point it out because of how small it makes you look.


Emerikol said:


> I agree we should have moved on from both Protagonism and Living World as terms and got to the meat of our meaning.   Both are loaded of course as can be seen here.  I think though it's not a shock that terms get adopted from the natural meanings to represent game constructs.  I do think in both cases those terms may implicitly have a touch of condemnation for the other side which is why both sides may push back.   I also think people are being truthful in their personal experiences.  They just have different tastes.



I did get to the "meat" of my meaning -- right from the start, where I defined the term as I used it, and multiple times thereafter.  This is a "both sides" argument that falls flat.  As for connotation, yes, that's the argument often used to dismissing analysis or criticism.  I mean, I freely use the term to describe my own play as lacking protagonism, so that pulls a lot of teeth from the "it's mean to denigrate an approach" argument.  When I run D&D, protagonism is very lacking, and this is fine because it's not a needed thing.

And, here we are with "different tastes" again.  This is a motte argument, because how can someone disagree with people having different tastes?  You can't.  But, what you do with this argument is what I pointed out above -- different tastes is being used to negate analysis, as if what you like means you cannot deconstruct play at all.  It's like saying that no one can successfully deconstruct what makes mac and cheese good, or the various ways you can make mac and cheese, or the impact of ingredient quality, because different people like different kinds of mac and cheese (or don't like it at all), so such discussion is pointless.


Emerikol said:


> To address the question "What is the point of GM notes" we have to figure otu what that means.
> 
> For someone specifically of my playstyle:
> GM notes mean the entirety of the creative process a GM spends outside of the session that is brought in as established truth even if unknown to the players.  GM notes again has a dismissive connotation but I'm taking your meaning in good faith at this point and not taking any offense.
> 
> In addition some common ways GM/Player notes in general are used.
> To keep track of things happening in session.  I can't imagine anyone would object to this usage of the idea of notes.  Even in a game where everyone is contributing to what is known about a world, it may for those of us with less than stellar memories, to keep some notes.
> 
> So I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept.  I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.




One shouldn't be making assumptions about other people's answers when engaging in analysis.  The point of the question was twofold, in my opinion.  Firstly, it was collect information about how other people use GM notes in play.  And, secondly, to cause people to stop and think about how they use notes in play -- to do a bit of self-analysis to tease out a procedure of play that they use and how GM notes work within that procedure.  It's this latter that seems to be the point of contention -- some seem to strongly dislike analyzing their procedures of play in clear terms of process, for reasons I'm still unsure of.  There seems to be a great deal of fear that there's some kind of trap, and that somehow in providing clear statements of process you'll stumble into given away a stick that will then be used to beat you.  Which is weird, to me, because others have clearly done so without concern.  I am currently running a game where the GM notes work exactly as you state above, and it's also a railroad (which isn't implied by what you state above), and which has little to no protagonism, as defined previously in this thread.  None of this phases me, it's an honest statement of what's happening at my table, and it doesn't phase me because we're having _fun_.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> We've spent a bit of time talking past each other because we really are talking about entirely different "games".




Why the quotes? The discussion is very much about different games and how they work. Not one game and the many ways it can work.



Emerikol said:


> So I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept. I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.




@pemerton knows HIS answer to the question. There is no one answer. It will be different for each of us based on the games we play and how we like to play them. I would have a different answer for different games.

My 5E D&D game is very much about the players finding out what’s in my notes. That’s not a bad thing. I love my 5E game, and I’m reasonably certain my players do to.

Is there more to my game than what’s in my notes? Of course. It’s a simplification. But in a thread where people can just hear the term “living world” and understand all that it implies about RPGing process and rules, balking at “notes” seems needlessly defensive.

My 5E game is about my players discovering through their characters, the world I’ve crafted as a GM. Yes, I’ve taken plenty of cues from them, and I’ve incorporated plenty of their ideas....but the game largely revolves around the ideas that I as GM introduce. This isn’t bad and I’m not ashamed of it. I’m confident that the fiction produced in my game is as immersive and “living” as similar games.

This thread largely consists of people who balk at something they see as an accusation, and then in trying to “defend” their stance, essentially describe things exactly as they feared they were accused.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Emerikol said:


> I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.




I posed the same question a few pages back.
Apparently it was to _improve_ one's craft. The question is who's?


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> I posed the same question a few pages back.
> Apparently it was to _improve_ one's craft. The question is who's?



If you believe your craft cannot be improved, then not you.  If you believe your craft may be improved, then you.


----------



## Ovinomancer

@AnotherGuy 

I followed the subtext of your question, but I dislike rhetorical questions where the questioner doesn't provide what they think the answer should be.  Clearly, you're asking if the question has any merit to improve the craft of GMing, and, if you think it does not, or is ill posed, then I think you're missing a critical thrust of what it means to actually analyze your play.  A similar question was instrumental for me to better understand how I play and helped me improve my craft in a number of styles.

I've talked about how I'm currently running an AP.  I have a rather detailed set of notes for this game, in addition to the AP notes I also have all of Forgotten Realms lore to lean on.  What does this do for me?  A number of things, if I look at it critically.  The background lore provides me with a solid structure with which to paint the world the PCs inhabit -- I can lean on it to provide details and coherence and even drop easter eggs for lore enthusiasts (I have one). But, this isn't the extent of the notes for this AP.  I also have encounters, location, mysteries, and story notes.  And these require serious review and consideration, because I need to make sure that these align with the play goals of my table, and they really don't for any table. This is because these notes are provided in a way that doesn't really have a coherent play agenda in mind -- there's some skilled play, some fuzzy-GM-interaction-as-roleplay, some exposition dumps, some Illusionism, and some outright Force (where the module tells you X happens no matter what, and gives ways of enforcing X happening).  So, how are these notes used in play?  Differently for each table, really, as they're meant to be modified (an approach I find somewhat disingenuous to the stated purpose of an AP -- easy, prepared play).  Understanding how you use notes in various ways -- how notes inform and direct play -- is critical to getting the best out of an AP -- to align it to what you want at your table.  If you want all skilled play, you'll have to make adjustments to do so, because the AP isn't all skilled play.  If you want a mix, you'll have to adjust to make sure you get what you want where you want.  You can do what's often done, here, and peruse many threads and blogs worth of how other people did this work and provided results, and just pick the ones that speak to you, but then you see people complain that such-and-such didn't work for them so others should avoid it because it's bad advice.  This is, fundamentally, a failure to understand how notes work in your game -- how the plan translates to play in a pleasing manner.

So, if you're actually asking how the question of how you use the GM's notes in play can improve your craft, I'd say you've missed a pretty big part of how analysis of play works.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Is this ironic?  You've again misused my name, I have to assume intentionally at this point, while claiming victimhood.  Not a great look.  I mean, I get it, it's a nice tactic, but it doesn't really bother me -- I've been called much worse.  I point it out because of how small it makes you look.



I don't know why I see Ovidmancer instead of Ovinomancer when I read your name.  No tactic or offense intended.  I was just trying to abbreviate.   It does play to my point about your mindset though.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, here we are with "different tastes" again.  This is a motte argument, because how can someone disagree with people having different tastes?  You can't.  But, what you do with this argument is what I pointed out above -- different tastes is being used to negate analysis, as if what you like means you cannot deconstruct play at all.  It's like saying that no one can successfully deconstruct what makes mac and cheese good, or the various ways you can make mac and cheese, or the impact of ingredient quality, because different people like different kinds of mac and cheese (or don't like it at all), so such discussion is pointless.



Because seemingly people keep not getting it.  I guess repetition doesn't always work.  Perhaps it's born out of frustration.  When I say such and such is shallow, it is shallow to me.   There is so much subjectivism here.  You keep wanting to turn that subjectivism into science.  



Ovinomancer said:


> One shouldn't be making assumptions about other people's answers when engaging in analysis.  The point of the question was twofold, in my opinion.  Firstly, it was collect information about how other people use GM notes in play.  And, secondly, to cause people to stop and think about how they use notes in play -- to do a bit of self-analysis to tease out a procedure of play that they use and how GM notes work within that procedure.  It's this latter that seems to be the point of contention -- some seem to strongly dislike analyzing their procedures of play in clear terms of process, for reasons I'm still unsure of.  There seems to be a great deal of fear that there's some kind of trap, and that somehow in providing clear statements of process you'll stumble into given away a stick that will then be used to beat you.  Which is weird, to me, because others have clearly done so without concern.  I am currently running a game where the GM notes work exactly as you state above, and it's also a railroad (which isn't implied by what you state above), and which has little to no protagonism, as defined previously in this thread.  None of this phases me, it's an honest statement of what's happening at my table, and it doesn't phase me because we're having _fun_.



You may play every style known.  We only have your words here on the page and they came across as dismissive and antagonistic.  Your responses to fairly innocuous posts by me and your imputing of all sorts of crazy motives to what I am saying, says a lot.   When you act like that you usually get like kind in return and then the conversation degenerates and derails.   So Physician heal thyself.

When I say that a style doesn't feel as real to me as my style, I'm giving my impression.  It's indisputable that this is true as it is about my subjective experience.  What I find more interesting that while there are perhaps a good variety of things about games that we can differ upon, we tend to cluster our preferences far more than randomness would imply.  I bet sandbox people are also skilled play people and also don't like dissociative mechanics.   Because all of that revolves around how we experience roleplaying games and how they impact our sense of verisimilitude.   I get that the two sides are wired so differently that they struggle even to communicate.

I was reading the release notes on the new game "Swords Under The Sun" and the way the game was couched I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it.  She explained how her sessions flowed and what were the key elements of that playstyle.  I am not looking for that kind of experience in a roleplaying game.  I'd lose interest fast.  I'm happy though that many will enjoy it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

I'd like to share a couple of examples from games that I've run recently. One is 5E D&D and the other is Blades in the Dark. I want to summarize how my notes shaped play in each game, both at the very start of play, and also as part of ongoing play. 

D&D 5e
So my group played "Lost Mines of Phandelve" when it came out in order to check out the new D&D rules. I was growing incredibly weary of Pathfinder as our go to fantasy game, and I was hoping for something simpler. Despite its flaws, we found it much to our liking for what we wanted. It helps that we're long time friends and we generally have a good idea of what works for us as a group, and individually. We decided to continue playing. When we did, I asked my players what they wanted the campaign to  be about. I received a few different responses, but one through line was that they wanted to see the resolution of some long standing elements of our D&D games. They wanted to finish some unfinished stories. 

With this in mind, I approached the game with a very nostalgic outlook. I decided that we'd use everything we'd ever played in D&D as canon for this game. All our old campaigns? They all happened. All the classic D&D lore that we've used in our games? It's all there. So I just kind of crafted a very loose backstory that connected elements as disparate as Tharizdun and the Elder Elemental Eye and the Lady of Pain and Rajaat of Athas. This story is central to play. Essentially, there are five shards of a divine castle/dwelling, and they've been scattered across the cosmos, and different groups seek to recover these magical castles, and the PCs have become embroiled in the hunt for one such castle.

So my notes at the start of play determined:

Several of the opposing factions to the PCs
The motivations of many of the movers and shakers in the game
They mystery of the castles and their true nature- largely unknown to the PCs until they piece it together (i.e. learn my notes)
The D&D cosmology was the setting- from Faerun to Oerth to Athas to Sigil and the Outlands and the planes beyond- this is the sandbox
The central threat, or main villains, of the campaign and their goal

The central idea of the campaign is one I came up with. Yes, I based it on ideas that I knew my players wanted to see, and ideas that connected to their characters, but I still had to craft the connections of all of that, and make it coherent. But it also has to be playable so that they don't just feel like interchangeable characters in a story, that could be subbed out by any other PCs. 

Then as we actually play, my notes consist mostly of bullet points. I don't commit too strongly to anything because I want the players to have the freedom to interact with these ideas as they like, and to pursue things their own way. So classic D&D Map & Key style prep, is almost impossible. I have some maps for specific locations that I've kind of assembled, but I may not know if/when they'll be needed at any given time. 

So what I do is in between each session, I just make a few bullet points of what I think is likely for the next session based on what's happened previously. Usually, we have a good idea of next steps. So I list the following:

Possible goals for next session
Possible threats/antagonists- if I need stats, I try to gather these and collect them all in as easy to reference a way as possible; otherwise I just think about the goals of the NPCs and their means and personality and decide how they may become involved
Running threads- any active or prominent PC goals or situations and how they may come up
Outstanding Items- this is a catch all, and it can be very important- it's anything that's been introduced in some way, but which hasn't been resolved- a lot of times if we don't have a clear agenda for a session, I'll bring these up as possibilities for the group

These notes are very loose, as you can see. So they don't really constrain the players too much- they're free to do whatever they like. Sometimes it's very obvious what they'll be doing, and so my job is easy. At other times it's not, and so these notes may help prompt some action and get things going. 

So in an ongoing way, my notes are there as a list of prompts to help facilitate play, or to hep narrow focus when things are specific. But at the start? To get the ball rolling, and then to serve as the skeleton on which the entire game hangs? My notes are vital. They are, essentially, what the game is about.

Blades in the Dark
When my group played a Blades in the Dark campaign, I had no requests for or inclinations toward having any kind of essential backstory of the kind that is so big in our D&D game (this is largely BECAUSE of all that stuff for D&D, I wanted something different). So my notes at the start of play for Blades in the Dark were virtually non-existent. I took the default setting as described in the book as pretty much what we'd work with, but that default setting is sketched in the book; just enough detail is given to get things going, but plenty of leeway is available to shape things how you'd like. 

So with no backstory, we proceeded with character and crew creation. These are what I would say became the essential "notes" of our game. The players decided to be a crew of Hawkers, dealers of illicit goods. They selected as their Crew Ability "The Good Stuff" which means that their product is of very high quality. What was the product? The group decided that they wanted to sell a drug called "Third Eye" which had supernatural qualities. Additional questions that you ask during crew creation involve selecting Factions within the city who are either enemies or allies of the crew. In making these decisions, we determined that the Crew Ally was a deal broker who had put them in touch with a gang of ex-cops called the Grey Cloaks, and the Grey Cloaks are the ones who provided the initial supply of the Third Eye. Additionally, it was determined that the Spirit Wardens (basically the magic police) would be on the lookout for anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing such a substance, so the crew took a negative standing with them. 

One of the players made a Leech, a kind of alchemist/artificer type character, and his goal was to learn how to produce more of the Third Eye. This led the players to select "Workshop" as one of their starting Lair Upgrades. For that upgrade, we needed to select another negative faction, so we decided he stole a bunch of equipment from the Sparkwrights (a guild of engineers with a lot of influence). 

Then the players decided to select the district of Nightmarket for their "hunting grounds" which is where they'd do business. In looking at the entry in the book about Nightmarket, it's the city's hub of commerce, with a large rail station where goods are imported and exported to the rest of the world. It's also an area that is seeing an injection of money....so it's a kind of gentrified or new money type area. As a result, some gangs have expanded into the area to capitalize on that, and they'll likely be obstacles of some sort for our crew. 

So our starting situation in this game is pretty well defined. We have  a crew of dealers who is hoping to be able to make more of their fine product, and to rise up in an area that is kind of "frontier territory" for the gangs. They have some influential institutions against them. A few things kind of immediately jumped out at me, especially in relation to my D&D campaign. Those were:

What is Third Eye? Who created it? Why does it do what it does?
Who wanted to get it into the hands of the PC crew? Why?
Who assembled this crew for this purpose?

These questions jumped out at me, but I fought the urge to craft that backstory for the players to find out. Instead, I just left all those questions unanswered, and I didn't even bring them up to the players. If the players never really thought of them, then maybe the answers weren't important. But if they did, then maybe we'd examine them through play. 

So for Blades, I really had no notes at the start of play, or if I did, then it was ones that the players and I crafted as a group. In an ongoing way from week to week, I'd just track progress of items and goals (usually in the form of Clocks) and almost always something would present itself as a logical or likely next step for the crew (usually more than one thing) so we would have a good idea of what our next session would be. Sometimes they'd change their mind, but they were always driving that. Any notes I had might be a little list of possible obstacles they could face depending on the score they had in mind. 

I know that's a really long post, and I didn't get into the mechanics of it too much, but my input as a GM is far heavier with D&D. That's by design. Games like D&D empower the GM to take a strong hand in guiding the game, even when using an open world or sandbox approach. Games like Blades and those that inspired it, actively avoid that by limiting the GM's ability to steer things, and by giving establishing formalized processes that promote player driven play. 

It's not so much about "playstyle" I don't think. Sure, most games could be taken and played in a way that's contrary to its intent, and if everyone involved enjoys the result, okay great. But most games are designed a specific way, and it's for a reason.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> This is a good point.  When we desire a specific type of experience, faking it does not usually work.  That is my experience at any rate.
> 
> I think if you stepped back and thought of a playstyle as a game in and of itself.  There are rules and there are expectations.   Meeting those rules and expectations is part of getting to success and hopefully fun.





Emerikol said:


> For someone specifically of my playstyle:
> GM notes mean the entirety of the creative process a GM spends outside of the session that is brought in as established truth even if unknown to the players.  GM notes again has a dismissive connotation but I'm taking your meaning in good faith at this point and not taking any offense.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept.  I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.



I'm not sure what you mean by _assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept_. I didn't start this thread specifically to find out what you, Emerikol (or any other particular poster) uses notes for. I've posted various examples of my own actual play, trying to explain and reflect on how I used notes as a GM. I've engaged with other posters too, both their actual play accounts and their more abstract descriptions or itemisations of how notes can be used.

I still don't know why referring to "GM notes" has a dismissive connotation. I'm not sure who or what is being dismissed.



Ovinomancer said:


> One shouldn't be making assumptions about other people's answers when engaging in analysis.  The point of the question was twofold, in my opinion.  Firstly, it was collect information about how other people use GM notes in play.  And, secondly, to cause people to stop and think about how they use notes in play -- to do a bit of self-analysis to tease out a procedure of play that they use and how GM notes work within that procedure.  It's this latter that seems to be the point of contention -- some seem to strongly dislike analyzing their procedures of play in clear terms of process, for reasons I'm still unsure of.  There seems to be a great deal of fear that there's some kind of trap, and that somehow in providing clear statements of process you'll stumble into given away a stick that will then be used to beat you.  Which is weird, to me, because others have clearly done so without concern.





hawkeyefan said:


> This thread largely consists of people who balk at something they see as an accusation, and then in trying to “defend” their stance, essentially describe things exactly as they feared they were accused.



These two posts capture pretty well how I feel about the last nearly 50 pages of this thread.



Ovinomancer said:


> I'm currently running an AP.  I have a rather detailed set of notes for this game, in addition to the AP notes I also have all of Forgotten Realms lore to lean on.





Ovinomancer said:


> I am currently running a game where the GM notes work exactly as you state above, and it's also a railroad (which isn't implied by what you state above), and which has little to no protagonism, as defined previously in this thread.  None of this phases me, it's an honest statement of what's happening at my table, and it doesn't phase me because we're having _fun_.





hawkeyefan said:


> My 5E D&D game is very much about the players finding out what’s in my notes. That’s not a bad thing. I love my 5E game, and I’m reasonably certain my players do to.
> 
> Is there more to my game than what’s in my notes? Of course. It’s a simplification. But in a thread where people can just hear the term “living world” and understand all that it implies about RPGing process and rules, balking at “notes” seems needlessly defensive.
> 
> My 5E game is about my players discovering through their characters, the world I’ve crafted as a GM. Yes, I’ve taken plenty of cues from them, and I’ve incorporated plenty of their ideas....but the game largely revolves around the ideas that I as GM introduce. This isn’t bad and I’m not ashamed of it. I’m confident that the fiction produced in my game is as immersive and “living” as similar games.



As I'm pretty sure I've posted upthread, the last 12 months of so of sessions in my Classic Traveller game (8 sessions) have involved _notes_, in the form of the two old scenarios Annic Nova and Shadows, from Double Adventure 1. I've also used the starmaps I posted about upthread. The relationship of these to play hasn't been the same as in the posts I've quoted here - for instance, I've used the maps as much as possible for framing rather than adjudication of declared actions - but there has been plenty of play which takes the form of _player declares action_, _GM in response provides new information that becomes part of the shared fiction_. I've posted about that before: a quick search turned up this from a thread earlier this year in which some of those posting in this thread participated:



pemerton said:


> Upthread I have described this as _RPGing-as-puzzle-solving_: the players declare actions for the PCs which elicit information from the GM, and they piece this information together to get a clearer picture of what the GM is imagining.
> 
> I do not regard it as involving a very high degree of player agency, because it makes the GM's pre-established conception of the fiction the focus of play.
> 
> My last few sessions of Traveller play have resembled this to a degree. (I posted about the second-last one quite a way upthread but I don't think anyone replied to that post.) Though the object of exploration has been an alien building rather than a NPC. In our most recent session I tried a few different techniques to try to shift things away from a GM-focus to a player-focus - those techniques included providing some more clarifying fiction of my own to try to round out "the mystery" and give the players all the information they seemed to want about it; narrating some instigating events (attacks by aliens which were also Aliens); and meta-level goading/poking - and those worked to some extent. I think we may also be starting to hit some limits of Classic Traveller as a system, but I'm not sure and I'm not sure yet if I can quite articulate what I have in mind. It's to do with the lack of player-accessible mechanics to engage the "big picture" - eg what are the Imperial navy doing "off-screen" - in a game that invites an escalation over the course of play to make that "big picture" of growing importance to the PCs.
> 
> A contrast in this particular respect would be 4e D&D, which has a resolution framework - skill challenges - that scales up nicely as the PCs move from Heroic to Epic tier.



In our most recent Traveller session, the play definitely shifted from this sort of "exploration"/puzzle-solving to something more player-driven.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> When I say such and such is shallow, it is shallow to me.   There is so much subjectivism here.  You keep wanting to turn that subjectivism into science.



In my experience, when I've posted that I tend to find your sort of approach an intolerable railroad, that has provoked some outrage from those who like "sandboxing" that is heavily driven by the GM's pre-conception of the setting. I don't know what you response is, but perhaps am about to find out!


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> So my notes at the start of play determined:
> 
> Several of the opposing factions to the PCs
> The motivations of many of the movers and shakers in the game
> They mystery of the castles and their true nature- largely unknown to the PCs until they piece it together (i.e. learn my notes)
> The D&D cosmology was the setting- from Faerun to Oerth to Athas to Sigil and the Outlands and the planes beyond- this is the sandbox
> The central threat, or main villains, of the campaign and their goal
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Then as we actually play, my notes consist mostly of bullet points. I don't commit too strongly to anything because I want the players to have the freedom to interact with these ideas as they like, and to pursue things their own way. So classic D&D Map & Key style prep, is almost impossible. I have some maps for specific locations that I've kind of assembled, but I may not know if/when they'll be needed at any given time.
> 
> So what I do is in between each session, I just make a few bullet points of what I think is likely for the next session based on what's happened previously. Usually, we have a good idea of next steps. So I list the following:
> 
> Possible goals for next session
> Possible threats/antagonists- if I need stats, I try to gather these and collect them all in as easy to reference a way as possible; otherwise I just think about the goals of the NPCs and their means and personality and decide how they may become involved
> Running threads- any active or prominent PC goals or situations and how they may come up
> Outstanding Items- this is a catch all, and it can be very important- it's anything that's been introduced in some way, but which hasn't been resolved- a lot of times if we don't have a clear agenda for a session, I'll bring these up as possibilities for the group
> 
> These notes are very loose, as you can see. So they don't really constrain the players too much- they're free to do whatever they like. Sometimes it's very obvious what they'll be doing, and so my job is easy. At other times it's not, and so these notes may help prompt some action and get things going.



In a number of ways this reminds me of my approach to GMing Rolemaster.

I get the impression that for a lot of the "big picture" stuff - the piecing together of the bits of the puzzle, rather than the nitty-gritty of winning a combat or even talking to a particular NPC - resolution is fairly freeform with a lot of back-and-forth between players and GM. Is that fair? Or are their tighter action resolution processes around that that I've not picked up on?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I don't know why I see Ovidmancer instead of Ovinomancer when I read your name.  No tactic or offense intended.  I was just trying to abbreviate.   It does play to my point about your mindset though.



Does it?  I mean, pointing out that you serially misstate my name for the third time goes to show that I'm being adversarial?   I mean, that's like saying someone asking you to please stop punching them is just looking for a fight.


Emerikol said:


> Because seemingly people keep not getting it.  I guess repetition doesn't always work.  Perhaps it's born out of frustration.  When I say such and such is shallow, it is shallow to me.   There is so much subjectivism here.  You keep wanting to turn that subjectivism into science.



Nope, this is a bald misrepresentation of what I've said.  What I've said is that you're using your preferences as a means to discount and dismiss analysis, which you seem to admit to, here.  What I've said is that analysis is a useful tool to understand preference and enhance play.  For instance, without any experience, you've dismissed an entire approach as "shallow" (man, talk about loaded words) when you have no experience to say so.  It's fine to think you won't like it, and no one's going to force you to try it, but you've removed yourself from any valid input when analysis involves comparing or contrasting with these approaches.  You're trying to shoehorn yourself into having a valid input by claiming that it's all preference, but it isn't. Whether or not you like it is preference -- how it works in process is not.


Emerikol said:


> You may play every style known.  We only have your words here on the page and they came across as dismissive and antagonistic.  Your responses to fairly innocuous posts by me and your imputing of all sorts of crazy motives to what I am saying, says a lot.   When you act like that you usually get like kind in return and then the conversation degenerates and derails.   So Physician heal thyself.



Ah, here we go.  I am not to be taken as an honest participant while you are?  I might be making things up, and you seem to think this likely, because I'm saying things you're taking as dishonest and dismissive?  I mean, I'm extended every good faith -- it took three times of my broaching the subject of such a simple thing as my username before I moved to assuming you're doing it on purpose, which is apparently far more than you're willing to extend my claims on how I play.  It's fine for you to directly question my honesty because I guess you feel attacked, but I MUST assume your good faith at all times, or I'm just looking to be antagonistic?  Really?


Emerikol said:


> When I say that a style doesn't feel as real to me as my style, I'm giving my impression.  It's indisputable that this is true as it is about my subjective experience.  What I find more interesting that while there are perhaps a good variety of things about games that we can differ upon, we tend to cluster our preferences far more than randomness would imply.  I bet sandbox people are also skilled play people and also don't like dissociative mechanics.   Because all of that revolves around how we experience roleplaying games and how they impact our sense of verisimilitude.   I get that the two sides are wired so differently that they struggle even to communicate.



They aren't though, you're just resistant to hearing anything that is frank discussion of the processes of play.  You throw out the term "dissociative mechanics" as if it's something you will not abide, but you do -- you use armor class, you use hitpoints, you use spells.  These are all dissociated mechanics that either have a lampshade over them (spells are magic!) or that you're just used to and no longer notice (AC, hp).  These things fail to model anything, and are narrative devices in play, even if you build subsystems to try to mitigate this (like people changing the rest mechanics in 5e).  The reality is that your complaint is about authorities, not mechanics that don't reflect a simulated reality.  You don't like mechanics that let a player enforce something that you view is the GM's domain, like a secret door being present that the GM didn't prep beforehand, or doing damage on a "miss" (as if hit and miss aren't dissociated in D&D).  And, to be clear, not liking these things is fine, but it would be very beneficial, to you even, to deconstruct these things and look at what they are actually doing and why you do or do not like them.  Honesty here can be painful, it's can be hard to admit that you dislike something because you feel it intrudes into your privileges, but then you can reach a point where you realize even that concept is silly, and you're not really talking about your privileges but how privileges are distributed to achieve a specific play goal.  This is why I can say, without any feeling I'm doing something bad, that I'm running a hard railroad right now.  I'm not concerned if I'm stepping on my players toes or doing something wrong because we had a clear discussion of what this game will entail, what privileges will be where, and what our shared play goals are.  And those goals are skilled play scenes that are linked through an enforced plotline.  Easy, nothing to be concerned about, everyone is happy, and I'm not at all looking at anything like "dissociated mechanics" because that's a term that has no real meaning in an RPG -- it's all make-believe.  The trick is what tools exist for me to have the kind of make-believe I want, and there are absolutely mechanics that do this and mechanics that don't, so I'm going to pick and choose based not on some conception of "dissociation" with my make-believe, but rather which achieve my goals.


Emerikol said:


> I was reading the release notes on the new game "Swords Under The Sun" and the way the game was couched I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it.  She explained how her sessions flowed and what were the key elements of that playstyle.  I am not looking for that kind of experience in a roleplaying game.  I'd lose interest fast.  I'm happy though that many will enjoy it.



And this is 100% hunky-dory, no issues at all with this statement.  I'm sure, though, that you'd call those elements "shallow" and not think twice about deploying a description others would find dismissive (and which you intend dismissively), but you'll certainly stand up if anyone uses "protagonism" and says your approach isn't that, because, I guess, "protagonist" is a word you think is "good" and so should be owned by your approach as well, because your approach is "good."  Meanwhile, you'll causally say that these other games, the ones you don't like, probably shouldn't even be considered to be real RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> In a number of ways this reminds me of my approach to GMing Rolemaster.
> 
> I get the impression that for a lot of the "big picture" stuff - the piecing together of the bits of the puzzle, rather than the nitty-gritty of winning a combat or even talking to a particular NPC - resolution is fairly freeform with a lot of back-and-forth between players and GM. Is that fair? Or are their tighter action resolution processes around that that I've not picked up on?




For the most part, yeah. Like the central mystery of the true nature of the castles and all that was largely gleaned from different NPCs along the way. I didn’t want to prolong discovery of these central ideas once things started moving toward them, so very often there weren’t even skill checks involved. I’d place the knowledge behind some other obstacle....so if the elven sage knew about how the castles were all connected, the challenge was in rescuing him from an opposing faction rather than in convincing him to reveal what he knows. Rescue him, and he’ll share the information. 

And of course I had multiple such sources in mind so that the players could pursue different avenues in the fiction and still have the chance to learn the lore. I didn’t want it gated behind rolls, for the most part. Nor did I want there to be only one route to the information. 

There are a few exceptions to this, though, but only when it made sense to do so. A Dabus named Fell in Sigil who only “speaks” in images comes to mind. He knows the Lady of Pain’s history and how it connects to the castles, and I had the players make some checks to determine how clear his images were. So I gave them the “essential” details as soon as they interacted with Fell, and then allowed follow up questions for additional details, and I based the clarity of those details on the results of their rolls. So they got the “actionable” information for sure, and anything else was a bonus.  

We’ve now passed the point where learning that campaign history is still necessary, though. I didn’t want that to be the focus of play for too long. Now that they have all that info, they’re able to steer the direction of play more easily. I read a good bit of advice a couple years back that was along the lines “a secret revealed is always more interesting than a secret kept”. I kind of look at it as players being able to act on what they know rather than on what they don’t know. The former seems much more suited to gaming.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> I've talked about how I'm currently running an AP.  I have a rather detailed set of notes for this game, in addition to the AP notes I also have all of Forgotten Realms lore to lean on.  What does this do for me?  A number of things, if I look at it critically.  The background lore provides me with a solid structure with which to paint the world the PCs inhabit -- I can lean on it to provide details and coherence and even drop easter eggs for lore enthusiasts (I have one). But, this isn't the extent of the notes for this AP.  I also have encounters, location, mysteries, and story notes.  And these require serious review and consideration, because I need to make sure that these align with the play goals of my table, and they really don't for any table. This is because these notes are provided in a way that doesn't really have a coherent play agenda in mind -- there's some skilled play, some fuzzy-GM-interaction-as-roleplay, some exposition dumps, some Illusionism, and some outright Force (where the module tells you X happens no matter what, and gives ways of enforcing X happening).  So, how are these notes used in play?  Differently for each table, really, as they're meant to be modified (an approach I find somewhat disingenuous to the stated purpose of an AP -- easy, prepared play).  Understanding how you use notes in various ways -- how notes inform and direct play -- is critical to getting the best out of an AP -- to align it to what you want at your table.  If you want all skilled play, you'll have to make adjustments to do so, because the AP isn't all skilled play.  If you want a mix, you'll have to adjust to make sure you get what you want where you want.  You can do what's often done, here, and peruse many threads and blogs worth of how other people did this work and provided results, and just pick the ones that speak to you, but then you see people complain that such-and-such didn't work for them so others should avoid it because it's bad advice.  This is, fundamentally, a failure to understand how notes work in your game -- how the plan translates to play in a pleasing manner.




I agree with all the above.



> I followed the subtext of your question ...(snip)...Clearly, you're asking if the question has any merit to improve the craft of GMing...




No, I'm not asking that question.    
The original question was posed, IMO knowingly, in such a manner which invited aggravated dialogue between the usual suspects, engaging in much definition bickering with no real headway being made, while some engaging in earnest without ego were often and sadly met with sharp replies.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> I agree with all the above.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not asking that question.
> The original question was posed, IMO knowingly, in such a manner which invited aggravated dialogue between the usual suspects, engaging in much definition bickering with no real headway being made, while some engaging in earnest without ego were often and sadly met with sharp replies.



I really doubt that, as I'm 100% certain that if polite discussion and good trading of information broke out, @pemerton would be absolutely thrilled at that result.  I know I would be.  However, I find it telling that you're willing to openly question @pemerton's honesty in such a way, and ironic that you seem to pin any aggravated dialogue in this thread on his intentions, rather than acts such as this.  I mean, a review of your posts in this thread seems to discount you from engaging without ego, yes?  Your first post was to pose your above accusation in a veiled way (obvious now that you've be explicit) through a rhetorical question you never answered yourself.  Then a bunch of arguing about whether people getting paid for sports is important (it wasn't), and now your accusation, here.  It appears that you're accusing @pemerton of intending to do what you've _actually done_.


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> Do you believe the percentage of sports players, artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills over the entire population are likely to exceed the number of functional GMs over the entire roleplayer community?




Again, monetization is not only not a helpful way to perform a longitudinal study like this, its actively harmful in signal detection (because of the noise it introduces).

Not only that, but it doesn't even track the population you're trying to track.  Professional athletes are at the far, far, far end of the tail of a population distribution.  They aren't anywhere nearing the center.  Artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills are, again, right at the tails of the distribution (and, again, their monetization picks up a lot of the aforementioned noise).  This isn't the target population.



> Furthermore
> Sport is introduced as school level. It is prominent at college and university level. Furthermore club level exists. Participating in a sport could be beneficial for one's health.
> Exposure to martial arts is prolific in movies and pop culture. It is valuable skill for self discipline and self-defense. Participating in a martial art could be beneficial for one's health.
> Crafts and the product of artisanship are generally valuable skills to have.
> 
> Roleplaying is a useful tool for a handful of things many of which could just as easily be gained through any of the above activities.




You're arguing for exposure here.  Exposure doesn't come into it when you're tracking % within a population.

All TTRPG players would (of course) have the necessary exposure that you're talking about (or they wouldn't be playing)!

Development of methodological means to create a higher % of functional practitioners (in this case GMs) WITHIN a population won't track to exposure.

If your point is that there are lots of other reasons to increase total population size (not % of functional practitioners within a population), then I agree.  But that isn't the point of the theoretical longitudinal study here.

And (as to your last statement) I think you're short-shrifting the cognitive and social impacts of playing TTRPGs (particularly in the developmental stage).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Hey, @darkbard has caught up!


----------



## TwoSix

Ovinomancer said:


> Hey, @darkbard has caught up!



That's quite a bit of dedication!


----------



## darkbard

TwoSix said:


> That's quite a bit of dedication!



QFT! I have few, if any, original thoughts to add at this point, and I've enjoyed a lot of the analysis and (some of the) debate, even as I tire of those who enter such discussions looking for perceived slights rather than helpful and thoughtful reflection. If nothing else, though, I note @Cadence's exposure to new approaches to RPGing, consider my own growth into new playstyles and agendas, and applaud @Ovinomancer's and @hawkeyefan's sharing of their own resistance to the conclusions of certain analysis only to come away with new perspectives once they tried playing these games.


----------



## Manbearcat

*Notes, Setting Solitaire, and Living World*

So in Blades in the Dark, the GM isn't messing with Fortune Rolls for the Setting or Setting/Faction Clocks (checked at Downtime Phase) unless the Player Characters have interacted with it.  I mentioned this briefly upthread, but I'm going to discuss more.  Here are the Downtime Setting/Faction Clocks after our last session:

*Ulf Ironborn - "Studying Your Game" - 8 Ticks*

Tier 1 = 1 Fortune Dice.

Roll 4 = 2

6/8

Ulf's crew attends some more of your home games. They've almost got a book on you guys.


*The Crows - "Moving in on the Silver Stags Territory/your Hunting Grounds" - 8 Ticks.*

Tier 1 (strong) vs Tier 3 = W[2d6]

Rolls 4 & 5 = 2

3/8

Despite the recent chaos and loss of personnel, they've now successfully taken up residence and are regulating, running schemes and rackets in your Hunting Grounds (shutting it down for you - see Entanglement). Now its onto the Silver Stags.

*"Save Barrowcleft vs Barrowcleft Apocalypse" - 10 Tick Competing Clocks*

Tier 6 + 2d6 for 2 * Major Advantages for Save, so 2d6 Save vs W[2d6] Apocalypse.

Save = Rolls 5 & 6 = 2 so 4/10
Apocalypse = Rolls 1 & 4 = 1 so 3/10

The tide turns back the other way. Your successful apprehension of some of the ghosts and deployment of the gear have led to a breakthrough for the Sparkwrights tweaking the gear to be more potent. Its also led to more enlistment of competent field personnel against the threat. Finally, the discovery of the two epicenters of death have led to the Spirit Wardens being able to work directly on those areas.

*"Ramon's Suit" - His 6 Tick vs your 4 Tick (whenever you take it up)*

Tier 2 but we'll throttle it back to 0 so W[2d6] due to Scale

4/6

PENDING Stiv Downtime Activity

*"Hutch's Vendetta" - His 8 Tick vs your 4 Tick (whenever you take it up)*

Tier 2 but we'll throttle it back to 0 so W[2d6] due to Scale

Rolls 6 & 4 = 2

3/8

Hutch drunkenly stalks a Bluecoat private who was recruited by the Captain. He slugs him in an alley in the middle of the private's beat before running off. The dude needs help.

*The Dimmer Sisters - Parley Arcane Secrets to Tier 3 - 6 Tick*

Tier 2 so 2d6

Rolls 6 & 1 = 3

The interaction with the Demon Thyraxis was lucrative. They've discovered a Spirit Well and are poised to pilfer it. Their ascendance is all but assured.



So there are probably about 2 dozen other Factions in Duskvol that are doing things in the background offscreen.  However, the PCs haven't interacted with those Factions/Setting elements.  We have the following relevant Factions that have been interacted with:

(directly and on screen)

The Silver Stags
Shells
Ulf Ironborn
Dockers
The Crows
The Dimmer Sisters
The Lampblacks
The Red Sashes
The Gray Cloaks

(indirectly or off screen)

Sparkwrights
Ministry of Preservation
Spirit Wardens

They haven't interacted with most of the wards of the city.  The only 3 wards they've consequentially interacted with (The Docks were interacted with by their Cohorts but there was no mayhem) primarily play has been:

Silkshore (where their Lair and Hunting Grounds are)
Barrowcleft 
Crow's Foot (at the neutral Tangletown - flotilla on the river between wards so not even really Crow's Foot)


So every Fortune Roll, every Faction Clock that has been undertaken has either been (a) what those Factions are now doing (that they've been perturbed/interacted with) or (b) to resolve some setting-relevant situation that the PCs are indirectly involved with (eg, if a big fire manifests as a result of a Score in the wood-framed, stacked row houses of the artist/entertainment ward of Silkshore...does the Brigade get there in time to resolve it...what happens due to the fire?). Both (a) and (b) will change the situation of the setting and have some kind of mechanical teeth (Factions Tiering up, triggering an Entanglement decision-point for the Crew, triggering worse Position in particular conflict types against a Faction, gaining a permanent Asset, the Crew losing or gaining Faction with a Gang or gaining a friend/enemy that will open up later player moves or Complications/Entanglements for the GM).

All of this stuff is directly relevant to play.

So the questions I'm proposing are this:

1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?  

2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things?  Whatever is happening there is offscreen.


My position on this is that if the answer to (1) and (2) is because of "Living World", then what you're really undertaking is "Setting Solitaire."  That is because the only only person who is actually interacting with this stuff is the GM.  Its all GM-side and any given constituent part of the population of these Factions/events has a significantly better chance of never seeing "onscreen" than it does ever seeing play.  The only "Living" and "World" aspect of this stuff is for the GM exclusively...therefore it transcends the notions of "Living World" presented here and becomes "Setting Solitaire."

Once any of these Factions gets on screen and/or the Setting gets perturbed in a meaningful way by the PCs (as mentioned above)...yes, absolutely, deploy Fortune Rolls to give shape ("life"...as in "living") to these things and set up Faction/Setting Clocks to represent the goals and trajectories of peoples and events (so the PCs can intercede if they so choose).  

But "Living World" entirely offscreen and more likely to not see play than to see play becomes "Setting Solitaire."  Its there for the GM only (some form of exclusive self-immersion or cognitively scratch your "Sim Setting" itch).  There is no reason for the GM to not retain the initial conditions (Tier and orientation/status) of any Faction/Setting situation for when their number is dialed up and they go from offscreen to onscreen (if they/it ever will).


----------



## Manbearcat

I'm going to quickly answer my two questions above in the only compelling way that I can personally conceive of:

"I endure the extra burden of the Setting Solitaire because it keeps me cognitively 'in the zone.'  It keeps me stimulated, fresh, and on point.  It helps me to frame more interesting, provocative scenes and come up with interesting decision-points and complications in the course of running next week's session."

The above is basically a "Game Face" response to my above questions.  If someone is willing to endure that extra cognitive load and that is what one needs to keep their Game Face on...then yeah, "Setting Solitaire" is worthwhile in that case.

However, if the Setting starts becoming the volitional force of play in a way that is detached from PC Dramatic Need AND play is supposed to be highly Protagonistic where the players are the volitional force of play through their PCs' dramatic needs...then the Setting Solitaire is a problem (because that means to achieve your Game Face isn't worth the dysfunction at the table...find another way).


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> 1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?
> 
> 2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things?  Whatever is happening there is offscreen.
> 
> 
> My position on this is that if the answer to (1) and (2) is because of "Living World", then what you're really undertaking is "Setting Solitaire."  That is because the only only person who is actually interacting with this stuff is the GM.  Its all GM-side and any given constituent part of the population of these Factions/events has a significantly better chance of never seeing "onscreen" than it does ever seeing play.  The only "Living" and "World" aspect of this stuff is for the GM exclusively...therefore it transcends the notions of "Living World" presented here and becomes "Setting Solitaire."



It's not Setting Solitaire, because it's possible for the players to interact with every last thing you do.  It would only be Solitaire if the DM were the only one who could interact with that stuff.  It's intended that the things that continue to happen in the world be able to be interacted with by the players.  Whether that's through rumor alone, or more directly.  However, it's possible that the PCs go a different way or due to their actions they never encounter it.  That's okay.  The possibility that the players don't encounter some of the stuff that goes on in the world doesn't make it setting solitaire, though.

If your system makes it unlikely for it to ever be encountered by the PCs, then it's not a tool to use with that system.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> But "Living World" entirely offscreen and more likely to not see play than to see play becomes "Setting Solitaire." Its there for the GM only (some form of exclusive self-immersion or cognitively scratch your "Sim Setting" itch). There is no reason for the GM to not retain the initial conditions (Tier and orientation/status) of any Faction/Setting situation for when their number is dialed up and they go from offscreen to onscreen (if they/it ever will).



Yeah. I saw the questions you posed, but I'm going to respond to this--and maybe that'll answer them indirectly.

I do the setting stuff because I enjoy it, yes--in addition to the fact that the tables I'm DMing are playing 5E which at least mostly assigns that to the DM (if you're not running published adventures, which I dislike intensely and an incapable of running well). All of that aside from my bad experiences with more-collaborative world-building--which, while they've shaped my preferences are not proof of anything other than that approach doesn't work for me.

If I've prepped stuff in a place, and the PCs go there, I'll use it more or less as it's written. If they go somewhere else first, there's a good chance they'll need (both dramatically and ... I dunno, not? other needs they might have?) different things than I originally prepared. So, I'll prepare different things--which might be evolutions of what I have, because they're a starting point; or they might not.

If it's a place the PCs are going back to, I am--again--almost certainly going to prep changes to that place. Part of that is that places don't stay the same (so, verisimilitude, I guess) and part of that is that--again--the PCs will have different needs than they had before.

It doesn't feel from inside my head as though I'm changing things around in the setting just to do it, or to have things happen offscreen, or to scratch any itch I have. I do, sometimes, have ideas that get ... parked, I guess, and when I deploy setting stuff (either writing stuff from scratch or changing it) there is some amount of making sure it fits with what has gone before.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's not Setting Solitaire, because it's possible for the players to interact with every last thing you do.  It would only be Solitaire if the DM were the only one who could interact with that stuff.  It's intended that the things that continue to happen in the world be able to be interacted with by the players.  Whether that's through rumor alone, or more directly.  However, it's possible that the PCs go a different way or due to their actions they never encounter it.  That's okay.  The possibility that the players don't encounter some of the stuff that goes on in the world doesn't make it setting solitaire, though.
> 
> If your system makes it unlikely for it to ever be encountered by the PCs, then it's not a tool to use with that system.




Yeah, it is more like an expanding set of circles with the first circle being things the PCs will definitely or very likely be interacting with (and you are probably going to put more work into that),    the next circle is stuff they may interact with, the next is more distant but still possible, the next is even more distant but still possible, etc. I think the key thing is, there is always a possibility the stuff could come into play. And there is always the possibility they notice the changes that are arising. It may not seem like it, but all it takes is the players asking an NPC a handful of questions about recent events, and those circles do become handy and can inform a lot. And the ones closer to the pcs will have very direct and real impact on them. I think the thing with a living world is yes you are focused on what is going on around the PCs, but the living world is about creating a world that feels real, like it is moving and happening around them (whether they go to the Imperial capital or not, there is stuff going on there, and that stuff could impact them in some way)


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> It's not Setting Solitaire, because it's possible for the players to interact with every last thing you do.  It would only be Solitaire if the DM were the only one who could interact with that stuff.  It's intended that the things that continue to happen in the world be able to be interacted with by the players.  Whether that's through rumor alone, or more directly.  However, it's possible that the PCs go a different way or due to their actions they never encounter it.  That's okay.  The possibility that the players don't encounter some of the stuff that goes on in the world doesn't make it setting solitaire, though.
> 
> If your system makes it unlikely for it to ever be encountered by the PCs, then it's not a tool to use with that system.




You missed a key element of what I said above so I'll clarify:

Everything the PCs have not interacted with effectively doesn't exist.  It is entirely off-line/offscreen.  In the game above that would be (a) all of the wards of Duskvol that haven't been interacted with (there are 12 total...only 3 have seen play directly, 1 other indirectly, and perhaps another merely through conversation) and (b) about 80 % of the Factions.

There are (effectively) starting conditions for each ward and Faction.

We're in Session 5.

Why can I not keep all of (a) and (b) effectively in a form of stasis and, when they are interacted with, just deploy them at their starting conditions when the PCs interact with them?

For instance:

They go to Nightmarket (they haven't been there yet) in the Free Play/Information Gathering phase of talk to a psychonaut who is one of their contacts in order to get some intel on The Crows.  In the process, they get involved with The Wraiths (a gang of secretive and daring thiefs) and end up in a counteroperation to prevent a theft of a famous painting so they can steal it themselves (by creating a counterfeit and replacing the painting during the night of the art auction).  In the process, things go wonky and the Leech's grenade of Ghostmist goes off in the auditorium...catching a huge number of the upper crust of society.

Now I have on-line:


Nightmarket
The Wraiths
Upper Crust Gets Ghostmisted

I'll start a Faction Clock with The Wraiths after this.

I'll make a Fortune Role for Upper Crust Gets Ghostmisted to determine the fallout.

If the Fallout is particularly bad, I'll do either a Nightmarket, The Inspectors (for the investigation), Dimmer Sisters (they're interested in the arcane/Ghost Field), or Nobility Clock during Downtime for a problem that the PCs would need to resolve or x thing happens.

But none of that tells me *why do I need to evolve Nightmarket, The Wraiths, or The Inspectors beyond their initial conditions in the game text when none of that stuff has come "on-line" yet?*

That bolded is the question and what I'm asserting is *the evolution of that off-line stuff is Setting Solitaire.*


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Yeah. I saw the questions you posed, but I'm going to respond to this--and maybe that'll answer them indirectly.
> 
> I do the setting stuff because I enjoy it, yes--in addition to the fact that the tables I'm DMing are playing 5E which at least mostly assigns that to the DM (if you're not running published adventures, which I dislike intensely and an incapable of running well). All of that aside from my bad experiences with more-collaborative world-building--which, while they've shaped my preferences are not proof of anything other than that approach doesn't work for me.
> 
> If I've prepped stuff in a place, and the PCs go there, I'll use it more or less as it's written. If they go somewhere else first, there's a good chance they'll need (both dramatically and ... I dunno, not? other needs they might have?) different things than I originally prepared. So, I'll prepare different things--which might be evolutions of what I have, because they're a starting point; or they might not.
> 
> If it's a place the PCs are going back to, I am--again--almost certainly going to prep changes to that place. Part of that is that places don't stay the same (so, verisimilitude, I guess) and part of that is that--again--the PCs will have different needs than they had before.
> 
> It doesn't feel from inside my head as though I'm changing things around in the setting just to do it, or to have things happen offscreen, or to scratch any itch I have. I do, sometimes, have ideas that get ... parked, I guess, and when I deploy setting stuff (either writing stuff from scratch or changing it) there is some amount of making sure it fits with what has gone before.




So to make sure we all understand.  This isn't a question of collaberative world-building.  This is about turning content on-line and evolving it from its starting conditions.  We cross-posted a bit so this was before my clarification.  So, to be as concise as possible your answer to the question of...

*"Why do I need to put content (locations/factions/situations) on-line and then evolve that stuff from its starting conditions when it hasn't been interacted with to come on-line/on-screen?"*

...is?


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Yeah. I saw the questions you posed, but I'm going to respond to this--and maybe that'll answer them indirectly.
> 
> I do the setting stuff because I enjoy it, yes--in addition to the fact that the tables I'm DMing are playing 5E which at least mostly assigns that to the DM (if you're not running published adventures, which I dislike intensely and an incapable of running well). All of that aside from my bad experiences with more-collaborative world-building--which, while they've shaped my preferences are not proof of anything other than that approach doesn't work for me.
> 
> If I've prepped stuff in a place, and the PCs go there, I'll use it more or less as it's written. If they go somewhere else first, there's a good chance they'll need (both dramatically and ... I dunno, not? other needs they might have?) different things than I originally prepared. So, I'll prepare different things--which might be evolutions of what I have, because they're a starting point; or they might not.
> 
> If it's a place the PCs are going back to, I am--again--almost certainly going to prep changes to that place. Part of that is that places don't stay the same (so, verisimilitude, I guess) and part of that is that--again--the PCs will have different needs than they had before.
> 
> It doesn't feel from inside my head as though I'm changing things around in the setting just to do it, or to have things happen offscreen, or to scratch any itch I have. I do, sometimes, have ideas that get ... parked, I guess, and when I deploy setting stuff (either writing stuff from scratch or changing it) there is some amount of making sure it fits with what has gone before.



I think, perhaps, you're speaking to something different.  In Blades, there's already setting material for the various neighborhoods, albeit thumbnail, and similar thumbnails for the factions.  It's not a matter of nothing being there to be interacted with.  If you go to Seven Towers, for instance, I know that's it's both Haunted and the Grey Cloaks set up shop there.  What @Manbearcat is getting at is if these things are doing stuff alongside the play at the table -- are the Grey Cloaks doing something that you update even though the play isn't going to Seven Towers or engaging the Grey Cloaks?  This is the offscreen stuff MBC is talking about, not necessarily setting details -- it's the idea that you're updating offscreen situations even though they've never engaged the table.  You seem to be more talking to prepping an area by filling in the setting details there, which is not quite the same thing MBC is getting at.

EDIT:  and I see MBC beat me to it. 'S'what I get for not updating my browser before hitting reply.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> So to make sure we all understand.  This isn't a question of collaberative world-building.  This is about turning content on-line and evolving it from its starting conditions.  We cross-posted a bit so this was before my clarification.  So, to be as concise as possible your answer to the question of...
> 
> *"Why do I need to put content (locations/factions/situations) on-line and then evolve that stuff from its starting conditions when it hasn't been interacted with to come on-line/on-screen?"*
> 
> ...is?



If it's something I've prepped, and they're getting to it well after I prepped it, then I'm changing things mostly because the PCs have different needs than they did when I originally prepped [place]. If this is a place they're returning to (not included in your original question, but still feels vaguely applicable) there are helpings of verisimilitude and not-stagnation, too.

EDIT: And I prepped it the first time because I thought the chances the PCs would go there made it worth doing.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> I think, perhaps, you're speaking to something different.  In Blades, there's already setting material for the various neighborhoods, albeit thumbnail, and similar thumbnails for the factions.  It's not a matter of nothing being there to be interacted with.  If you go to Seven Towers, for instance, I know that's it's both Haunted and the Grey Cloaks set up shop there.  What @Manbearcat is getting at is if these things are doing stuff alongside the play at the table -- are the Grey Cloaks doing something that you update even though the play isn't going to Seven Towers or engaging the Grey Cloaks?  This is the offscreen stuff MBC is talking about, not necessarily setting details -- it's the idea that you're updating offscreen situations even though they've never engaged the table.  You seem to be more talking to prepping an area by filling in the setting details there, which is not quite the same thing MBC is getting at.
> 
> EDIT:  and I see MBC beat me to it. 'S'what I get for not updating my browser before hitting reply.




That is exactly what I'm getting at.

Why does a GM need to turn off-line/off-screen content on-line and evolve it during the intervening period (whatever that may be) when the PCs haven't interacted with it?  Why not just turn it on-line once it is actually on-screen (meaning the PCs are interacting with it) and evolve it as necessary then?

In my mind, turning off-line content on-line and evolving it before it has been interacted with is the fundamental essence of "Setting Solitaire."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> You missed a key element of what I said above so I'll clarify:
> 
> 
> But none of that tells me *why do I need to evolve Nightmarket, The Wraiths, or The Inspectors beyond their initial conditions in the game text when none of that stuff has come "on-line" yet?*
> 
> That bolded is the question and what I'm asserting is *the evolution of that off-line stuff is Setting Solitaire.*



'Well in a living world you can do as much or as little as you want away from the characters, every GM is going to have to find the right balance in terms of tracking these things. But I think this highlights where the Feast of Goblyns section becomes quite relevant because that is specifically getting at the idea of the NPCs not simply being in a room waiting for the PCs to show up. I am not saying that is what you are doing in the BitD example, but it is a kind of similar thing where stuff is only happening around the PCs, and if it is only coming online when the PCs become involved with them or show up, it is more like a dungeon where monsters wait for the PCs in a room, or a video game where the challenge is sitting there waiting for them. But the point of running things off screen, isn't to simulate a world the players will never encounter. These things can always become relevant to the party at any point, and when they do, if the players prod at them enough, it is easy for players to sense whether they were held in stasis or things were evolving. As an example you read the paper or the news most likely, even though aren't likely to be hired by the president to go on an adventure or spend any time in the white house (the specific s here obviously may vary from country to country among posters). But you are aware of news far away because it still has local impact. So a simple change in policy in the imperial capital about how the empire will be managing bandits could very easily have a direct impact on the players. Who is on the throne can have an impact. And if the players go to the capital and start talking to the palace Eunuch and ask him what has been going on in the city for the last three years, the players will probably have a good idea if your response sounds like you hadn't tracked any of those details. I am not saying you must track the events of every city in a living world (or that you have to track events in the capital). I am saying when you do, and when you are able to do that, it adds to the campaign, and will likely eventually have some significance to the players (they may not bump into all these details, but some of them will be important). Generally my approach here is to take a very simplified approach (a monthly events table). Having used it, I can assure you it isn't setting solitaire. Things do come up the players never find out about, but other things are surprisingly relevant to the players, inform future adventures and scenarios, and can also become hooks for the party to use as they seek avenues to explore in the campaigns. In a living world the players are supposed to be driving the campaign through the direction the party and the characters choose to go. That is going to mean a lot of unexpected questions around news and rumors as they try to find something that seems worth their time (i.e. what criminal groups are operating in the city and who is the strongest, etc). Any of those questions can be answered with something in stasis, and sometimes out of convenience a living world will answer that sort of question in stasis. But the idea is, once the session begins, the world moves, once the campaign begins the world moves. You don't have to perfectly handle it though. And it may just be a matter of every couple of weeks thinking about major developments in different places in order to provide a senses of a world. Again I don't think this is a requirement of living world. The most important requirement is the NPCs interacting with the players be treated as alive. But the more you can expand outward, the more helpful it can as long as it isn't taking away from other important aspects of the game.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> If it's something I've prepped, and they're getting to it well after I prepped it, then I'm changing things mostly because the PCs have different needs than they did when I originally prepped [place].




Ok, this is a statement of Protagonistic Play.  This is not Setting Solitaire.



prabe said:


> If this is a place they're returning to (not included in your original question, but still feels vaguely applicable) there are helpings of verisimilitude and not-stagnation, too.
> 
> EDIT: And I prepped it the first time because I thought the chances the PCs would go there made it worth doing.




This is not related to my question above but all of that content that I've posted above (the Setting Clocks and the Faction Clocks) address exactly this (but I would say that Protagonistic Play and Skilled Play are the apex play priorities for Blades when it comes to this...with "not-stagnation" and "immersion" being an inevitable knock-on effect; 1st order and 2nd order).


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Ok, this is a statement of Protagonistic Play.  This is not Setting Solitaire.



Yeah. I didn't think it was what you've been describing as "Setting Solitaire." I guess I'm thinking it's something I'm doing in 5E--a game some (maybe you) seem to think incapable of supporting Protagonistic Play.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> 'Well in a living world you can do as much or as little as you want away from the characters, every GM is going to have to find the right balance in terms of tracking these things. But I think this highlights where the Feast of Goblyns section becomes quite relevant because that is specifically getting at the idea of the NPCs not simply being in a room waiting for the PCs to show up. I am not saying that is what you are doing in the BitD example, but it is a kind of similar thing where stuff is only happening around the PCs, and if it is only coming online when the PCs become involved with them or show up, it is more like a dungeon where monsters wait for the PCs in a room, or a video game where the challenge is sitting there waiting for them. But the point of running things off screen, isn't to simulate a world the players will never encounter. These things can always become relevant to the party at any point, and when they do, if the players prod at them enough, it is easy for players to sense whether they were held in stasis or things were evolving. As an example you read the paper or the news most likely, even though aren't likely to be hired by the president to go on an adventure or spend any time in the white house (the specific s here obviously may vary from country to country among posters). But you are aware of news far away because it still has local impact. So a simple change in policy in the imperial capital about how the empire will be managing bandits could very easily have a direct impact on the players. Who is on the throne can have an impact. And if the players go to the capital and start talking to the palace Eunuch and ask him what has been going on in the city for the last three years, the players will probably have a good idea if your response sounds like you hadn't tracked any of those details. I am not saying you must track the events of every city in a living world (or that you have to track events in the capital). I am saying when you do, and when you are able to do that, it adds to the campaign, and will likely eventually have some significance to the players (they may not bump into all these details, but some of them will be important). Generally my approach here is to take a very simplified approach (a monthly events table). Having used it, I can assure you it isn't setting solitaire. Things do come up the players never find out about, but other things are surprisingly relevant to the players, inform future adventures and scenarios, and can also become hooks for the party to use as they seek avenues to explore in the campaigns. In a living world the players are supposed to be driving the campaign through the direction the party and the characters choose to go. That is going to mean a lot of unexpected questions around news and rumors as they try to find something that seems worth their time (i.e. what criminal groups are operating in the city and who is the strongest, etc). Any of those questions can be answered with something in stasis, and sometimes out of convenience a living world will answer that sort of question in stasis. But the idea is, once the session begins, the world moves, once the campaign begins the world moves. You don't have to perfectly handle it though. And it may just be a matter of every couple of weeks thinking about major developments in different places in order to provide a senses of a world. Again I don't think this is a requirement of living world. The most important requirement is the NPCs interacting with the players be treated as alive. But the more you can expand outward, the more helpful it can as long as it isn't taking away from other important aspects of the game.




Ok, this is an interesting answer, but I think it doesn't exactly engage with what I'm saying.  I know precisely what you're getting at with the above, but I feel like "waiting in a room for team PC to arrive" is just a matter of deftness of GM framing. 

For instance:

I have a dungeon with goblins.  It is generaically themed (eg its not "Cooking the Caraveners"); "Goblins in the ruin!"  Its basically an unthemed, off-line dungeon that is only coming on-line right now because the PCs are interacting with it.  I have it mapped, keyed, stocked and ready for play. 

I have an opening situation in room 1.  I have a situation in 5 of the 20 rooms (every 4 rooms) with the Wandering Monster Clock handling the dynamic content generation.  Even if they heard about this dungeon multiple weeks prior *Why would I need to change the opening situation in room 1, even if the PCs heard about the Goblin in the Ruins (!) dungeon x days/weeks ago, when the dungeon is only now coming on-line? *

Rooms 2 through 20 may have dynamic interaction because the dungeon has come online and perhaps the results of stock encounters or Wandering Monsters changes the situation of subsequent rooms (this would be the Setting/Faction Clocks I posted upthread - these came on-line after PC interaction).

*But why do I need to change the opening situation to the prior off-line, now on-line content?  Why does the framing need to be evolved (and something like, "well because offscreen/off-line thing y or z occurred" is not responsive to the question...that is just a statement akin to "well, because Setting Solitaire"...which is fine...but then "why Setting Solitaire?").*


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Ok, this is an interesting answer, but I think it doesn't exactly engage with what I'm saying.  I know precisely what you're getting at with the above, but I feel like "waiting in a room for team PC to arrive" is just a matter of deftness of GM framing.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> I have a dungeon with goblins.  It is generaically themed (eg its not "Cooking the Caraveners"); "Goblins in the ruin!"  Its basically an unthemed, off-line dungeon that is only coming on-line right now because the PCs are interacting with it.  I have it mapped, keyed, stocked and ready for play.
> 
> I have an opening situation in room 1.  I have a situation in 5 of the 20 rooms (every 4 rooms) with the Wandering Monster Clock handling the dynamic content generation.  Even if they heard about this dungeon multiple weeks prior *Why would I need to change the opening situation in room 1, even if the PCs heard about the Goblin in the Ruins (!) dungeon x days/weeks ago, when the dungeon is only now coming on-line? *
> 
> Rooms 2 through 20 may have dynamic interaction because the dungeon has come online and perhaps the results of stock encounters or Wandering Monsters changes the situation of subsequent rooms (this would be the Setting/Faction Clocks I posted upthread - these came on-line after PC interaction).
> 
> *But why do I need to change the opening situation to the prior off-line, now on-line content?  Why does the framing need to be evolved (and something like, "well because offscreen/off-line thing y or z occurred" is not responsive to the question...that is just a statement akin to "well, because Setting Solitaire"...which is fine...but then "why Setting Solitaire?").*




I don't know what a wandering monster clock is, so I can't honestly answer this question without a clear definition of that term.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Yeah. I didn't think it was what you've been describing as "Setting Solitaire." I guess I'm thinking it's something I'm doing in 5E--a game some (maybe you) seem to think incapable of supporting Protagonistic Play.




My position on 5e is that its default orientation is extremely at-tension with Protagonistic Play.  There are many reasons for this up to and including:

* GM as Storyteller is mandate (have fun and create a memorable story is the paramount play priority) and all of the latitude that comes with that.

* Ignore/change the rules if necessary to facilitate "fun" is a major play priority rather than Follow the Rules as a play priority.

* Opaque, GM-facing action resolution (by design).

* The intersection of the 3 of those creates not just a hospitable environment for Force and the subversion of Protagonstic Play...but it encourages it (and you can clearly see it in the adventures/APs for the game).  This is just a simple matter of design.

* The extremely wobbly CR/Encounter building mechanics (borne on the back of building top-down from the Adventuring Day rather than bottom-up from the individual Encounter Unit).  This was something I pushed hard against in the playtest because I was certain exactly where it would lead (and it has...and most of the people who pushed back against me then are now aggressively taking my position 6.5 years later).  This coupled with the 4 things above leads to serious GM intercession in moments of play, and, through that, the overall trajectory of play.

* The reward cycle and structures of play not being set up to promote and reward Protagonistic Play.  Where are the player-authored Quests as xp?  Where is the IBFT fulfillment as xp?  The IBFT > Inspiration cycle and economy is not quite toothless, but it is relatively EXTREMELY meek.  And with no sense of irony at all, you see the overwhelming % of GM/table testimonials say "yeah, I just ignore that crap entirely."  They do that because its meek and not deeply integrated and almost surely because it wrests control of the trajectory of play from the AP/metaplot (eg GM) or from the thematically-neutral "troupe premise" to Protagonistic Play (dramatic need of a PC).


Now go back to my matrix and continuum of Protagonistic Play way upthread.

5e isn't to the far right of all 4 of those.  But its well right of center in each and the sum total of that is that _"yes, you can get a level of Protagonistic Play out of 5e, but the system won't help you much and will actively fight you in a lot of ways."_

That shouldn't be controversial.  A system built with the above design conceits must be overcome to have Protagonistic Play be an outgrowth of table time (eg it doesn't support it and it works against it in many ways).  But you can surely get to the left of each of those 4 values that I composed above by fighting the system and integrating other stuff.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Where is the IBFT fulfillment as xp? The IBFT > Inspiration cycle and economy is not quite toothless, but it is relatively EXTREMELY meek. And with no sense of irony at all, you see the overwhelming % of GM/table testimonials say "yeah, I just ignore that crap entirely." They do that because its meek and not deeply integrated and almost surely because it wrests control of the trajectory of play from the AP/metaplot (eg GM) or from the thematically-neutral "troupe premise" to Protagonistic Play (dramatic need of a PC).



LOL

I ignore Inspiration and all its associated dross. They do more to add to the DM's workload than to encourage Protagonistic Play. (And I find they are not closely-correlated to PC's dramatic needs, anyway.)

I'm not inclined to argue with the rest of your analysis other than to say (this probably won't surprise you) that I'm a storyteller at the table, not the storyteller at the table; most of what I bring to the table is setting and opposition--not plot. I haven't found the game to fight me as hard as you seem to, but different people are different.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> there are probably about 2 dozen other Factions in Duskvol that are doing things in the background offscreen.  However, the PCs haven't interacted with those Factions/Setting elements.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They haven't interacted with most of the wards of the city.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So every Fortune Roll, every Faction Clock that has been undertaken has either been (a) what those Factions are now doing (that they've been perturbed/interacted with) or (b) to resolve some setting-relevant situation that the PCs are indirectly involved with (eg, if a big fire manifests as a result of a Score in the wood-framed, stacked row houses of the artist/entertainment ward of Silkshore...does the Brigade get there in time to resolve it...what happens due to the fire?). Both (a) and (b) will change the situation of the setting and have some kind of mechanical teeth (Factions Tiering up, triggering an Entanglement decision-point for the Crew, triggering worse Position in particular conflict types against a Faction, gaining a permanent Asset, the Crew losing or gaining Faction with a Gang or gaining a friend/enemy that will open up later player moves or Complications/Entanglements for the GM).
> 
> All of this stuff is directly relevant to play.
> 
> So the questions I'm proposing are this:
> 
> 1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?
> 
> 2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things?  Whatever is happening there is offscreen.



This is a good post.

There is a modest parallel to my Traveller star map: the PCs have visited 9 worlds (I think) and have indirect connections to 3 or 4 more. Classic Traveller doesn't have the mechanical tools that BitD does for managing those interactions and generating downstream consequences - it's more like Burning Wheel, or a "traditional" RPG, in that all that stuff is left for the GM to draw on in framing and narrating consequences.

But I don't see any need to think about changes to places the PCs haven't been and haven't indirectly interacted with. If/when those places become relevant I'll treat my notes as expressing the status quo at that time.



Manbearcat said:


> I'm going to quickly answer my two questions above in the only compelling way that I can personally conceive of



Here's another answer: _if _I as GM do that stuff behind the scenes, and _if_ the PCs then end up interacting with that stuff so that I as GM need to tell the players some stuff about it, _then_ the behind-the-scenes stuff gives me material to tell them (eg they can hear news of the recent starport strike, or royal wedding, or whatever else I've been doing behind-the-scenes).


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know what a wandering monster clock is, so I can't honestly answer this question without a clear definition of that term.




The Wandering Monster Clock part of it is really a complete aside.  You can answer the substantive question of the post without even interfacing with that part of the post (because Wandering Monsters won't impact the opening situation in Room 1 of the Dungeon):

*Why would I ever change the framing of Room 1 of the (formerly off-line but now on-line) dungeon I mentioned above?*

But as far as Wandering Monster Clock goes, its simply the Wandering Monster machinery in a dungeon:

* WANDERING MONSTERS:  At the end of every 2 turns, the DM should check for Wandering Monsters > roll Id6: a result of 1 indicates that the party will encounter a Wandering Monster in the next turn > The Wandering Monster will be 20-120 feet away from the party when encountered (roll 2d6, multiply the result by 10) in a direction of the DM's choosing, and will be headed toward the player characters

* RESTING: After moving for 5 turns, the party must rest for 1 turn. One turn in 6 (one each hour of the adventure) must be spent resting. If characters do not rest, they have a penalty of -1 on all "to hit" and damage rolls until they do rest.

The integration of this is a "Clock" (which then integrates with loadout planning and resource attrition/management).  Marching Order/Caller + Exploration Turn Management + Rest Management + Loadout Management + Strategic Move Management (Retainer/Hirelings, Encumbrance, Treasure, push-on or abandon delve, et al) + Encounter decision-points (puzzle, combat, parley, evade/retreat) = the basic play loop of a dungeon delve.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> LOL
> 
> I ignore Inspiration and all its associated dross. They do more to add to the DM's workload than to encourage Protagonistic Play. (And I find they are not closely-correlated to PC's dramatic needs, anyway.)
> 
> I'm not inclined to argue with the rest of your analysis other than to say (this probably won't surprise you) that I'm a storyteller at the table, not the storyteller at the table; most of what I bring to the table is setting and opposition--not plot. I haven't found the game to fight me as hard as you seem to, but different people are different.




I do agree that the IBFT machinery are not particularly potent enough and not integrated enough to be worth their weight in cognitive load!


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> LOL
> 
> I ignore Inspiration and all its associated dross. They do more to add to the DM's workload than to encourage Protagonistic Play. (And I find they are not closely-correlated to PC's dramatic needs, anyway.)
> 
> I'm not inclined to argue with the rest of your analysis other than to say (this probably won't surprise you) that I'm a storyteller at the table, not the storyteller at the table; most of what I bring to the table is setting and opposition--not plot. I haven't found the game to fight me as hard as you seem to, but different people are different.



BIFTs should absolutely be dead center in Protagonistic Play.  These are the dramatic needs of the PCs, or at least some of them.  That these are discarded, and considered to be not dramatic needs, is very interesting in that I'm not quite sure, now, what you might consider dramatic needs for PCs.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> BIFTs should absolutely be dead center in Protagonistic Play.  These are the dramatic needs of the PCs, or at least some of them.  That these are discarded, and considered to be not dramatic needs, is very interesting in that I'm not quite sure, now, what you might consider dramatic needs for PCs.



The PCs' dramatic needs are either in the (entirely optional) backstories the players give me, or they emerge during play. I tie those needs into the scenarios I frame.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Here's another answer: _if _I as GM do that stuff behind the scenes, and _if_ the PCs then end up interacting with that stuff so that I as GM need to tell the players some stuff about it, _then_ the behind-the-scenes stuff gives me material to tell them (eg they can hear news of the recent starport strike, or royal wedding, or whatever else I've been doing behind-the-scenes).



But can't just initial framing, rather than evolved framing, do that work?

Put another way, at the inception of play:

* Faction/Situation X is off-line...or in stasis...or even in a state of superposition (as everyone around here seems to love their Schrodingers)!

* Players do something that requires X be introduced into play (turned on-line, taken out of stasis).

Why can't I just use either (a) that initial framing that is in my notes (or in a text) or (b) make something up off the cuff that is appropriate and doesn't render incoherent the past established continuity?

Again, we're talking about it not intersecting with anything established in play.  Its never been "on-line."  So if the PCs do something in Ward Y that burns down the hide-out of Faction X, they are no longer off-line!  They come on-line immediately and I have to evolve the fiction; where is their new lair?...do they know who is responsible?...what are they doing if they do know?


----------



## Manbearcat

Going to clarify some more here:

Here are some relevant parts of The Billhooks entry in John Harper's Blades in the Dark:



*The Billhooks - Tier 2*
_A tough gang of thugs who prefer hatchets, meat hooks, and pole arms._

(looks like a 4e Power Entry thus far!)

*Turf*: A butcher shop (HQ), stockyard, and slaughterhouse. Animal fighting pits and gambling dens. Several terrified merchants and businesses, which they extort.

*Quirks*: The Billhooks have a bloody reputation, often leaving the butchered corpses of their victims strewn about in a grisly display. Many wonder why the Bluecoats turn

*Situation*: Erin and Coran both want to take control of the Billhooks gang, either when Tarvul gets too old (which will be soon) or by taking the position by force.  There is no love lost between Erin and Corran and they’ll have no qualms about fighting a family member for leadership. Meanwhile, the rest of the gang wants to continue their reign of terror to pressure a magistrate to pardon Tarvul and other gang members and release them from Ironhook.

*(Recommended) Faction Clock (8)*:  Terrorize magistrates to pardon members in prison



John Harper's advice (which I agree with) is that I don't need to erect this Faction Clock (directly above) at Downtime (and therefore start resolving it) and I don't need to do anything with this faction at all until they "come on-line."

Why then, would I start this Faction Clock before then?  Why would I evolve anything about them before they've formally entered play (come on-line/on-screen)?  Why wouldn't I just frame them exactly as they are...no change in any of the info above (same Tier, same enemies, allies, quirks, same situation etc)?  Why wouldn't I use this information, as is, to frame them into play when the PCs begin interaction with them?  Why would I evolve them beyond any of the above info?


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Why then, would I start this Faction Clock before then? Why would I evolve anything about them before they've formally entered play (come on-line/on-screen)? Why wouldn't I just frame them exactly as they are...no change in any of the info above (same Tier, same enemies, allies, quirks, same situation etc)? Why wouldn't I use this information, as is, to frame them into play when the PCs begin interaction with them? Why would I evolve them beyond any of the above info?



Because you thought it would be better if you did so? Maybe the faction as written doesn't really fit what's come before, thematically. Maybe you want something lurking in the background (to the extent BitD allows such. I suspect you could frame them as in-progress and still start the clock when first interacted with--if not, you might advance the clock to indicate this has been ongoing.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a mistake, or missing the point of BitD. I suspect it would be. It seems as though it'd be at least a violation of some of the expectations.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> But can't just initial framing, rather than evolved framing, do that work?
> 
> Put another way, at the inception of play:
> 
> * Faction/Situation X is off-line...or in stasis...or even in a state of superposition (as everyone around here seems to love their Schrodingers)!
> 
> * Players do something that requires X be introduced into play (turned on-line, taken out of stasis).
> 
> Why can't I just use either (a) that initial framing that is in my notes (or in a text) or (b) make something up off the cuff that is appropriate and doesn't render incoherent the past established continuity?



I don't have answers to your questions other than that some GMs don't like making up something off the cuff, and they worry that your (a) approach will reduce the consistency or "interconnectedness" of things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Ok, this is an interesting answer, but I think it doesn't exactly engage with what I'm saying.  I know precisely what you're getting at with the above, but I feel like "waiting in a room for team PC to arrive" is just a matter of deftness of GM framing.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> I have a dungeon with goblins.  It is generaically themed (eg its not "Cooking the Caraveners"); "Goblins in the ruin!"  Its basically an unthemed, off-line dungeon that is only coming on-line right now because the PCs are interacting with it.  I have it mapped, keyed, stocked and ready for play.
> 
> I have an opening situation in room 1.  I have a situation in 5 of the 20 rooms (every 4 rooms) with the Wandering Monster Clock handling the dynamic content generation.  Even if they heard about this dungeon multiple weeks prior *Why would I need to change the opening situation in room 1, even if the PCs heard about the Goblin in the Ruins (!) dungeon x days/weeks ago, when the dungeon is only now coming on-line? *
> 
> Rooms 2 through 20 may have dynamic interaction because the dungeon has come online and perhaps the results of stock encounters or Wandering Monsters changes the situation of subsequent rooms (this would be the Setting/Faction Clocks I posted upthread - these came on-line after PC interaction).
> 
> *But why do I need to change the opening situation to the prior off-line, now on-line content?  Why does the framing need to be evolved (and something like, "well because offscreen/off-line thing y or z occurred" is not responsive to the question...that is just a statement akin to "well, because Setting Solitaire"...which is fine...but then "why Setting Solitaire?").*




I think I disagree with "is just a matter of deftness of GM framing." Unless I misunderstand your point. The point of living monsters, living NPCs, is they in effect have agency. I am not saying every single situation gets handled this way, because there are always exceptions, always things that you do out of convenience in play, but ideally, the notion is instead of prepping static situations, you are loading the game with NPCs and creatures who have clear enough goals on their own, they are something the the PCs interact with, not stumble into all set up and primed if that makes sense. Sometimes though, with dungeons, for convenience, I think this often happens less. You can do it in dungeons too, there are ways to set up a dungeon so it is more like a lived in residence than a place where the inhabitants wait in a room for you, or situations are held in stasis for the party, but sometimes it is just easier to say "there is a poisonous demon monkey in the grain barrel foraging for food" (and I have certainly done that from time to time)

but like I said earlier, you can evolve these things as much as you like. It isn't a law code you have to abide by. Everyone takes a slightly different approach. I think with a case like an initial situational, you may be fine not evolving it. You really have to judge that for yourself. But I do think, overall, if you are not evolving things, you are going to miss out on some of the life a living world can bring (for the reasons I stated in my previous post). And again, ideally the characters and factions are clear enough in motives and goals, that even if you are using some kind of table to trigger changes, it is pretty easy for you to logically figure out how these forces are playing out in the setting even if you don't rolll). 

If I understand your situation correctly though, the players having heard about something three weeks ago, may in fact be a good reason for evolving the situation. I can't really say based on what you've said here, only you would know the answer really in the context of your campaign. But if I have a rumor that the players encounter, like General Lai is contending with a group of rebel bandits who a fortified in a trapped forested hill. When the players get there if he is still at the bottom of the hill and hasn't done anything in those three weeks, they may get the sense it doesn't seem like I considered anything that ought to have happened in the intervening time.

The answer to your question is the reason you would do it, is to prevent the players from feeling like the situation was held in stasis before they arrived like in a video game. If you don't feel that is going to be the case do what you want, if you feel the trade off in fun, isn't worth the effort and annoyance of evolving the situation, then just stick with the situation as you set it up. This really isn't meant to be some kind of straight jacket. It is a tool. Take Feast of Goblyns for example. There is a dungeon in that adventure with stuff keyed to it. But at least when it comes to the major NPCs, you are expected to move them around more so they have life and don't just feel like they are waiting around. For me, that is the starting point for this technique. Then it is just a matter of how far you want to take it. I would never tell you "every dungeon you make has to be evolving constantly". I think that would be rigid, bad advice. But I would say, if you want a living world, try evolving some of the situations if you can. If the players go somewhere and it strikes you there should have been developments to the situation they are heading in, that is a perfect time to try it. Or you can always structure you dungeons so they are more like homes (i.e. people aren't pinned to a specific location---instead maybe everyone is on some kind of wandering encounter table, or when the PCs arrive you roll to see who is there, who isn't; etc). Also if you have a conflict in a dungeon between factions or something, when you set it up, you can do it in a way that it is easy to evolve (i.e. by spring the Goblins take half the dungeon, by summer they take three quarters, etc----this can also be left to rolls: roll each season to see who gains more territory). Like I said, these are all tools. I think at the end of the day, if you are using a living world it shouldn't be done in a way you think harms play at the table. And sometimes you can mix and match structures. You can run a sandbox that has the occasional structured murder mystery in it. Sometimes when we talk about these things they come off as codes you must obey, and philosophies that cannot bend. I think that is a bad way to go. Sometimes you are going to find it easy to evolve situations and settings 90 percent of the time (for example when I am dealing with sect factions I find this very easy to do), other times the percentage could be 10%. One of the reasons I have tables for this sort of thing, is precisely so I don't have to constantly be checking in on and maintaining these things if my campaign is getting complicated. But definitely always try to keep those core NPCs active, generally prepare goals and intentions, rather than prepare events or set pieces, for a living sandbox. 

Remember my main contention in response to setting solitaire was 'this isn't really solitaire'. I wasn't saying you had to evolve every situation 100% of the time 'because'. How you use this set of tools is going to be up to you if you try doing the living adventure thing. But even distant events and developments can be relevant to the party. If moving this stuff in the background was totally pointless and only for the GM, I would have stopped doing it a long time ago. It is because I've found it adds to he players' experience of the world I continue to do it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> Why can't I just use either (a) that initial framing that is in my notes (or in a text) or (b) make something up off the cuff that is appropriate and doesn't render incoherent the past established continuity?




The only reasons that seem reasonable to me have already been mentioned. You proppsed the idea of game face....that this kind of exercise can keep a GM in game ready form. @prabe mentions what I would have...that you have a different idea in mind than what you originally thought or what’s in the text. For some, this may just be something that they enjoy in between sessions.

So although there may be reasons, I would argue that none of them are really about portraying a living world. i suppose an argument could be made for the game face helping the GM do so, but then it’s a kind of indirect impact. They all seem to serve some other purpose.

And what I find very odd is that when I’ve gotten into discussions about this, many folks who say that you should do it seem to also talk about agency and living world and that kind of stuff. They seem very much against the idea of GM plot. 

But if the GM is advancing things without any input from the players, how is that anything but GM plot?


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> But if the GM is advancing things without any input from the players, how is that anything but GM plot?



No. GM is plot is the GM having a story he wants the players to participate in (often with a clear structure to that story already planned out). This is about playing the characters, factions, and forces that exist in the world the players inhabit. It is more like history than story. And it isn't like "here is an event causing an adventure you must now go on". It is about when the players go to speak to the head of the Society of Silver Sword, the GM being able to say things like "this is what they are dealing with when you get there" and if the players ally with the Silver Sword, the GM then being able to figure out how the other sects will react (which may or may not directly impact the PCs). I don't see that as plot at all.


----------



## Older Beholder

Aldarc said:


> Incidentally, in regards to this wider topic, Runehammer posted a video recently (Apr. 3) on "Demythifying Prep." Wherein he talks about using notes, planning scenarios not plots, avoiding pre-written outcomes, etc. (It's from a stream, so he does jump around, and by the second-half he focuses on showing how does hand-drawn character sheets.)



Thanks for the video, it gave me a better understanding of what's been discussed in the thread.
I thought the guy had a lot of good ideas.

One thing that I found interesting was when he says a GM should be honest/upfront about everything with the players, giving an example that if he improvised something he'd tell the players that it wasn't planned. And while I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach, (it's certainly better than hiding things are deceiving the players OOC), I know my players really don't like to know those 'behind the certain' details.

Anyway, I'll give it some more thought.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> No. GM is plot is the GM having a story he wants the players to participate in (often with a clear structure to that story already planned out). This is about playing the characters, factions, and forces that exist in the world the players inhabit. It is more like history than story. And it isn't like "here is an event causing an adventure you must now go on". It is about when the players go to speak to the head of the Society of Silver Sword, the GM being able to say things like "this is what they are dealing with when you get there" and if the players ally with the Silver Sword, the GM then being able to figure out how the other sects will react (which may or may not directly impact the PCs). I don't see that as plot at all.




But if the Silver Sword has in no way come up, there is nothing to advance. There is no difference to the players if they encounter the Society of the Silver Sword 6 months into the campaign if you had the status quo set when the campaign began, or if it’s been something you’ve advanced as the campaign has gone on, or if it’s something you’ve just thought up on the fly. 

GM skill at each of those things being equal, there’s no difference.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> There's another way to do dungeons?
> 
> I'm joking, but I can count the number of times I've actually used a pre-drawn map for site exploration on one hand.  I just usually picture what the place would look like and narrate it.



What happens when your players try to map what you're describing?


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> ... words you speak in character can become reality in the setting



I ran this once - the party had in effect got to the plane of dreams, where your thoughts come out real.  It took the players (and thus the PCs) a surprisingly long time to figure out that their own words were causing and driving the scenes around them.

Bright side: for once I didn't have to worry about consistency or coherence.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> The study proposes two populations:
> 
> * Homo sapiens circa about 100 k years ago till today (by this point we were effectively passing down martial arts/craft/artisanship through generations).
> 
> * TTRPGing players circa mid 70s till today.



I get this.


Manbearcat said:


> Then,
> 
> 1) Examine what % of functional (not tails of the distribution...just part of the normal distribution) martial artists (anything physical including sport), craftfolks, AND (not OR...AND) artisans emerged perpetually from the populace and how (it emerged exactly as I proposed it emerged above).  This is because (a) they're kindred in their nature and (b) kindred in the means by which they were passed down.
> 
> 2) Do the same thing with GMs (and don't break it down into GMs by game or by playstyle...ALL OF THEM).



I don't get this.

Within the pool of RPGers, GM is *one* role.  Mapper is another, caller another, treasurer another, note-taker another, etc.; though none are/were ever as common or widespread as GM.

Within the pool of humanity, martial artists plus craftspeople plus artisans are *many* roles, some of course more common than others.

You're positing a false equivalence.

A true equivalence would be to pick *one* "role" within humanity - blacksmithing, pole-vaulting, hockey-playing, I don't care which one - and compare that to GMs within RPGs in terms of a) how many there are vs the overall possible pool and b) how the role perpetuates itself.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> You missed a key element of what I said above so I'll clarify:
> 
> Everything the PCs have not interacted with effectively doesn't exist.  It is entirely off-line/offscreen.  In the game above that would be (a) all of the wards of Duskvol that haven't been interacted with (there are 12 total...only 3 have seen play directly, 1 other indirectly, and perhaps another merely through conversation) and (b) about 80 % of the Factions.
> 
> There are (effectively) starting conditions for each ward and Faction.
> 
> We're in Session 5.
> 
> Why can I not keep all of (a) and (b) effectively in a form of stasis and, when they are interacted with, just deploy them at their starting conditions when the PCs interact with them?



In part because their state at session 1, since frozen, might no longer make sense by session 5.

For example, if Faction A is at war with Faction B as the start state (session 1) and the PCs wipe out Faction B in session 3 without ever hearing of Faction A, Faction A's starting condition no longer makes sense and needs updating.

Another and IMO bigger issue: the passage of time.  The starting conditions for everyone reflect the state of things on Day 1 of the campaign.  By Day 63 in session five, those things have all had over two months to develop and change on their own, never mind what the PCs have done to them.  Leaving them in stasis, as you suggest, is to me just another use of GM force - similar to a GM arbitrarily deciding that these four Ogres will be down whichever passage the party chooses to take after the next intersection.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> That is exactly what I'm getting at.
> 
> Why does a GM need to turn off-line/off-screen content on-line and evolve it during the intervening period (whatever that may be) when the PCs haven't interacted with it?  Why not just turn it on-line once it is actually on-screen (meaning the PCs are interacting with it) and evolve it as necessary then?



Why?  Because time in the game world doesn't stop the moment the PCs leave the scene.


Manbearcat said:


> In my mind, turning off-line content on-line and evolving it before it has been interacted with is the fundamental essence of "Setting Solitaire."



Unless one assumes that 'online' is a bigger umbrella, covering not only what the PCs *do* interact with but also what they *might* interact with.

You've got, say, 27 different Factions in town at the start of the campaign.  You're 95% sure the PCs will interact with five of them pretty soon but there's always the potential they also - or instead - end up interacting with one or more of the remaining 22; which IMO means you need to keep all 27 at least vaguely up to date as in-game time goes on.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> I really doubt that, as I'm 100% certain that if polite discussion and good trading of information broke out, @pemerton would be absolutely thrilled at that result.  I know I would be.  However, I find it telling that you're willing to openly question @pemerton's honesty in such a way, and ironic that you seem to pin any aggravated dialogue in this thread on his intentions, rather than acts such as this.




None of the above changes the reality of what occurred i.e. much of the focus, directly or indirectly, being on the thread's title with several posters addressing this exact issue. 
Your disagreement with this has been noted. 



> I mean, a review of your posts in this thread seems to discount you from engaging without ego, yes?  Your first post was to pose your above accusation in a veiled way (obvious now that you've be explicit) through a rhetorical question you never answered yourself.  Then a *bunch of arguing* about whether people getting paid for sports is important *(it wasn't),* and now your accusation, here.  It appears that you're accusing @pemerton of intending to do what you've _actually done_.




Cute.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> Again, monetization is not only not a helpful way to perform a longitudinal study like this, its actively harmful in signal detection (because of the noise it introduces).
> 
> Not only that, but it doesn't even track the population you're trying to track.  Professional athletes are at the far, far, far end of the tail of a population distribution.  They aren't anywhere nearing the center.  Artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills are, again, right at the tails of the distribution (and, again, their monetization picks up a lot of the aforementioned noise).  This isn't the target population.
> 
> You're arguing for exposure here.  Exposure doesn't come into it when you're tracking % within a population.
> 
> All TTRPG players would (of course) have the necessary exposure that you're talking about (or they wouldn't be playing)!
> 
> Development of methodological means to create a higher % of functional practitioners (in this case GMs) WITHIN a population won't track to exposure.
> 
> If your point is that there are lots of other reasons to increase total population size (not % of functional practitioners within a population), then I agree.  But that isn't the point of the theoretical longitudinal study here.
> 
> And (as to your last statement) I think you're short-shrifting the cognitive and social impacts of playing TTRPGs (particularly in the developmental stage).




Maybe I am not understanding your initial premise correctly, because it seems we are talking past each other at this point.

You're stating the percentage of functional x within a civilisation as a % is greater than the % of functional GMs within the roleplayer base, correct?

If that is your stance, I'm not sure how repeated exposure, education and value (monetary or otherwise) doesn't play a role in the creation of an increased number of functional x.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The point of living monsters, living NPCs, is they in effect have agency.





Bedrockgames said:


> This is about playing the characters, factions, and forces that exist in the world the players inhabit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is about when the players go to speak to the head of the Society of Silver Sword, the GM being able to say things like "this is what they are dealing with when you get there" and if the players ally with the Silver Sword, the GM then being able to figure out how the other sects will react (which may or may not directly impact the PCs).



Here I'm with @Manbearcat and @hawkeyefan - everything else being equal, once the GM has decided what the Society of the Silver Sword is doing when the PCs first encounter them, does it need to be changed before the Society comes "online"?

@Lanefan says - yes, if that initial situation doesn't make sense given what's happened in play since. I think that is covered by @Manbearcats notion of direct or *indirect* interaction. Manbearcat is talking about contexts in which there is neither direct nor indirect interaction.



Bedrockgames said:


> The answer to your question is the reason you would do it, is to prevent the players from feeling like the situation was held in stasis before they arrived like in a video game.





Bedrockgames said:


> there are ways to set up a dungeon so it is more like a lived in residence than a place where the inhabitants wait in a room for you, or situations are held in stasis for the party, but sometimes it is just easier to say "there is a poisonous demon monkey in the grain barrel foraging for food" (and I have certainly done that from time to time)





Bedrockgames said:


> the Feast of Goblyns section becomes quite relevant because that is specifically getting at the idea of the NPCs not simply being in a room waiting for the PCs to show up.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the point of running things off screen, isn't to simulate a world the players will never encounter. These things can always become relevant to the party at any point, and when they do, if the players prod at them enough, it is easy for players to sense whether they were held in stasis or things were evolving.



The "freeze frame" room is a classic in dungeon design. But I think it's pretty apparent that you don't use the same freeze frame if the PCs come back again; you present something new that makes sense.

In one of my Classic Traveller scenarios a PC was able to steal some powered armour (_battle dress_, to be precise) because its owner and previous wearer was in the shower. As it happens, I came up with that framing on the spot. But I don't think it would have been any more or less viable, in play, had I come up with the idea a week earlier and made a note of it.

In Castle Amber, when you enter one of the closest rooms to the entryway you encounter a member of the Amber family training his boxing magen. A good GM would frame the situation in that room differently if a PC came back to it; but the "freeze frame" isn't objectionable because that's what you'll get if you enter that room after 1, 10 or 100 turns in the castle.

When we move away from freeze frame rooms to the goals and dispositions of factions, governments, and similar sorts of social/political groups, I don't see that anything changes. Let's say the notes for the Society of the Silver Sword say that the society is preparing to disinter the body of its founder because they wish to use some of the body parts for alchemical purposes. Does it matter if that fact about the Society comes online after the passage of 1, 10 or 100 ingame days?



Manbearcat said:


> But can't just initial framing, rather than evolved framing, do that work?
> 
> Put another way, at the inception of play:
> 
> * Faction/Situation X is off-line...or in stasis...or even in a state of superposition (as everyone around here seems to love their Schrodingers)!
> 
> * Players do something that requires X be introduced into play (turned on-line, taken out of stasis).
> 
> Why can't I just use either (a) that initial framing that is in my notes (or in a text) or (b) make something up off the cuff that is appropriate and doesn't render incoherent the past established continuity?



Here's another thought about this:

Suppose the GM is using a published setting, or is preparing his/her own setting in a similar fashion.

Then it will say that in (say) Year 579 the state of affairs with respect to A, B, C etc is X, Y, Z etc. Now if the PCs don't encounter the Cs until Year 589, and the GM still uses Z as the state of affairs with respect to the Cs, this implies that the Cs have been static for 10 years. The alternative is to prise the events and circumstances of the timeline, but that falsifies the timeline.

I think the way to avoid this problem is to avoid the use of timelines in that classic fashion - I assume that they don't figure in BitD in that traditional way - but timelines seem to be very popular in setting design/presentation!


----------



## AnotherGuy

@Manbearcat in your opinion does Skilled Play not enter the possible equation with regards to your 2 questions above?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> In Castle Amber, when you enter one of the closest rooms to the entryway you encounter a member of the Amber family training his boxing magen. A good GM would frame the situation in that room differently if a PC came back to it; but the "freeze frame" isn't objectionable because that's what you'll get if you enter that room after 1, 10 or 100 turns in the castle.



While I adore Castle Amber - and in fact ran it within the last year - when it comes to providing an example of a realistic believable world, Chateau D'Amberville ain't the place to look.  (nor, for that matter, is Averoigne; but at least with a bit of work it can be tarted up into a halfway functional setting should the PCs decide to explore in more depth than just what's needed to finish the adventure)

The Chateau is I think specifically intended to be a bit of a madhouse; intentionally somewhat non-believable to the point where even the wise PCs end up starting to doubt their own perception and are attempting illusion disbelief at every turn.  That's what makes it cool!


pemerton said:


> Suppose the GM is using a published setting, or is preparing his/her own setting in a similar fashion.
> 
> Then it will say that in (say) Year 579 the state of affairs with respect to A, B, C etc is X, Y, Z etc. Now if the PCs don't encounter the Cs until Year 589, and the GM still uses Z as the state of affairs with respect to the Cs, this implies that the Cs have been static for 10 years. The alternative is to prise the events and circumstances of the timeline, but that falsifies the timeline.



Exactly!


pemerton said:


> I think the way to avoid this problem is to avoid the use of timelines in that classic fashion - I assume that they don't figure in BitD in that traditional way - but timelines seem to be very popular in setting design/presentation!



Of course.  One of the key elements in any setting is the passage of time, both before the PCs start their careers (the setting history) and - germaine to the point here - _while their careers are occurring_ (emergent history, if you will). The world they know of - even the parts they've merely heard of but haven't interacted with - isn't going to stand still for ten years until the PCs get to it.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> The world they know of - even the parts they've merely heard of but haven't interacted with - isn't going to stand still for ten years until the PCs get to it.



No one is supposing it would stand still. The point is that if no one at the table is talking about it or thinking about it, there is no need to change the GM's private record of its nature.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> No one is supposing it would stand still. The point is that if no one at the table is talking about it or thinking about it, there is no need to change the GM's private record of its nature.



There's two different situations here and we may each be talking about one, hence a disconnect.

Situation one: there's a distant part of the game world that's never been developed or even thought out clearly by the GM, and for the forseeable future there's pretty much zero chance of the PCs going there.

Situation two: there's a distant part of the game world that the PCs have heard of in passing; the GM has vague ideas of what's there but that's it, and again there's a near-zero chance of the PCs going there anytime soon.

Situation one: no updating required, if for no reason than there's nothing in place yet to update. 

Situation two: updating required if necessary, based both on effects (known or unknown) of the PCs' actions and on external events.

An example, sort of, from my game:



Spoiler



Far to the south of the usual adventuring area, but noted in the game-world history and on its maps since day 1, is a large city called Tanquair.  For ten or more years of play all I-as-DM needed to do with Tanquair was think about it in my own mind and occasionally remind myself it was still down there; the PCs never got within a thousand miles of the place and never really had any effect on it. (and even though its local language was always on my random-languages table nobody ever rolled it, which meant I didn't even have to worry about telling anyone about the place the language came from!)

Then a mission (actually the start of a covid-shattered adventure series) took them down to that part of the world; meaning I not only had to think more carefully about what made Tanquair tick, I also had to design what lay in and across the ocean to its south which up until then was "off the map" territory.  A few months later Tanquair ended up becoming their away-from-home home base, forcing me to go into way more detail than I ever really expected to (I had wrongly guessed they'd use their long-range travel capabilities to continue operating out of their usual base, far to the north).

Fortunately for me, I'd always envisioned Tanquair as a fairly stable sort of place anyway, so updating it was dirt simple.  More challenging (and interesting!) was designing the southern ocean and what lay around/across it: a bunch of small realms to the east and to the south a great big empire very loosely based on an amalgam of various proto-Chinese dynasties.  Again, at the moment there's a near-zero chance of the PCs ever going there, though they've had all kinds of interaction with a few of its more-piratically-inclined citizens, but now they've heard of it I feel I need to keep it - and all the other realms surrounding that ocean - vaguely updated.  (further, I'm now looking long and hard at that area should I ever want to run an entirely different campaign and recycle the same setting)

And even then they caught me off guard: I'd done a high-level map of that southern ocean* and because the PCs needed to triangulate a directional pull to a site in mid-ocean they on a whim picked a random coastal city in a small irrelevant realm to the east and said "we're going there to try our directional spell again".  They had magical means of long-range travel that allowed this, and suddenly I'm trying to DM them in a new and strange city that until that moment had been nothing but a nameless dot on a map!

By the end of that session I knew a lot more about the kingdom of Bonbai and the city of Baique than I ever expected to. 

Odds of their ever going back there again: near zero.

* - it's map 7 on this page: Decast maps


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> They aren't though, you're just resistant to hearing anything that is frank discussion of the processes of play.  You throw out the term "dissociative mechanics" as if it's something you will not abide, but you do -- you use armor class, you use hitpoints, you use spells.  These are all dissociated mechanics that either have a lampshade over them (spells are magic!) or that you're just used to and no longer notice (AC, hp).



I don't want to get derailed into an alternate discussion but this here is my proof text that you don't know what you are talking about and that is why both sides struggle.   I realize that again you are likely (but by now you really have no excuse) treating the words as pure english language words and not for a technical game mechanic term.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Does it?  I mean, pointing out that you serially misstate my name for the third time goes to show that I'm being adversarial?   I mean, that's like saying someone asking you to please stop punching them is just looking for a fight.



And you mentioned it on the third time, and I'm going to try and do better not to forget.  The fact that I made a common mistake more than once can be attributed to the fact I didn't recompute anything the second or third times and just went with my original read.   

Honestly, you and Pemerton are very inflammatory, far more so than your opposition in this thread.  Look in the mirror and see who is punching who.



Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, this is a bald misrepresentation of what I've said.  What I've said is that you're using your preferences as a means to discount and dismiss analysis, which you seem to admit to, here.  What I've said is that analysis is a useful tool to understand preference and enhance play.  For instance, without any experience, you've dismissed an entire approach as "shallow" (man, talk about loaded words) when you have no experience to say so.  It's fine to think you won't like it, and no one's going to force you to try it, but you've removed yourself from any valid input when analysis involves comparing or contrasting with these approaches.  You're trying to shoehorn yourself into having a valid input by claiming that it's all preference, but it isn't. Whether or not you like it is preference -- how it works in process is not.



I am fine with "analysis" of play styles.  In fact I enjoy seeing what makes some games go and why people like them.  When though you speak dismissively of the playstyle I and others prefer then we of course come back with a response.  



Ovinomancer said:


> They aren't though, you're just resistant to hearing anything that is frank discussion of the processes of play.



Not at all.  But I may not accept your framing of the discussion.  You want to create the rules and then have us adhere to them in the discussion.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> But none of that tells me *why do I need to evolve Nightmarket, The Wraiths, or The Inspectors beyond their initial conditions in the game text when none of that stuff has come "on-line" yet?*
> 
> That bolded is the question and what I'm asserting is *the evolution of that off-line stuff is Setting Solitaire.*



And we believe those things make the world have greater verisimilitude and thus ultimately is more satisfying to us.  Our game play goals are "become a fantasy character" so we want to see things the best we can through our characters eyes.   The character is not a playing piece such as a pawn in chess that we move around.  We are achieving the greatest success when we fuse with our character and feel what our character feels.   

I think since you don't really even play our style with similar goals that you don't value the same things we value.


----------



## Emerikol

I think a point should be made here.  I've made it in snippets at various places.

1.  I am not hating these other styles.  I'm just equating them with the sort of satisfaction I'd get from playing a decent board game.   I am not saying these other styles ARE a board game.  I'm saying that the satisfaction I'd get would be similar.   Kind of like saying you like apple or cherry pie.  It's not like they taste the same but they may just be equal options for you at the local diner.  

2.  I really really love roleplaying and consider it far more satisfying than a lot of other forms of entertainment.  Thus I am willing to commit a major time investment to play what I view as my favorite style of gaming.   


Secondly,

I believe there are many out there playing what would appear to be my style of gaming.  They have dungeon maps and skilled play is necessary.  They have a world and sometimes even a sandbox.   Yet their games would satisfy me no better than those in #1 above.   Why?  Because the engagement with the world would be perfunctory.  

In my games, there are no random dungeon maps.  I don't "stock" my dungeons using the wandering monster tables.   There is a lot of world engagement in terms of NPC relations and alliances/enemies.  I really try when bringing in a dungeon to make it fit the world and to provide some background.   There was an article in Best of Dragon about building dungeons that I've always thought was a really good one.  It was about dialing up the verisimilitude.  When it works it's really great in my opinion.  Players as their characters genuinely begin to care about not only their fellow party members but various NPCs in the game.   It feels real to them.   For a brief moment each Saturday, they step into another world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Here I'm with @Manbearcat and @hawkeyefan - everything else being equal, once the GM has decided what the Society of the Silver Sword is doing when the PCs first encounter them, does it need to be changed before the Society comes "online"?



As I said to Manbearcat, it is up to you. The point of sandbox (edit: living world) is so things don't feel like they are sitting their waiting for the party to come get them, like they are active characters and beings in the setting, like organizations are active and responsive. The point of living sandbox isn't to get hung up on whether something needs to be in motion and alive prior to the players encountering it in play (this is more a philosophical question I suppose: and ultimately what matters if you are trying to run a living world is whether doing so is worth your time in this instance and whether it makes a difference----or whether it matters to you).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The "freeze frame" room is a classic in dungeon design. But I think it's pretty apparent that you don't use the same freeze frame if the PCs come back again; you present something new that makes sense.




Sure and the living adventure/living world way of managing this is to focus on the goals of the characters who inhabit (perhaps the major ones, but also the minor ones if you want), allow not just the overall situation to adjust if the players come back, but making decisions based on the NPCs as if they are characters (which could allow for example for an intelligent resident of the dungeon to leave, and even go after the PCs). Nothing is preventing you from doing this is you begin with the freeze approach, but a lot of GMs do treat it as static, and living world/living adventure is a reminder for the GM to make things more active and responsive (and to treat them more like objective entities in the setting). If it doesn't answer an issue you want to solve, if it runs up against some other playstyle or system thing you are interested in, then you don't have to do it. All I can say is this principle has made a night and day difference in my sessions.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Players as their characters genuinely begin to care about not only their fellow party members but various NPCs in the game.   It feels real to them.   For a brief moment each Saturday, they step into another world.



You have a tendency to post as if this is not common in other posters' games. But in fact it is.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> You have a tendency to post as if this is not common in other posters' games. But in fact it is.




He isn't saying anything about your campaign or anyone else's he is responding to the bolded test in @Manbearcat's post asking why he should use this technique and calling it setting solitaire. @Emerikol's response is about the reason why you would use a living world approach here and pointing to it not being a solitary activity by the GM.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> He isn't saying anything about your campaign or anyone else's he is responding to the bolded test in @Manbearcat's post asking why he should use this technique and calling it setting solitaire. @Emerikol's response is about the reason why you would use a living world approach here and pointing to it not being a solitary activity by the GM.



I can read Emerikol's posts. The post I quoted in my post that you replied to was not a reply to @Manbearcat (or anyone else).

It was a post about "his style" vs boardgaming.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> If it's something I've prepped, and they're getting to it well after I prepped it, then I'm changing things mostly because the PCs have different needs than they did when I originally prepped [place]. If this is a place they're returning to (not included in your original question, but still feels vaguely applicable) there are helpings of verisimilitude and not-stagnation, too.
> 
> EDIT: And I prepped it the first time because I thought the chances the PCs would go there made it worth doing.



I think this is really due to the fundamental difference in how these games do PCs and mechanics.  In D&D, PC capabilities vary wildly as they progress -- the easiest to demonstrate is spellcasters, who gain massive changes in what's possible and not just in power.  This is true of other classes as well, it's just most obvious in the spell lists.  A character can switch from having to walk across a continent to doing so instantaneously in the blink of an eye at the table -- the player just levels up the PC to get teleport.  This radical shift in capability (again, present in all classes), means that unused prep needs to be updated, if only to account for new abilities.  Elsewise, prep must be discarded as not something that's relevant to these PCs anymore (a chasm, for instance, goes from a dangerous obstacle to a triviality very suddenly).  In Blades, though, this doesn't happen -- PCs do not have sudden shifts in capability, they just improve at doing what they already could do.  

The upshot of this is that, in D&D, prep is absolutely necessary, if only to account for the difference in capability.  This applies to sandbox prep as well, as different areas/locations are prepped with different capabilities in mind (this is a challenging area with powerful opponents, this is a less challenging area with weaker opponents).  With Blades, though, this isn't necessary -- threats are more about what's happening rather than quality of the opposition/accounting for increased abilities.  PCs get more competent, but don't add entire new categories of capability.

I think this difference -- how you account for PC capabilities -- is a critical difference in how these games can and are prepped.  Blades is fine with a thumbnail and an opening situation, because that's all that's needed to engage with play.  When the PCs start interacting with the Billhooks, for instance, then what the Billhooks are doing will necessarily be an impediment to the PC's plans (elsewise, the GM will not invoke them in framing or consequence).  They don't need to adapt, in any way, to the PCs, nor do they need to advance on their own because whatever they were doing is of little consequence to play, it's only what they're doing when the PCs encounter them.  Now, that said, I'm not at all adverse to making a Fortune roll and advancing their clock as I introduce them, especially if that puts more pressure on what the PCs are trying to do (and this is a consequence framing).  In D&D, prep absolutely has to account for the PC abilities -- either in adjusting previous prep to remain useful (which seems your approach), or by tiering threats in a sandbox so the PCs have a variety of challenges for whatever their current abilities are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> None of the above changes the reality of what occurred i.e. much of the focus, directly or indirectly, being on the thread's title with several posters addressing this exact issue.



Ah, more cryptic statements, where one is left to assume your intent.  And, nice sidestep, there!  You neatly avoided refuting that you're questioning @pemerton's honesty while continuing to suggest it.  I'd ask again if you intend to question pem's honesty, but I figure, at this point, you'll just deflect while insinuating more.  Surprise me, maybe?


AnotherGuy said:


> Your disagreement with this has been noted.




I'm not sure what I disagreed with, at this point, as you've not actually said anything, just implied a bunch of stuff.


----------



## prabe

@Ovinomancer That's probably about right. I think I'm including the idea that revising prep might be about story stuff at least as much as character capability stuff; and I think some of the difference in prep between D&D 5E and BitD is about division of authority (in 5E the DM has authority over the setting unless he specifically shares it--and I mostly don't--whereas it's my understanding the DM in BitD has much less authority over the setting) but that's not so much disagreement as something you just didn't mention, I think.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> @Ovinomancer That's probably about right. I think I'm including the idea that revising prep might be about story stuff at least as much as character capability stuff; and I think some of the difference in prep between D&D 5E and BitD is about division of authority (in 5E the DM has authority over the setting unless he specifically shares it--and I mostly don't--whereas it's my understanding the DM in BitD has much less authority over the setting) but that's not so much disagreement as something you just didn't mention, I think.



I meant to, but it was a long(ish) post.  I think the reason you're invoking story has to do with the same things above -- you have to prep an area for the current PCs in case they follow that lead you just dropped.  If, later, the reason they're going to this area has changed (or even if it is the same), the prep needs to be adjusted because PC abilities have changed.

If you're advancing the story in the area because you think it needs advancing from where it was when you first prepped it but the PCs didn't engage it, well, I think we're back to @Manbearcat's solitare play.  And, I don't think this is a bad thing at all -- it's very enjoyable for the GM.  I don't think the point is to say that this solitaire play (meaning, for me, that it's just the GM playing) is bad or should be avoided.  I think his point, at least the one I'm picking up on, is that it is unnecessary to present a vibrant world, a "living world."  It' really entirely for the GM.  And, that's fine!


----------



## Fenris-77

I think it would more correct to say that in Blades the mechanics and process of play mitigate for more player input into the setting. The GM is still 'in charge' of the setting insofar as she makes the final call on stuff.


----------



## darkbard

Ovinomancer said:


> I think this is really due to the fundamental difference in how these games do PCs and mechanics.  In D&D, PC capabilities vary wildly as they progress -- the easiest to demonstrate is spellcasters, who gain massive changes in what's possible and not just in power.  This is true of other classes as well, it's just most obvious in the spell lists.  A character can switch from having to walk across a continent to doing so instantaneously in the blink of an eye at the table -- the player just levels up the PC to get teleport.  This radical shift in capability (again, present in all classes), means that unused prep needs to be updated, if only to account for new abilities.  Elsewise, prep must be discarded as not something that's relevant to these PCs anymore (a chasm, for instance, goes from a dangerous obstacle to a triviality very suddenly).  In Blades, though, this doesn't happen -- PCs do not have sudden shifts in capability, they just improve at doing what they already could do.
> 
> The upshot of this is that, in D&D, prep is absolutely necessary, if only to account for the difference in capability.  This applies to sandbox prep as well, as different areas/locations are prepped with different capabilities in mind (this is a challenging area with powerful opponents, this is a less challenging area with weaker opponents).  With Blades, though, this isn't necessary -- threats are more about what's happening rather than quality of the opposition/accounting for increased abilities.  PCs get more competent, but don't add entire new categories of capability.
> 
> I think this difference -- how you account for PC capabilities -- is a critical difference in how these games can and are prepped.  Blades is fine with a thumbnail and an opening situation, because that's all that's needed to engage with play.  When the PCs start interacting with the Billhooks, for instance, then what the Billhooks are doing will necessarily be an impediment to the PC's plans (elsewise, the GM will not invoke them in framing or consequence).  They don't need to adapt, in any way, to the PCs, nor do they need to advance on their own because whatever they were doing is of little consequence to play, it's only what they're doing when the PCs encounter them.  Now, that said, I'm not at all adverse to making a Fortune roll and advancing their clock as I introduce them, especially if that puts more pressure on what the PCs are trying to do (and this is a consequence framing).  In D&D, prep absolutely has to account for the PC abilities -- either in adjusting previous prep to remain useful (which seems your approach), or by tiering threats in a sandbox so the PCs have a variety of challenges for whatever their current abilities are.




I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure you've identified something that can expand beyond the two games in your example. DW does have the kind of ability scale up of D&D through spells and advanced moves that radically alters what PCs can do, and @pemerton has amply demonstrated over the years that his 4E game, despite similar growth in PC power is structured around PC interactions with setting elements; neither requires any Setting Solitaire prep.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I think it would more correct to say that in Blades the mechanics and process of play mitigate for more player input into the setting. The GM is still 'in charge' of the setting insofar as she makes the final call on stuff.



Um... The GM has authority and final call on framing and consequence narration, yes, but that's very tightly constrained by player inputs, so I don't think that saying the GM is "in charge" is quit right.

We use something in our processes called a RACI chart.  There are variations, but the thrust is the same. It details who, in a process, has what duties/privileges.  It stands for (R)esponsible, (A)ccountable, (C)onsulted, (I)nformed. These are tiered, in that each letter also has everything to the right -- someone (R)esponsible, is also ACI.  Someone (C)onsulted is also (I)nformed, and so on. Since it's a process tool, it works pretty well to help describe the process of RPG play.  

With regards to setting, we can look at D&D and Blades with regards to RACI.  In D&D, the GM is R.  They are responsible for the settting, accountable for it, they must be consulted for any changes to the setting (think character backgrounds), and must be informed of things that may impact the setting (like character build choices).  The players in D&D are... well, maybe occasionally (C)onsulted and often (I)nformed, but neither of these is always true.

With Blades, the GM is still R, but the player side changes greatly.  They are always (C)onsulted, always.  They may even be (A)ccountable, depending on the situation, because they do have some authorities that allow them to unilaterally introduce setting material.

So, yes, while it's not incorrect to say that the GM is "in charge" even in Blades, the nature of that is pretty different.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I think the reason you're invoking story has to do with the same things above -- you have to prep an area for the current PCs in case they follow that lead you just dropped. If, later, the reason they're going to this area has changed (or even if it is the same), the prep needs to be adjusted because PC abilities have changed.



This isn't exactly wrong, but what I'm trying to account for is that the PCs may be in a different story-arc than when I originally prepped. For instance, the PCs in one of the campaigns I'm DMing pretty much finished a story arc in a city, and then later came back for (mostly) unrelated reasons. Since months had passed in-world, the city needed to be a little different; the previous time they'd been in the city something had happened they hadn't done much with/about, so I took that and used it to change the city some (and let the PCs find ways to make trouble, because PCs). The city was still recognizably the same place, but it was not exactly as they'd left it.

I think that's the only way I'm likely to need to revise prep, simply because I don't prep more than a session or two ahead (and the most-recent sessions in both the campaigns I'm running had no prep at all, because reasons).


----------



## Ovinomancer

darkbard said:


> I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure you've identified something that can expand beyond the two games in your example. DW does have the kind of ability scale up of D&D through spells and advanced moves that radically alters what PCs can do, and @pemerton has amply demonstrated over the years that his 4E game, despite similar growth in PC power is structured around PC interactions with setting elements; neither requires any Setting Solitaire prep.



Right, I wasn't postulating hard poles, but rather using hard poles to illustrate.  There's space between.  And, yes, PbtA games do feature new moves that do change capability, not just competence, but the mechanics of resolution are still starkly different from D&D.  Using that new ability to do something you could not before still works pretty much like everything else in the mechanics, and will cause complication without the GM taking/prepping things to cause it.  A chasm is still a challenge, even if you recently got Polymorph as a Wizard, because Polymorph has inbuilt consequences and you still have to make the Cast a Spell move, which can cause similar issues.  The gain in ability does mean you have new capabilities, but not nearly in the same way as in D&D -- the mechanics mean that using them isn't a done deal.


----------



## Fenris-77

I don't disagree, generally, but the fact remains that the GM has final say over framing and content use. That still sounds like in charge to me, even if the accidents are different. _shrug_


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I don't want to get derailed into an alternate discussion but this here is my proof text that you don't know what you are talking about and that is why both sides struggle.   I realize that again you are likely (but by now you really have no excuse) treating the words as pure english language words and not for a technical game mechanic term.



Hitpoints are absolutely dissociated.  They have no defined meaning in the game rules, they just abalate with no fiction attached to them.  You can describe hitpoint loss in 100's of different ways, and they all are equally valid.  I've even described them as completely dissociated in a plot coupon manner, and they still work exactly the same way.  You are confusing your habitual gloss on hitpoints with how they actually function.

Armor class is the same way.  If I fail to roll a success on my attack, what happened?  Doesn't matter to the game, it can be anything the players want to describe.  You can even do the same treatment I do with hitpoints and invoke armor class as plot coupon to force a miss.

And spells, oh, those lovely spells.  These are exactly what you claim to hate.  Take the secret door example, where you're absolutely against any concept where players searching for a door causes a door to exist.  Totally bogus, right?  You're even against the players spending a plot coupon to say a secret door is here -- dissociative!  Do not like!  But, you're absolutely perfectly fine with a player spending a plot coupon to open a door on command, so long as that plot coupon is a "spell slot" and it's used on "passwall" (I believe you're an older edition player, so this is still a spell for you).  This does exactly, _exactly_, the thing you dislike, but it's okay, because it's lampshaded behind magic and you're used to plot coupons as spells.

And, to get in before the inevitable, this isn't dismissive, it's stripped -- stripped of the patina of long familiarity and cast in a stark light where these things can't hide in the shadows of what we're used to.


----------



## darkbard

Ovinomancer said:


> The gain in ability does mean you have new capabilities, but not nearly in the same way as in D&D -- the mechanics mean that using them isn't a done deal.




Excellent elaboration on your point.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't disagree, generally, but the fact remains that the GM has final say over framing and content use. That still sounds like in charge to me, even if the accidents are different. _shrug_



Again, eh.  The "say" the GM has is different in Blades than the say they have in D&D.  So, when we say that the GM has final say in Blades, we're still talking about a different thing than when we say the GM has final say in D&D.  I'm looking for clarity here, and I think that this statement is introducing a lot of hidden information in the words "final say."  Does the GM in Blades have the final authority?  Sure, but it's very tightly constrained, and not at all the same authority the GM has in D&D.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, eh.  The "say" the GM has is different in Blades than the say they have in D&D.  So, when we say that the GM has final say in Blades, we're still talking about a different thing than when we say the GM has final say in D&D.  I'm looking for clarity here, and I think that this statement is introducing a lot of hidden information in the words "final say."  Does the GM in Blades have the final authority?  Sure, but it's very tightly constrained, and not at all the same authority the GM has in D&D.



I'm keenly aware that the say is different, but that's not the same as me thinking I need I different word to descibe that state of affairs, especially to people who dont play Blades. I agree with your description of the constraints involved.


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure and the living adventure/living world way of managing this is to focus on the goals of the characters who inhabit (perhaps the major ones, but also the minor ones if you want), allow not just the overall situation to adjust if the players come back, but making decisions based on the NPCs as if they are characters (which could allow for example for an intelligent resident of the dungeon to leave, and even go after the PCs). Nothing is preventing you from doing this is you begin with the freeze approach, but a lot of GMs do treat it as static, and living world/living adventure is a reminder for the GM to make things more active and responsive (and to treat them more like objective entities in the setting). If it doesn't answer an issue you want to solve, if it runs up against some other playstyle or system thing you are interested in, then you don't have to do it. All I can say is this principle has made a night and day difference in my sessions.



One of the things that keeps my players from abusing the five minute workday is the fact the monsters are always a lot more prepared the second time around.  So pressing on has a high value because you still have the element of surprise.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm keenly aware that the say is different, but that's not the same as me thinking I need I different word to descibe that state of affairs, especially to people who dont play Blades. I agree with your description of the constraints involved.



Whereas I think this allows people familiar with one to make incorrect assumptions about the other.  Honestly, I very much think a lot of our past interactions have dealt with exactly this kind of thing.  You use a term that I see as easily confusing the issue because it allows people to import concepts that you're not talking about.  Like saying that the GM has the final say in Blades, where that's a pretty different ball of wax from a standard D&D game, where I'd say the same thing meaning that there's extremely few constraints on the GM.  Or the "living world" disagreement we had (and never did see that specifically defined).  I think that you're fine with these because you know what you mean, but it's not helpful to communication to others because we're not on your page.


----------



## Fenris-77

See, I'd rather tell someone who doesn't play Blades, yeah, the GM is still in charge of setting stuff, but there are some differences and constraint. I proceed from the known to the unknown, rather than explaining the thing de novo. I am proceeding by analogy as it were. So yeah, it's absolutely helpful communication.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Hitpoints are absolutely dissociated.  They have no defined meaning in the game rules, they just abalate with no fiction attached to them.  You can describe hitpoint loss in 100's of different ways, and they all are equally valid.  I've even described them as completely dissociated in a plot coupon manner, and they still work exactly the same way.  You are confusing your habitual gloss on hitpoints with how they actually function.
> 
> Armor class is the same way.  If I fail to roll a success on my attack, what happened?  Doesn't matter to the game, it can be anything the players want to describe.  You can even do the same treatment I do with hitpoints and invoke armor class as plot coupon to force a miss.
> 
> And spells, oh, those lovely spells.  These are exactly what you claim to hate.  Take the secret door example, where you're absolutely against any concept where players searching for a door causes a door to exist.  Totally bogus, right?  You're even against the players spending a plot coupon to say a secret door is here -- dissociative!  Do not like!  But, you're absolutely perfectly fine with a player spending a plot coupon to open a door on command, so long as that plot coupon is a "spell slot" and it's used on "passwall" (I believe you're an older edition player, so this is still a spell for you).  This does exactly, _exactly_, the thing you dislike, but it's okay, because it's lampshaded behind magic and you're used to plot coupons as spells.
> 
> And, to get in before the inevitable, this isn't dismissive, it's stripped -- stripped of the patina of long familiarity and cast in a stark light where these things can't hide in the shadows of what we're used to.



You just can't resist.  You are wrong.  Very wrong.  Leave it at that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> See, I'd rather tell someone who doesn't play Blades, yeah, the GM is still in charge of setting stuff, but there are some differences and constraint. I proceed from the known to the unknown, rather than explaining the thing de novo. I am proceeding by analogy as it were. So yeah, it's absolutely helpful communication.



Except, that's not what happened?  You just said that GM in Blades has final say on the setting?  Did I miss something, more than willing admit I did, but I didn't see the further explanation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I can read Emerikol's posts. The post I quoted in my post that you replied to was not a reply to @Manbearcat (or anyone else).
> 
> It was a post about "his style" vs boardgaming.




My mistake, for some reason it went to the other post when I first clicked the arrow


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> You just can't resist.  You are wrong.  Very wrong.  Leave it at that.



You mean with you issuing a blanket dismissal?  I thought that's not what was happening in this thread?  I get it's a hard pill to swallow -- you've got a lot of inertia here, and it's challenging to redirect.  I had the same issue.  But, ultimately, what counts as "dissociative" isn't really a baked in feature of the mechanic, but rather whether or not it fits into the paradigm we already have.  Viewing hitpoints as dissociative is a hard ask, especially if you've spent a lot of time with a specific (to you) explanation of them.  But, they are dissociative -- they're utterly disconnected from anything in the fiction and do not require any fictional changes until and unless you're out of them.  I mean, there's huge numbers of threads arguing what hitpoints actually are, so I fail to see how you can state that they are dissociative (if they weren't, there'd be many fewer arguments about what losing 10 hitpoints means in the fiction).

If you'd like to start a new thread on the topic, I'd be happy to.  Would you discuss it there?


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> You mean with you issuing a blanket dismissal?  I thought that's not what was happening in this thread?  I get it's a hard pill to swallow -- you've got a lot of inertia here, and it's challenging to redirect.  I had the same issue.  But, ultimately, what counts as "dissociative" isn't really a baked in feature of the mechanic, but rather whether or not it fits into the paradigm we already have.  Viewing hitpoints as dissociative is a hard ask, especially if you've spent a lot of time with a specific (to you) explanation of them.  But, they are dissociative -- they're utterly disconnected from anything in the fiction and do not require any fictional changes until and unless you're out of them.  I mean, there's huge numbers of threads arguing what hitpoints actually are, so I fail to see how you can state that they are dissociative (if they weren't, there'd be many fewer arguments about what losing 10 hitpoints means in the fiction).
> 
> If you'd like to start a new thread on the topic, I'd be happy to.  Would you discuss it there?



I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not.   Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you.  If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message.  This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Except, that's not what happened?  You just said that GM in Blades has final say on the setting?  *Did I miss something*, more than willing admit I did, but I didn't see the further explanation.



That part was me agreeing, twice, with your description of the constraints and differences. I didn't say it was exactly the same as D&D or whatever, that would be silly. In terms of GM responsibility and framing I think Blades is still far closer to traditional play than game like, say, Houses of the Blooded, where the players have some full on framing permissions. Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing with you about anything other than the usefulness of proceeding from analogy to define GM play in Blades, as opposed to making up some other word or whatever for 'in charge'.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not.   Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you.  If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message.  This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.



At this point, I don't think anyone here would mind.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> That part was me agreeing, twice, with your description of the constraints and differences. I didn't say it was exactly the same as D&D or whatever, that would be silly. In terms of GM responsibility and framing I think Blades is still far closer to traditional play than game like, say, Houses of the Blooded, where the players have some full on framing permissions. Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing with you about anything other than the usefulness of proceeding from analogy to define GM play in Blades, as opposed to making up some other word or whatever for 'in charge'.



I didn't suggest making up a new word.  I suggested presenting the statement with the clarifications adjacent.  I say this not because I find it hard to follow, but experience in these discussions has led me to the point that consistent and constant clarity on such issues reduces the possibility of miscommunication that then drags on for pages.  It's tiring to constantly add the additional words/caveats/explanations, but I found that the conversation is much, much more likely to derail when you elide them.  YMMV.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> I didn't suggest making up a new word.  I suggested presenting the statement with the clarifications adjacent.  I say this not because I find it hard to follow, but experience in these discussions has led me to the point that consistent and constant clarity on such issues reduces the possibility of miscommunication that then drags on for pages.  It's tiring to constantly add the additional words/caveats/explanations, but I found that the conversation is much, much more likely to derail when you elide them.  YMMV.



I wasn't trying to elide anything though, just tack a thought on top of the existing discussion.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I wasn't trying to elide anything though, just tack a thought on top of the existing discussion.



Sure, it wasn't clear to me.  I think we've put it to bed, though.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not.   Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you.  If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message.  This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.



I'd bet you don't really know what they are either. Are you using the Alexandrian conception, or perhaps one of the rebuttals of same? It's a point of rather a lot of contention among RPGers, so it's not as though here's a single stable definition you can point to. Based on the Alexandrian conception, or a common usage approach to 'dissociated' then yeah, HP are dissociated, at least to some really significant extent.

Assuming you've read either of the above sources, or something similar, what's you stance on how the use of dissociated mechanics effects the ability to roleplay, or the possibility of immersion? You're going to have to do better than some half baked _ad hominen_ crap to have anyone take you seriously here.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I don't think this thread needs for us to completely derail it with a debate about what dissociative mechanics are or are not.   Your example and your take is so far removed from the reality that anyone who really does know what they are is laughing at you.  If you really insist at least start another thread or send me a private message.  This topic will got hot fast and I don't want to ruin the GM notes topic by derailing it.



Ah, I've had a brain flash. You're using "dissociative" in the sense of "the PC isn't doing it, the player is."  You mean the player is making a choice from outside the confines of the PC's notional perception that then enters the game.  Cool, I see it, but it doesn't affect what I've said about hitpoint, or armor class, or even spells.  You've rolled your play into making these things part of the PC's awareness, but it's still external game mechanics intruding into the fiction in a way that's not related to the PC's understanding.  Instead, you're deploying a lampshade in each case.  Telling the PC that they lost 10 hitpoints, for instance, isn't what's happened, instead you're describing something in the fiction that ad hoc represents this loss of hitpoints.  (And I say ad hoc because it depends on the specific circumstance of the hp loss as to how it's described, not because there's no principled approach to description involved at a given table.) Regardless of how it's described, though, the effect is the same -- no change in the PC's capability.  It's still dissociated even when considering dissociated from the POV of the PC, we've just become long accustomed to ignoring this.

But, if we do go with this definition of dissociative, then we have a new trouble -- the searching for a secret door is now moving away from dissociative.  The PCs, from within their POV, are doing a rational thing -- looking for a way out of a dead end with guards approaching.  If they find a secret door, it's still within their POV -- nothing breaks that POV.  Instead, we're now having to look at what's going out outside the PCs to find the dissociation, at which point you have to ask what it's dissociated from?


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd bet you don't really know what they are either. Are you using the Alexandrian conception, or perhaps one of the rebuttals of same? It's a point of rather a lot of contention among RPGers, so it's not as though here's a single stable definition you can point to. Based on the Alexandrian conception, or a common usage approach to 'dissociated' then yeah, HP are dissociated, at least to some really significant extent.
> 
> Assuming you've read either of the above sources, or something similar, what's you stance on how the use of dissociated mechanics effects the ability to roleplay, or the possibility of immersion? You're going to have to do better than some half baked _ad hominen_ crap to have anyone take you seriously here.



I'm trying to avoid turning this thread into the dissociative mechanics thread.  If you want to start a new thread or send me a direct message, we can discuss this in more detail.  I am not turning this thread into that thread.

I think FOR ME dissociative mechanics are ruinous to roleplaying and immersion.   It is why I quit D&D and did not buy 5e.  I realized they'd crossed the rubicon with 4e and they really were not coming back.  Which is fine they've obviously done very well with what they did do.  But for me it just wasn't what I wanted.

Edit:
quit adopting the new version of D&D is perhaps a clearer understanding of my position.


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> @Manbearcat in your opinion does Skilled Play not enter the possible equation with regards to your 2 questions above?




To be clear, you're referring to:



> *1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?*




and



> *2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things? Whatever is happening there is offscreen.*




Is that correct?  I'll answer (tomorrow) once you've confirmed.

And so I have some context for answering, can you let me know what you have in mind here (Skilled Play a a priority interacting with my hypothetical)?  To reiterate, this is the equivalent of Room 1 of a dungeon where new content (that has in no way, directly or indirectly, been interacted with by the PCs).


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don't think diving into dissociative mechanics is going to be helpful towards what we are talking about. My two cents is The Alexandrian hit on something that resonated for a reason (there were lots of people trying to understand why they disliked 4E so much, the dissociative explanation clicked because it explained some of it) but the problem was people over applied the concept (I believe even Justin Alexander adjusted his language around the term over the years as I have seen him get into disputes with people advocating the idea: but I don't want to put words in his mouth). It was also perhaps an over assessment. I think the issue was there were things that in small quantities, in edge cases, or as things you could ignore, didn't bother people. But crank those things up to 50% of the game, 80%, 90%, it might become more of a problem for people. It is about quantity and where the things pinch. It was also only part of the explanation. But the trouble with over applying that idea was it became this rigid rule for many people in the wake of 4E that caused them to dismiss or dislike games they would have been fine with prior to 4E. Still it was insightful. The Alexandrian is very good, IMO, at analyzing these kinds of things. But analysis needs to be a conversation over many years


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think diving into dissociative mechanics is going to be helpful towards what we are talking about. My two cents is The Alexandrian hit on something that resonated for a reason (there were lots of people trying to understand why they disliked 4E so much, the dissociative explanation clicked because it explained some of it) but the problem was people over applied the concept (I believe even Justin Alexander adjusted his language around the term over the years as I have seen him get into disputes with people advocating the idea: but I don't want to put words in his mouth). It was also perhaps an over assessment. I think the issue was there were things that in small quantities, in edge cases, or as things you could ignore, didn't bother people. But crank those things up to 50% of the game, 80%, 90%, it might become more of a problem for people. It is about quantity and where the things pinch. It was also only part of the explanation. But the trouble with over applying that idea was it became this rigid rule for many people in the wake of 4E that caused them to dismiss or dislike games they would have been fine with prior to 4E. Still it was insightful. The Alexandrian is very good, IMO, at analyzing these kinds of things. But analysis needs to be a conversation over many years



Good points.  Prior to 4e, I am quite sure I was unaware of dissociative mechanics.  I didn't like 4e because of the dissociative mechanics but I didn't have a name nor did I use that term.  But when dissociative mechanics was explained, it clicked that this was the issue I had with that game.  Well one of many.  There were also some things I liked as well to be fair.

I don't try to speak for the Alexandrian nor does he speak for me.  I've honed my ideas about the subject from literally dozens of very long combative threads.  I am a clear understand of a type of mechanic that bothers me.  It has qualities that I don't like.  I've stuck with the name because there seems to be at least a strong overlap among a lot of people on the ideas.  

Most of the people who don't seem to understand the concept are, not coincidentally in my opinion, the very people that don't really get bothered by such mechanics.  Now is there a larger truth that bleeds over into GM notes and "protagonist" styles of play.  Maybe but again it's not a perfect overlap for sure.  A root to it might be the priority placed on acting and making decisions only as your character.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I'm trying to avoid turning this thread into the dissociative mechanics thread.  If you want to start a new thread or send me a direct message, we can discuss this in more detail.  I am not turning this thread into that thread.
> 
> I think FOR ME dissociative mechanics are ruinous to roleplaying and immersion.   It is why I quit D&D and did not buy 5e.  I realized they'd crossed the rubicon with 4e and they really were not coming back.  Which is fine they've obviously done very well with what they did do.  But for me it just wasn't what I wanted.
> 
> Edit:
> quit adopting the new version of D&D is perhaps a clearer understanding of my position.



Ah, so hitpoints, then.  

GM: "The kobold points a light crossbow at you."
Player:  "I charge the kobold!"

Because, obviously, the player knows their PC has plenty enough hitpoints to shrug off a measly light crossbow from a kobold.  I guess the PC is aware that, in this world, crossbow bolts to the face are non-lethal, or that they have enough divine luck, regular luck, skill at dodging that there's no way that that crossbow will land -- they only need be worried about three crossbows.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> Good points.  Prior to 4e, I am quite sure I was unaware of dissociative mechanics.  I didn't like 4e because of the dissociative mechanics but I didn't have a name nor did I use that term.  But when dissociative mechanics was explained, it clicked that this was the issue I had with that game.  Well one of many.  There were also some things I liked as well to be fair.




But this is a problem (and you see this in all kinds of criticism and analysis of things). You enjoy something, someone points out some pattern in it, and then anytime you sense that, you no longer enjoy it. A good example of this is the over-use of 'don't use passive voice'. It sort of becomes people trying to be the smartest person in the room all the time, and reacting per formatively to a thing, rather than just feeling their own genuine reaction to something and reporting it. Suddenly people react negatively when they encounter it, whether it would have added to their enjoyment, been neutral, or taken away. Or like when people complained about lens flair a few years ago in movies. No one noticed, someone mentions it, and suddenly people are actively avoiding it and re-acting negative. This isn't to say the Alexandrian wasn't observing something legitimate. I think he was, and I think his analysis was useful. The problem was more in how his analysis became a bit of a fad among those of us who were critical of 5E and we over-applied it. If there are a bit of dissociative mechanics in something and I don't even notice them, and perhaps they even add to my enjoyment, there isn't a problem: the problem is the lens I am bringing to analyzing the game that is based around active avoidance of dissociative mechanics. The real question to ask is when something like that becomes a problem for you in a game (and that isn't always easy to answer)


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem was more in how his analysis became a bit of a fad among those of us who were critical of 5E and we over-applied it. If there are a bit of dissociative mechanics in something and I don't even notice them, and perhaps they even add to my enjoyment, there isn't a problem: the problem is the lens I am bringing to analyzing the game that is based around active avoidance of dissociative mechanics. The real question to ask is when something like that becomes a problem for you in a game (and that isn't always easy to answer)



I think I care about it more than most.  Let's suppose there were multiple classes in 5e where one was dissociative and another was not.   Prior to 4e, I might have banned the dissociative class mainly because I just didn't like it.  But self-reflection and introspection on preferences is a valuable tool.  I agree it might go too far sometimes but there are times you don't like something and you can't put your finger on why.  Figuring out why helps you to avoid those things in the future.


----------



## Manbearcat

@Lanefan , @Emerikol, @Bedrockgames , @Maxperson , @prabe (whose, besides @pemerton , answer to the above proposed hypothetical looks to me to have engaged closest with my intent).

I felt like my hypothetical and my clarifications were clear, but it must be true that we still have misunderstanding or I'm just terrible at articulating what I'm getting at here.  So I'm going to punt to @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 with a more fleshed out hypothetical.  Perhaps this more fleshed out hypothetical and their answers to it will better ground what I'm getting at here.  Then I'm going to have to step away from responding for the rest of the day.

Alright, @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 ...

Let us say that tonight's game somehow finds its way into Ironhook Prison:



> *Ironhook Prison*. A towering metal fortress, where the worst (or most unlucky) criminals are incarcerated. Many are forced into labor in the Southern fields and pit-mines of Dunslough. The condemned are sent to scavenge in the deathlands.




Haight (hawkeyefan's PC) did a nice-sized turn there so its feasible that our game goes there at some point.  Let us just pretend that it goes there tonight.

*IN THE COURSE OF OUR PLAY*, Haight and Stiv (Fenris's PC) have neither been to Ironhook Prison or to the ward that it resides within:



> *Dunslough*: A labor camp served by convicts and a ghetto for the destitute poor.




They have no interacted with either of the below two Factions (who do most of their Duskvol work in Dunslough) or the Dunslough "Crime Boss":



> *THE LOST *- A group of street-toughs and ex-soldiers dedicated to protecting the downtrodden
> and the hopeless.





> *DEATHLANDS SCAVENGERS* - Convicts from Ironhook and desperate freelancers who roam the wasteland beyond the lightning barriers





> *MASTER KROCKET* - An unsavory, greasy-haired, scarecrow of a man who runs the snarling pack of vicious dogs used by Ironhook to track down escapees and sniff out contraband and tunnels. His dog-handlers can be found around the labor camp and all about Dunslough, using their status with the prison for favors and bribes. (Cruel, Greedy, Ruthless).




Now, one of the PCs (offscreen as part of backstory) did a turn at Ironhook.  He (offscreen) has likely has interactions with all of the above (or at least heard of them).  The other PC (offscreen) may have heard of some of the above and may have even been to Dunslough once or twice.

HOWEVER, to reiterate, *in the course of play*, all of this stuff is effectively offscreen.  It has not come up to date in our play.  Consequently, it is effectively "off-line" in terms of what is happening with that content.

So, let us just say, hypothetically, you guys do a Score in the Ironhook Prison tonight where you *sneak in and then sneak out thing x* (which could be a person, a ghost that is using Haight or his trap as a repository, illicit goods, what-have-you).

Let us say you interact with all 5 of the above (obviously the Ward and the prison, but also Master Krocket and the two Factions).  Suddenly, *ALL 5 ARE ON-LINE AT ONCE.

What value for our play tonight (Skilled Play priority, Story Now priority, Protagonistic Play priority, Living World priority...any priority you wish) would there be if I:

(a) reframed all of those 5 things quote-blocked above FROM (i) the initial framing in the text + (ii) my own subtle, improvised reframing to hook into your evinced dramatic needs for your PCs...

TO 

(b) new content that is a downstream effects of 5 resolution segments of 3 Downtime (phase) Clocks (one for both factions and one for Krocket) and made a Fortune roll or two as a downstream consequence of what emerges from the resolution of those 3 Clocks.  *

So, for instance, instead of what is in the book and what I would improvise in my scene-framing, the following is now true (which wasn't true in the initiating conditions):

_* Master Krocket recently quelled a riot and his dogs had quite a feast.

* The Deathland Scavengers have obtained a pardon for a member from Ironhook Prison.

* The Lost are focusing their efforts on Coalridge instead of Dunslough._

Any value you can you imagine (or not imagine...I leave this to you) for the above being true vs all 3 being the opposite during your Score (a viscious riot happens, TDS is in the middle of trying to get that pardon while you're sneaking in, TL are focusing efforts in Dunslough.  Or 1 or 2 of them being true vs not being true.  Or some slightly different instantiation of the above.  Or something very different.

*Outside of a value judgement about the provocativeness or excitement of this framing vs that framing, what value would there be on our play tonight if I evolved the starting conditions for all or some of these prior offline (but now online) things from stock Blades to something different (which is an outgrowth of the process of Faction/Setting Clocks and Fortune Rolls)?

Would you know the difference (again, assuming that the evolution from their starting condition x to their new situation y has nothing to do with our play to date...which there is no reason for any of our play to have impacted Dunslough thus far...if the Barrowcleft situation resolves badly and there is food shortages throughout all of Duskvol, then yeah...but that hasn't come to pass yet)?*


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> *Outside of a value judgement about the provocativeness or excitement of this framing vs that framing, what value would there be on our play tonight if I evolved the starting conditions for all or some of these prior offline (but now online) things from stock Blades to something different (which is an outgrowth of the process of Faction/Setting Clocks and Fortune Rolls)?
> 
> Would you know the difference (again, assuming that the evolution from their starting condition having something to do with our play...which there is no reason for any of our play to have impacted Dunslough thus far...if the Barrowcleft situation resolves badly and there is food shortages throughout all of Duskvol, then yeah...but that hasn't come to pass yet)?*



I don't think you are failing as bad as you think.  Perhaps I am failing to make my own case clear enough.  I absolutely agree that it could not matter at all.  I agree that you can come up with instances where it won't matter.  The original idea was interesting and the new idea is interesting.  So what?  No loss no gain.  

My point is that practicing the philosophy of an ever changing world even when you don't have to will result in a world that has more verisimilitude when the PCs do interact with it.  It probably comes back to skilled play again.  If the NPC villain is up to no good and keeps doing things behind the scenes in a consistent way, the PCs if investigating may intersect those events.  As DM you just don't know if they will or won't.  So the players acting as their characters, can do a real life investigation and not just roll to discover whether their investigation was successful.  So over time, I've found that the level of verisimilitude in my games is higher if I keep the world moving behind the scenes.   The part the characters interact with is just better.   Maybe it's a technique I'm using to make myself more effective.  Could be.   

I will say though that in my style of play the dice are not the primary drivers of what happens.  An influence sure, you can always make a bad roll.  But success depends on the decisions of the PCs and the skill they use in carrying out those decisions.   It probably comes back to skilled play as an agenda item.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I don't think you are failing as bad as you think.  Perhaps I am failing to make my own case clear enough.  I absolutely agree that it could not matter at all.  I agree that you can come up with instances where it won't matter.  The original idea was interesting and the new idea is interesting.  So what?  No loss no gain.
> 
> My point is that practicing the philosophy of an ever changing world even when you don't have to will result in a world that has more verisimilitude when the PCs do interact with it.  It probably comes back to skilled play again.  If the NPC villain is up to no good and keeps doing things behind the scenes in a consistent way, the PCs if investigating may intersect those events.  As DM you just don't know if they will or won't.  So the players acting as their characters, can do a real life investigation and not just roll to discover whether their investigation was successful.  So over time, I've found that the level of verisimilitude in my games is higher if I keep the world moving behind the scenes.   The part the characters interact with is just better.   Maybe it's a technique I'm using to make myself more effective.  Could be.
> 
> I will say though that in my style of play the dice are not the primary drivers of what happens.  An influence sure, you can always make a bad roll.  But success depends on the decisions of the PCs and the skill they use in carrying out those decisions.   It probably comes back to skilled play as an agenda item.



PCs don't make decisions, players do.  You've describe Skilled Play.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Outside of a value judgement about the provocativeness or excitement of _this _framing vs _that _framing, what value would there be on our play tonight if I evolved the starting conditions for all or some of these prior offline (but now online) things from stock Blades to something different (which is an outgrowth of the process of Faction/Setting Clocks and Fortune Rolls)?
> 
> Would you know the difference (again, assuming that the evolution from their starting condition x to their new situation y has nothing to do with our play to date...which there is no reason for any of our play to have impacted Dunslough thus far...if the Barrowcleft situation resolves badly and there is food shortages throughout all of Duskvol, then yeah...but that hasn't come to pass yet)?



From what I can see, there'd be no difference in the players' experience at the table. I dunno if that'd make it bad GMing in BitD.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> You missed a key element of what I said above so I'll clarify:
> 
> Everything the PCs have not interacted with effectively doesn't exist.  It is entirely off-line/offscreen.  In the game above that would be (a) all of the wards of Duskvol that haven't been interacted with (there are 12 total...only 3 have seen play directly, 1 other indirectly, and perhaps another merely through conversation) and (b) about 80 % of the Factions.



To me offscreen/off-line things are those that are never intended to be seen onscreen.  That isn't what we are doing when we set things in motion around the world.  We do these things fully intending for the PCs to find out about it one way or another.  Whether it happens or not depends on how things play out.  We don't force the issue, but the creation and time spent isn't for the sake of the DM.  It's for the sake of the players and that doesn't happen if they never find out about it.


Manbearcat said:


> Why can I not keep all of (a) and (b) effectively in a form of stasis and, when they are interacted with, just deploy them at their starting conditions when the PCs interact with them?
> 
> For instance:
> 
> They go to Nightmarket (they haven't been there yet) in the Free Play/Information Gathering phase of talk to a psychonaut who is one of their contacts in order to get some intel on The Crows.  In the process, they get involved with The Wraiths (a gang of secretive and daring thiefs) and end up in a counteroperation to prevent a theft of a famous painting so they can steal it themselves (by creating a counterfeit and replacing the painting during the night of the art auction).  In the process, things go wonky and the Leech's grenade of Ghostmist goes off in the auditorium...catching a huge number of the upper crust of society.
> 
> Now I have on-line:
> 
> 
> Nightmarket
> The Wraiths
> Upper Crust Gets Ghostmisted



You absolutely can keep them in stasis and I've played with Sandbox DMs who do just that.  It alters the feel of the game, though.  

Imagine that during gameplay one of the PCs in your game was accidentally responsible for the death of a man's wife.  12 sessions later due to a roll(or however your game does it),  you are allowed to bring in a complication and it makes sense for the circumstances for you to bring back the man's wife who is after revenge on the PCs.  That's pretty cool.  You bring back something that happened in a great way and everyone has fun.

Now imagine that on of the PCs in our game was accidentally responsible for the death of a man's wife.  We would think about the man's reaction, and there could be many different ways it could reasonably go, but due to what we know of the man and the circumstances around the death, we determine that he is out for revenge.  We figure out a timeline for him to get training, arm himself and plan out his revenge, and 12 sessions later he shows up for revenge.

In both cases past play informed the DM on how he was going to go about things.  Both resulted in a really cool experience.  However, in my opinion, only one of those methods makes it feel like the world is still going about things even when the players aren't around.  The other way, while still cool, feels different.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> The PCs' dramatic needs are either in the (entirely optional) backstories the players give me, or they emerge during play. I tie those needs into the scenarios I frame.



I recalled I wanted to speak to this, but the thread was moving quickly at the time and I lost it.

I think that if the PCs BIFTs are not evoking these things, then there's a serious disconnect in what players are writing down for BIFTs and what they're actually doing for BIFTs.  Because, regardless of whether or not you write these down, the bonds, ideals, and flaws (less so for traits) a character has are defining dramatic needs for that character.  If you're not using them, okay, but that shouldn't be moving that what these are describing are core to (at least some) PC dramatic needs.  Heck, "bond" is a front and center one -- what do you care about so much that you'll sacrifice for it?  This opens up all kinds of interesting dilemmas -- how much will you sacrifice?  What will you sacrifice?  Will something else happen that becomes more important?  These are the kinds of questions that dramatic needs create, not "will we stop the evil overlord and save the world."  That doesn't require any dramatic need, just a willingness to buy into a plot hook.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> Ok, this is an interesting answer, but I think it doesn't exactly engage with what I'm saying.  I know precisely what you're getting at with the above, but I feel like "waiting in a room for team PC to arrive" is just a matter of deftness of GM framing.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> I have a dungeon with goblins.  It is generaically themed (eg its not "Cooking the Caraveners"); "Goblins in the ruin!"  Its basically an unthemed, off-line dungeon that is only coming on-line right now because the PCs are interacting with it.  I have it mapped, keyed, stocked and ready for play.
> 
> I have an opening situation in room 1.  I have a situation in 5 of the 20 rooms (every 4 rooms) with the Wandering Monster Clock handling the dynamic content generation.  Even if they heard about this dungeon multiple weeks prior *Why would I need to change the opening situation in room 1, even if the PCs heard about the Goblin in the Ruins (!) dungeon x days/weeks ago, when the dungeon is only now coming on-line? *
> 
> Rooms 2 through 20 may have dynamic interaction because the dungeon has come online and perhaps the results of stock encounters or Wandering Monsters changes the situation of subsequent rooms (this would be the Setting/Faction Clocks I posted upthread - these came on-line after PC interaction).
> 
> *But why do I need to change the opening situation to the prior off-line, now on-line content?  Why does the framing need to be evolved (and something like, "well because offscreen/off-line thing y or z occurred" is not responsive to the question...that is just a statement akin to "well, because Setting Solitaire"...which is fine...but then "why Setting Solitaire?").*



Without knowing what the opening room 1 situation is, I can't tell you if you would need to change it or not.  Probably not.  However, imagine that you prep the goblin dungeon before the campaign even starts.  The players hear about the goblin dungeon during the second session, but due to other priorities, ignore it for a while.  100 miles away there is a massacre of a prominent family by a party of goblins.  This event was prepped by the DM due to "living world." and the PCs heard about during session 8.  The PCs, still dealing with the other priorities note the event and continue on.  During the 11th session they hear that the king in response to the massacre(and to placate the relatives of the highly placed family) decreed that the country must be clear of goblins.  There is a bounty of 5 silver per goblin killed. Finally, in session 14 they head to the goblin dungeon.

Remember, the goblin dungeon was prepped prior to game play.  The first room was a guard room with 4 goblins in it playing cards or whatever.  Had the PCs gone in to this place early on, they'd have encountered that and then moved in further to clear it out, run away or whatever.  However, the massacre happened and in response to the king's decree, adventurers, mercenaries and adventurers have been going after goblins.  When the PCs finally arrive in session 14, instead of finding a guard room with 4 goblins in it, they find a guardroom with the rotting corpses of 4 goblins and a mess that clearly indicates that a fight happened.  

While the opening room situation might not change, it also might.  If the DM is tracking things and having the world respond to them, it can make for a completely different situation when the PCs arrive, and when they do and find the corpses, the players are going to know exactly why.  They've heard about the massacre.  They've heard about the decree.  Both of which happened "offscreen," but without setting solitaire and will put it all together.  It's going to make for a very different feel than if the goblin dungeon just stays in stasis.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> From what I can see, there'd be no difference in the players' experience at the table. I dunno if that'd make it bad GMing in BitD.



"Bad" is a hard say, unless the solitaire play violates some other principle of play, like, say, if you're using your solitaire play to suddenly drive story for the PCs instead of being an outgrowth of what the PCs are doing.  That's bad, in Blades.  As I said earlier, though, advancing a clock as you introduce it isn't bad, so I guess advancing it prior to isn't bad, either.  The real issue is how the introduction is framed and what it's doing in the game.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I recalled I wanted to speak to this, but the thread was moving quickly at the time and I lost it.
> 
> I think that if the PCs BIFTs are not evoking these things, then there's a serious disconnect in what players are writing down for BIFTs and what they're actually doing for BIFTs.  Because, regardless of whether or not you write these down, the bonds, ideals, and flaws (less so for traits) a character has are defining dramatic needs for that character.  If you're not using them, okay, but that shouldn't be moving that what these are describing are core to (at least some) PC dramatic needs.  Heck, "bond" is a front and center one -- what do you care about so much that you'll sacrifice for it?  This opens up all kinds of interesting dilemmas -- how much will you sacrifice?  What will you sacrifice?  Will something else happen that becomes more important?  These are the kinds of questions that dramatic needs create, not "will we stop the evil overlord and save the world."  That doesn't require any dramatic need, just a willingness to buy into a plot hook.



I don't particularly disagree with this. The thing is, dramatic needs change with play, so a character's need to exact revenge on the thing (Ildna) that killed his family might turn into a need to diminish the influence of that thing's creator (The Tundra Queen) in the world and/or rid the world of the artifact (The Epiphany Machine) that broke the that thing. I incorporate needs like that into scenarios, without needing to worry about specific things on a character sheet.

My feeling is, put Bond, Flaw, Ideal, and Traits on your character sheet, but use them to remind you how you're playing this character. If you give me a copy of your character's backstory, we can work to tie your character to the setting and the campaign. Regardless, once I get to know the characters, I can work to engage them as they are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I don't particularly disagree with this. The thing is, dramatic needs change with play, so a character's need to exact revenge on the thing (Ildna) that killed his family might turn into a need to diminish the influence of that thing's creator (The Tundra Queen) in the world and/or rid the world of the artifact (The Epiphany Machine) that broke the that thing. I incorporate needs like that into scenarios, without needing to worry about specific things on a character sheet.
> 
> My feeling is, put Bond, Flaw, Ideal, and Traits on your character sheet, but use them to remind you how you're playing this character. If you give me a copy of your character's backstory, we can work to tie your character to the setting and the campaign. Regardless, once I get to know the characters, I can work to engage them as they are.



Right, this is a complaint that 5e implemented the concept poorly, such that it's easier for many to just do it how they used to.  To me, the lack of any structure or reward for paying off a BIFT, like how Burning Wheel does with beliefs, is a massive missed opportunity to add a neat feature to the game.  It would have also given a toolset to operationalize the BIFTs.  I think they elected not to, to basically float a neutered concept, because they realized that their primary revenue stream in 5e was going to be the sale of adventures, and BIFTs don't work well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell (heck, I'm not sure the 5e works well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell).


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, this is a complaint that 5e implemented the concept poorly, such that it's easier for many to just do it how they used to.  To me, the lack of any structure or reward for paying off a BIFT, like how Burning Wheel does with beliefs, is a massive missed opportunity to add a neat feature to the game.  It would have also given a toolset to operationalize the BIFTs.  I think they elected not to, to basically float a neutered concept, because they realized that their primary revenue stream in 5e was going to be the sale of adventures, and BIFTs don't work well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell (heck, I'm not sure the 5e works well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell).



Pretty much--both your analysis of the mechanic and your analysis of why WotC didn't write a stronger one (with the possible addition that they wanted it to feel like D&D, especially to people who'd rejected 4E, and arguably a strong mechanic here wouldn't have).

Also, I picked up 5E after gradually-then-abruptly coming to strongly dislike Fate, so I was ... disinclined to embrace anything at all reminiscent of Aspects. Speaks more to my tossing the mechanic out of my games than anything broader.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sorry, BIFTs frustrate me greatly.  I've even tried @iserith's rule where players can, on their own, claim inspiration for invoking a BIFT (once each per session) and my players absolutely ignore it.  They have no problems leveraging such things in other games, are even eager to do so, but in D&D?  It's strange, sometimes, to watch them play different games, and see how much their approach changes depending on what game it is.  I have a player that is absolutely balls-to-the-wall in Blades, reckless and daring, leveraging everything that system offers, but, in D&D, they are as methodical and plodding, trying to play 20 questions, afraid in every seeming moment that there's a gotcha, despite the fact that I just don't do gotchas.  When we talk about it, they know there's nothing there, but it feels like that's how they should be playing.  I blame prior GMs just being horrible.  Amusingly (not really), if my group really wants to see this player turn that dial to 11, we just ask him to run.  He's horrible with the gotchas!  And, not really allowed to run for us, anymore (which he views with relief, I think).

Anyway, BIFTs are terribly instantiated in 5e, and as such, often deserve to be treated as the appendix of that system.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, BIFTs frustrate me greatly.  I've even tried @iserith's rule where players can, on their own, claim inspiration for invoking a BIFT (once each per session) and my players absolutely ignore it.  They have no problems leveraging such things in other games, are even eager to do so, but in D&D?  It's strange, sometimes, to watch them play different games, and see how much their approach changes depending on what game it is.  I have a player that is absolutely balls-to-the-wall in Blades, reckless and daring, leveraging everything that system offers, but, in D&D, they are as methodical and plodding, trying to play 20 questions, afraid in every seeming moment that there's a gotcha, despite the fact that I just don't do gotchas.  When we talk about it, they know there's nothing there, but it feels like that's how they should be playing.  I blame prior GMs just being horrible.  Amusingly (not really), if my group really wants to see this player turn that dial to 11, we just ask him to run.  He's horrible with the gotchas!  And, not really allowed to run for us, anymore (which he views with relief, I think).
> 
> Anyway, BIFTs are terribly instantiated in 5e, and as such, often deserve to be treated as the appendix of that system.



Does he run other games that way, or just D&D?  It sounds like it may not be prior DMs, but rather how he views the way D&D is "supposed" to be run.  He may see himself and how we runs D&D in any D&D game he plays in, so he's careful to try and avoid the gotchas that he would put into place.


----------



## loverdrive

A quick question. What is BIFT?


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> @Lanefan , @Emerikol, @Bedrockgames , @Maxperson , @prabe (whose, besides @pemerton , answer to the above proposed hypothetical looks to me to have engaged closest with my intent).
> 
> I felt like my hypothetical and my clarifications were clear, but it must be true that we still have misunderstanding or I'm just terrible at articulating what I'm getting at here.  So I'm going to punt to @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 with a more fleshed out hypothetical.  Perhaps this more fleshed out hypothetical and their answers to it will better ground what I'm getting at here.  Then I'm going to have to step away from responding for the rest of the day.
> 
> Alright, @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 ...
> 
> Let us say that tonight's game somehow finds its way into Ironhook Prison:
> 
> 
> 
> Haight (hawkeyefan's PC) did a nice-sized turn there so its feasible that our game goes there at some point.  Let us just pretend that it goes there tonight.
> 
> *IN THE COURSE OF OUR PLAY*, Haight and Stiv (Fenris's PC) have neither been to Ironhook Prison or to the ward that it resides within:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no interacted with either of the below two Factions (who do most of their Duskvol work in Dunslough) or the Dunslough "Crime Boss":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, one of the PCs (offscreen as part of backstory) did a turn at Ironhook.  He (offscreen) has likely has interactions with all of the above (or at least heard of them).  The other PC (offscreen) may have heard of some of the above and may have even been to Dunslough once or twice.
> 
> HOWEVER, to reiterate, *in the course of play*, all of this stuff is effectively offscreen.  It has not come up to date in our play.  Consequently, it is effectively "off-line" in terms of what is happening with that content.
> 
> So, let us just say, hypothetically, you guys do a Score in the Ironhook Prison tonight where you *sneak in and then sneak out thing x* (which could be a person, a ghost that is using Haight or his trap as a repository, illicit goods, what-have-you).
> 
> Let us say you interact with all 5 of the above (obviously the Ward and the prison, but also Master Krocket and the two Factions).  Suddenly, *ALL 5 ARE ON-LINE AT ONCE.
> 
> What value for our play tonight (Skilled Play priority, Story Now priority, Protagonistic Play priority, Living World priority...any priority you wish) would there be if I:
> 
> (a) reframed all of those 5 things quote-blocked above FROM (i) the initial framing in the text + (ii) my own subtle, improvised reframing to hook into your evinced dramatic needs for your PCs...
> 
> TO
> 
> (b) new content that is a downstream effects of 5 resolution segments of 3 Downtime (phase) Clocks (one for both factions and one for Krocket) and made a Fortune roll or two as a downstream consequence of what emerges from the resolution of those 3 Clocks.  *
> 
> So, for instance, instead of what is in the book and what I would improvise in my scene-framing, the following is now true (which wasn't true in the initiating conditions):
> 
> _* Master Krocket recently quelled a riot and his dogs had quite a feast.
> 
> * The Deathland Scavengers have obtained a pardon for a member from Ironhook Prison.
> 
> * The Lost are focusing their efforts on Coalridge instead of Dunslough._
> 
> Any value you can you imagine (or not imagine...I leave this to you) for the above being true vs all 3 being the opposite during your Score (a viscious riot happens, TDS is in the middle of trying to get that pardon while you're sneaking in, TL are focusing efforts in Dunslough.  Or 1 or 2 of them being true vs not being true.  Or some slightly different instantiation of the above.  Or something very different.
> 
> *Outside of a value judgement about the provocativeness or excitement of this framing vs that framing, what value would there be on our play tonight if I evolved the starting conditions for all or some of these prior offline (but now online) things from stock Blades to something different (which is an outgrowth of the process of Faction/Setting Clocks and Fortune Rolls)?
> 
> Would you know the difference (again, assuming that the evolution from their starting condition x to their new situation y has nothing to do with our play to date...which there is no reason for any of our play to have impacted Dunslough thus far...if the Barrowcleft situation resolves badly and there is food shortages throughout all of Duskvol, then yeah...but that hasn't come to pass yet)?*



I'm going to start at the bottom and work my way back up. Would I know the difference? Well, yes and no. If I'm familiar with the Blades setting material I know none of those specifics are included, so yes. That said, could I tell the difference between them being evolved before hand or as a direct result of consequences in play? Perhaps, and mostly in a negative way for the evolved-first material. Let's take the pardon as the specific example. If that came up in play, but for no particular reason, i.e. not linked to any of character decisions or the subsequent consequences in the course of play, or the context in which we encountered the Scavengers, then yes, I could tell. If that change isn't contextualized there's no reason for it to exist and it sticks out like a sore thumb. It would only matter if our interactions with the Scavengers were such that the existence of a recent pardon had a reason to come up. I'll allow the above to stand in for the other examples. 

As for value? None in particular. None of that info is useful or important unless it bears directly on our chosen task and evolving plan. In those cases the info would emerge as part of information gathering, or as a discovered fact framed in the course of play, or even as part of a consequence flowing from decisions made in play. None of those require it to be determined before hand, and doing so has no impact on play aside from perhaps shoving you in the direction of that stuff (as it's already prepped) during play, appropriate or not. Once you have those ideas in your pocket the natural tendency is to want to use them. Moreover, as the score progresses, some of those ideas suffer a lot. 

Let's say near the end of the score we're making a quick get away and Krocket looses the hounds, at which point you say _A-hah, the dogs are well fed and lazy from feasting during the quelling of the riot, take +1d_. To which I reply _Wait, what riot? We've been though Iron Heights just now and there was no evidence of a riot, where'd that come from? _The issue at this point is sequence and context. That same bit of info about Krocket and his dogs might have been a tasty tidbit to learn before we got stuck in, or even as something we quickly discover as we deal with the riot fallout while we're on our score, but the further into the scene we get, the less sense it makes. This kind of game state evolution is very context dependent.  Sometimes pre-prepped stuff might fit like a glove, but often it won't, and if you're going to work it on the fly, why do it in advance in the first place?


----------



## prabe

loverdrive said:


> A quick question. What is BIFT?



It's an acronym for Bond, Ideal, Flaw, Trait. Took me a moment, too. (But I suspect it's just the way @Ovinomancer thinks about the mechanic, so I have no complaints.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> It's an acronym for Bond, Ideal, Flaw, Trait. Took me a moment, too. (But I suspect it's just the way @Ovinomancer thinks about the mechanic, so I have no complaints.)



Yep, sorry, saw IBFT being used and subbed in my preferred acronym.


----------



## pemerton

darkbard said:


> I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure you've identified something that can expand beyond the two games in your example. DW does have the kind of ability scale up of D&D through spells and advanced moves that radically alters what PCs can do, and @pemerton has amply demonstrated over the years that his 4E game, despite similar growth in PC power is structured around PC interactions with setting elements; neither requires any Setting Solitaire prep.



With regard to 4e, level is an important thing. So I did re-spec creatures/NPCs as the PCs gained levels and those potential opponents had not yet come into play.

One example is The Demon of the Red Grove: I wrote up multiple versions of these Feywild creatures, over multiple years, as the PCs gained levels and hadn't yet gone to the Feywild. I don't think this quite counts as "setting solitaire" in @Manbearcat's sense as it wasn't any sort of evolution of a "living world" - it was just making sure that when I got a chance to introduce that scenario, I would have the right tools in my "Monster Manual".

The story context of the scenario was established in a "no myth"-ish style: I can't remember all the details, but when I first thought about how Robin Laws's scenario might be adapted to 4e I don't think I had ideas about the trapped demons relationship to the Raven Queen and Lolth. 

UPDATE: I just checked my 2010 notes - no mention of Lolth or the Raven Queen, just some dot points carrying over the core ideas of Laws's scenario. but some mechanical elements of the scenario statted up for high Heroic/low Paragon PCs. I ended up using this scenario for mid-Epic PCs in 2014. This is definitely prep, and definitely GM notes, but I don't think it's "setting solitaire".


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> what I'm trying to account for is that the PCs may be in a different story-arc than when I originally prepped. For instance, the PCs in one of the campaigns I'm DMing pretty much finished a story arc in a city, and then later came back for (mostly) unrelated reasons. Since months had passed in-world, the city needed to be a little different; the previous time they'd been in the city something had happened they hadn't done much with/about, so I took that and used it to change the city some (and let the PCs find ways to make trouble, because PCs). The city was still recognizably the same place, but it was not exactly as they'd left it.
> 
> I think that's the only way I'm likely to need to revise prep



This is not quite the opposite of what I just described, but there is a difference.

I described changing mechanical prep in a level-based game - but leaving story context/rationale loose to be settled in a "no myth"-ish fashion.

Prabe here is describing prep, and then re-prep, of story context/rationale but (it seems) not really touching the mechanical aspects of the story elements.

@prabe, I'm not sure whether or not you're describing setting solitaire. I'm not sure if @Manbearcat agrees with what I'm about to say, but for me there is a difference between (a) and (b):

(a) Authoring a setting, with timelines like in JRRT's LotR appendices, and notes about who is interacting when with whom, and adjusting this and adding to this as ingame time passes;

(b) Preparing a story/scenario/framing for play, in anticipation of its use, and then adjusting that to reflect what has actually transpired in play between initial prep and the time of use.​
You seem to be describing a version of (b). I think (a) counts as "setting solitaire" but I think (b) is more like a form of scenario prep. Of course in practice these aren't sharp divides, and in some approaches to play (b) might bleed into (a).


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> With regard to 4e, level is an important thing. So I did re-spec creatures/NPCs as the PCs gained levels and those potential opponents had not yet come into play.
> 
> One example is The Demon of the Red Grove: I wrote up multiple versions of these Feywild creatures, over multiple years, as the PCs gained levels and hadn't yet gone to the Feywild. I don't think this quite counts as "setting solitaire" in @Manbearcat's sense as it wasn't any sort of evolution of a "living world" - it was just making sure that when I got a chance to introduce that scenario, I would have the right tools in my "Monster Manual".
> 
> The story context of the scenario was established in a "no myth"-ish style: I can't remember all the details, but when I first thought about how Robin Laws's scenario might be adapted to 4e I don't think I had ideas about the trapped demons relationship to the Raven Queen and Lolth.
> 
> UPDATE: I just checked my 2010 notes - no mention of Lolth or the Raven Queen, just some dot points carrying over the core ideas of Laws's scenario. but some mechanical elements of the scenario statted up for high Heroic/low Paragon PCs. I ended up using this scenario for mid-Epic PCs in 2014. This is definitely prep, and definitely GM notes, but I don't think it's "setting solitaire".






pemerton said:


> This is not quite the opposite of what I just described, but there is a difference.
> 
> I described changing mechanical prep in a level-based game - but leaving story context/rationale loose to be settled in a "no myth"-ish fashion.
> 
> Prabe here is describing prep, and then re-prep, of story context/rationale but (it seems) not really touching the mechanical aspects of the story elements.
> 
> @prabe, I'm not sure whether or not you're describing setting solitaire. I'm not sure if @Manbearcat agrees with what I'm about to say, but for me there is a difference between (a) and (b):
> 
> (a) Authoring a setting, with timelines like in JRRT's LotR appendices, and notes about who is interacting when with whom, and adjusting this and adding to this as ingame time passes;​​(b) Preparing a story/scenario/framing for play, in anticipation of its use, and then adjusting that to reflect what has actually transpired in play between initial prep and the time of use.​
> You seem to be describing a version of (b). I think (a) counts as "setting solitaire" but I think (b) is more like a form of scenario prep. Of course in practice these aren't sharp divides, and in some approaches to play (b) might bleed into (a).




Coming home from climbing and then I’m gaming so I don’t think I’m going to get any thoughts up tonight.

I agree with these two posts (particularly the expression of (a) and (b) above) in case that furthers conversation/clarifies my thoughts in my absence.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> This is not quite the opposite of what I just described, but there is a difference.
> 
> I described changing mechanical prep in a level-based game - but leaving story context/rationale loose to be settled in a "no myth"-ish fashion.
> 
> Prabe here is describing prep, and then re-prep, of story context/rationale but (it seems) not really touching the mechanical aspects of the story elements.
> 
> @prabe, I'm not sure whether or not you're describing setting solitaire. I'm not sure if @Manbearcat agrees with what I'm about to say, but for me there is a difference between (a) and (b):
> 
> (a) Authoring a setting, with timelines like in JRRT's LotR appendices, and notes about who is interacting when with whom, and adjusting this and adding to this as ingame time passes;​​(b) Preparing a story/scenario/framing for play, in anticipation of its use, and then adjusting that to reflect what has actually transpired in play between initial prep and the time of use.​
> You seem to be describing a version of (b). I think (a) counts as "setting solitaire" but I think (b) is more like a form of scenario prep. Of course in practice these aren't sharp divides, and in some approaches to play (b) might bleed into (a).



Inside my head, it doesn't _feel_ like what y'all seem to be calling "Setting Solitaire." I have written up the setting (or at least parts of it) but I haven't bothered to write out timelines or anything--most of what I have written is ... generic enough that it's likely to fit whenever a party arrives.

What I'm trying to describe is that--aside from mechanical aspects, which I'll change if they need changing--if I have a place prepped, and the PCs either 1) go somewhere else or 2) go there twice with some in-world time between, I'll change my prep: This could be purely mechanical--like your example in the Feywild--or it could be purely narrative--there is a different situation here than I originally prepped, and maybe different opposition--or it could be a combination.

Examples from games I'm running (I don't really expect anyone to know or recognize any names, but I'll use them anyway because it's easier):

*Example One*
The PCs finished up what they were doing in Embernook. I looked at the likely threads they could decide to follow and wrote them up. One of those threads involved going to Auriqua to sort out why a (possibly former) servant of the Tundra Queen had killed Taman's family, so I worked out what Auriqua was like and what was going on there and who the various personages were. That wasn't where the party went, then, and when they did eventually go to Auriqua I essentially re-prepped the place (partly because other stuff had emerged in play, partly because the party was a much higher level).

*Example Two*
The PCs killed the Masked Ones they came across in Pelsoreen, then spent some time tracking down their headquarters, then spent some time doing other things (including tracking down Ildna, the broken servant of the Tundra Queen who'd killed Taman's family), then for good reasons decided to go back to Pelsoreen. Some months had passed in-world, so it didn't feel right to have the city be exactly the same as when they'd left, so I thought about what could have changed. Pelsoreen, until the second time the party went there, had some nasty debt-slavery in place; when the party was there the first time, some pranksters turned loose a contagion that ... messed with the signifier of that debt-slavery, with some pretty funny effects. I decided that had resulted in some changes in the government of the city that ended up vastly reducing the will to continue that debt-slavery, and wrote that up. That policy change was one of the things the party interacted with pretty directly on their second visit to Pelsoreen.

After writing those up, I think those are both more in your category b) above--though I'm not sure about my Example Two.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> Any value you can you imagine (or not imagine...I leave this to you) for the above being true vs all 3 being the opposite during your Score (a viscious riot happens, TDS is in the middle of trying to get that pardon while you're sneaking in, TL are focusing efforts in Dunslough. Or 1 or 2 of them being true vs not being true. Or some slightly different instantiation of the above. Or something very different.





I don’t think so. Any possible value in making such a change would be based on personal opinion. 

If you asked me about Haight’s time in prison and I offered some details or suggestions and you incorporated those, that might benefit in hooking my PC more strongly to the location and scenario. 



Manbearcat said:


> Outside of a value judgement about the provocativeness or excitement of _this _framing vs _that _framing, what value would there be on our play tonight if I evolved the starting conditions for all or some of these prior offline (but now online) things from stock Blades to something different (which is an outgrowth of the process of Faction/Setting Clocks and Fortune Rolls)?




Nothing that I can think of, really, no. Anything would be subjective. 



Manbearcat said:


> Would you know the difference (again, assuming that the evolution from their starting condition x to their new situation y has nothing to do with our play to date...which there is no reason for any of our play to have impacted Dunslough thus far...if the Barrowcleft situation resolves badly and there is food shortages throughout all of Duskvol, then yeah...but that hasn't come to pass yet)?




No, not really. I mean, I know some of the Faction clocks from the book from GMing, but even so, I don’t take that info as written in stone. So whatever the situation is as you presented it, I’d just roll with it without wondering about how it “started”. One situation you presented would be the same to me as any other.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> One of the things that keeps my players from abusing the five minute workday is the fact the monsters are always a lot more prepared the second time around. So pressing on has a high value because you still have the element of surprise.



This is a consideration that only makes sense against a host of background assumptions of a broadly D&D-ish nature: (i) that an important part of play is the PCs raiding hostile installations/dungeons; (ii) that an important element in the success of those raids is the availability of limited resources; (iii) that those resources recharge, but at a pace that is very different from the rate at which the action unfolds.

Other than AD&D, none of the games that I've GMed in the past 10 years shares those assumptions:

* 4e D&D (as my group played it) has only modest (i) and very little (iii);

* MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic has only modest (i), no (ii) and no (iii);

* Burning Wheel (as we play it) has no (i) so far; no (ii) in the D&D spell lot/power slot/spell point sense; and a different approach to (iii) also;

* Prince Valiant has no (i) so far (castles have been taken, but not in the D&D-ish room-to-room style), no (ii) and no (iii);

* Cthulhu Dark has none of (i) to (iii);

* The Dying Earth has no (i), and (ii) and (iii) work very differently from D&D;

* Classic Traveller has had little (i), and has no (ii) and no (iii).[/indent]

The last dungeon I ran as more than a one-shot was in Cortex+ Heroic, as I think I posted upthread. The details were all established in play by either my framing or the players' action declarations for their PCs. There is skilled play in Cortex+ Heroic, but its nothing like D&D. To give an example:

* The PCs were teleported to a deep part of the dungeon by a Crypt Thing (mechanically, I spent 2d12 from the Doom Pool to end the scene);

* The PCs started the next scene each suffering a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication (this was a GM stipulation based on the terms on which the previous scene ended);

* Not long after that, I established a scene in a great hall in the dungeon that included Strange Runes on the Walls as a scene distinction;

* One of the players had his players decipher the runes to see if they would tell him where in the dungeon the PCs were - and they did! (Mechanically, this was a recovery action that included the scene distinction in the pool and that targeted and - with a good success - eliminated that characters Lost in the Dungeon complication.)​
Seeing ways to play the fiction like that is a skill, but it doesn't have much in common with the skill needed to beat a classic D&D dungeon. In Cortex+, if PCs retreat, or proceed, and this will affect things down the track, that is reflected through appropriate scene distinctions, complications and the like. There's no play-independent setting to keep track of.

I think the point of this post is that the impact of different approaches to prep, and its use, on the play experience is (perhaps obviously) affected by details of the system being played.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is a consideration that only makes sense against a host of background assumptions of a broadly D&D-ish nature: (i) that an important part of play is the PCs raiding hostile installations/dungeons; (ii) that an important element in the success of those raids is the availability of limited resources; (iii) that those resources recharge, but at a pace that is very different from the rate at which the action unfolds.
> 
> Other than AD&D, none of the games that I've GMed in the past 10 years shares those assumptions:
> 
> * 4e D&D (as my group played it) has only modest (i) and very little (iii);
> 
> * MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic has only modest (i), no (ii) and no (iii);
> 
> * Burning Wheel (as we play it) has no (i) so far; no (ii) in the D&D spell lot/power slot/spell point sense; and a different approach to (iii) also;
> 
> * Prince Valiant has no (i) so far (castles have been taken, but not in the D&D-ish room-to-room style), no (ii) and no (iii);
> 
> * Cthulhu Dark has none of (i) to (iii);
> 
> * The Dying Earth has no (i), and (ii) and (iii) work very differently from D&D;
> 
> * Classic Traveller has had little (i), and has no (ii) and no (iii).[/indent]
> 
> The last dungeon I ran as more than a one-shot was in Cortex+ Heroic, as I think I posted upthread. The details were all established in play by either my framing or the players' action declarations for their PCs. There is skilled play in Cortex+ Heroic, but its nothing like D&D. To give an example:
> 
> * The PCs were teleported to a deep part of the dungeon by a Crypt Thing (mechanically, I spent 2d12 from the Doom Pool to end the scene);​​* The PCs started the next scene each suffering a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication (this was a GM stipulation based on the terms on which the previous scene ended);​​* Not long after that, I established a scene in a great hall in the dungeon that included Strange Runes on the Walls as a scene distinction;​​* One of the players had his players decipher the runes to see if they would tell him where in the dungeon the PCs were - and they did! (Mechanically, this was a recovery action that included the scene distinction in the pool and that targeted and - with a good success - eliminated that characters Lost in the Dungeon complication.)​
> Seeing ways to play the fiction like that is a skill, but it doesn't have much in common with the skill needed to beat a classic D&D dungeon. In Cortex+, if PCs retreat, or proceed, and this will affect things down the track, that is reflected through appropriate scene distinctions, complications and the like. There's no play-independent setting to keep track of.
> 
> I think the point of this post is that the impact of different approaches to prep, and its use, on the play experience is (perhaps obviously) affected by details of the system being played.



That was a very long post just to say that the 5 minute work day is very D&D centric, except for 4e which did things differently from the other editions.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> Is that correct?  I'll answer (tomorrow) once you've confirmed.




Yes.



> And so I have some context for answering, can you let me know what you have in mind here (Skilled Play a a priority interacting with my hypothetical)?  To reiterate, this is the equivalent of Room 1 of a dungeon where new content (that has in no way, directly or indirectly, been interacted with by the PCs).




I'm imagining a sprawling series of available courses of action for the PCs against a specific off-screen time-frame for the BBEG and Co. actions. Depending on the actions taken by the PCs, they may or may not affect the off-screen actions of the BBEG and Co. and they may also extend the off-screen time-frame.

Now I fully accept a DM, may and likely does have certain degree of bias, with the said off-screen time-frame to be easily adjusted via tainted rationale as the DM sees fit.

One can use the same example above in your typical dungeon exploration to introduce a certain event which occurs at the specified time (in-game or real), with the actions of the PCs up until that point affecting in part the event or the timing of said event.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, BIFTs frustrate me greatly.  I've even tried @iserith's rule where players can, on their own, claim inspiration for invoking a BIFT (once each per session) and my players absolutely ignore it.  They have no problems leveraging such things in other games, are even eager to do so, but in D&D?  It's strange, sometimes, to watch them play different games, and see how much their approach changes depending on what game it is.  I have a player that is absolutely balls-to-the-wall in Blades, reckless and daring, leveraging everything that system offers, but, in D&D, they are as methodical and plodding, trying to play 20 questions, afraid in every seeming moment that there's a gotcha, despite the fact that I just don't do gotchas.  When we talk about it, they know there's nothing there, but it feels like that's how they should be playing.  I blame prior GMs just being horrible.  Amusingly (not really), if my group really wants to see this player turn that dial to 11, we just ask him to run.  He's horrible with the gotchas!  And, not really allowed to run for us, anymore (which he views with relief, I think).
> 
> Anyway, BIFTs are terribly instantiated in 5e, and as such, often deserve to be treated as the appendix of that system.



20 questions might be extreme but I wouldn't declare this as a bad way to game as you do.   My players are super cautious.  It's why game balance was never an issue for them.  They never cast a spell they didn't think they had to cast.  Why?  It's a limited resource and the next enemy could be worse.  Sometimes that was true.  


Now there are plenty of times when they throw caution to the wind but most of the time they act like real people facing such challenges.   Real people with great skills and powerful magic of course so they don't just stay home.  They play like they don't want to die which I think is a good thing.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> It's an acronym for Bond, Ideal, Flaw, Trait. Took me a moment, too. (But I suspect it's just the way @Ovinomancer thinks about the mechanic, so I have no complaints.)



I wouldn't mind them but I do agree with many maybe even @Ovinomancer that in practice they don't often turn out that great.   Most of the time it's min max time.   But with the right player, it can be gold.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I think the point of this post is that the impact of different approaches to prep, and its use, on the play experience is (perhaps obviously) affected by details of the system being played.



I don't disagree.  I think by now I've made it clear the style of games I prefer.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> That was a very long post just to say that the 5 minute work day is very D&D centric, except for 4e which did things differently from the other editions.



I would say the 5 minute work day runs through all the "children" of Gygax which includes the early editions of D&D and a bunch of offshoots since.   Not all of them are OSR but many are of course.  They all seem to tout the old school feel though which it seems to me must be something they think people these days yearn for.   

And yes, at-will and encounter powers changed the dynamics of D&D in many ways.  Not in good ways in my book but of course others mileage may vary.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> 20 questions might be extreme but I wouldn't declare this as a bad way to game as you do.   My players are super cautious.  It's why game balance was never an issue for them.  They never cast a spell they didn't think they had to cast.  Why?  It's a limited resource and the next enemy could be worse.  Sometimes that was true.
> 
> 
> Now there are plenty of times when they throw caution to the wind but most of the time they act like real people facing such challenges.   Real people with great skills and powerful magic of course so they don't just stay home.  They play like they don't want to die which I think is a good thing.



Where did I say it was bad?  I said it was _different_.  The "bad" part is being afraid of gotchas (and running them), because gotchas are an abuse of the GM's authority in the game to hide information and then punish players with the hidden information.  It's icky.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> I wouldn't mind them but I do agree with many maybe even @Ovinomancer that in practice they don't often turn out that great.   Most of the time it's min max time.   But with the right player, it can be gold.



I... how the H-E-double-hockey-sticks can you _min-max BIFTs_?!  I really need to know because this is utterly alien to any thought I have in my head.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> I... how the H-E-double-hockey-sticks can you _min-max BIFTs_?!  I really need to know because this is utterly alien to any thought I have in my head.



Well when you take a negative trait, you often get something in return.  Like advantages and disadvantages.  So some players will choose a disadvantageous trait they think they can minimize the impact in the game and take an advantageous trait they think they can use to enhance their power.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Well when you take a negative trait, you often get something in return.  Like advantages and disadvantages.  So some players will choose a disadvantageous trait they think they can minimize the impact in the game and take an advantageous trait they think they can use to enhance their power.



LOL.  No, they don't work like this at all.  You're pretty far off the mark.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> Well when you take a negative trait, you often get something in return.  Like advantages and disadvantages.  So some players will choose a disadvantageous trait they think they can minimize the impact in the game and take an advantageous trait they think they can use to enhance their power.



This is broadly possible in games like Champions where one can acquire extra character points by takind Disadvantages. Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, and Traits in D&D 5E (the acronym "BIFT") bring next to nothing mechanically to the character. A very mild incentive to role-play your character in such a way to get Inspiration (a token spendable for Advantage on a roll). The big problems are that Inspiration doesn't stack, and no one really wants to use it except in an emergency, and Advantage is stupidly easy to get other ways, and that the DM is supposed to keep track of 5 things per PC and allot Inspiration. There may also in the RAW be a limitation on how often you can get Inspiration (aside from it not stacking) but since I don't use Inspiration or BIFTs, I don't have that stuff internalized.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> LOL.  No, they don't work like this at all.  You're pretty far off the mark.



No.  I can show you many games where they work exactly like this.  I won't claim I know every game but many many games with traits, advantages, disadvantages etc... have rules for taking a bad one and getting a good one.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Haven't read the thread (because 72 pages is far too many posts) but for my part, my session notes are for the following:

Not needing to take extra time to create a monster, scenario, or situation when the party heads in generally-expectable directions. E.g., when I know the party is heading to the Chapel of Fundamental Tacky, I can make Tacky Priests and Tacky Phlogiston Fundamentals and not waste time, and can have maps already made for the floors of the chapel, that sort of thing. Obviously this doesn't help for 100% of sessions, but it really does make a difference and my players definitely notice.
Keeping track of the relationships established between NPCs. We have a _lot_ of named NPCs in our game, so records of past NPCs and notes of how future NPCs feel about them and vice-versa is useful for maintaining a living, breathing world. It also helps for things like cosmology; I've put a lot of work into making a cosmology that is thought-out, unique, and responsive to the players' actions. With my memory less than ideal, shall we say, keeping notes helps me remember the structure during the variable gaps between times where it comes up.
Producing consistent _theme_ across different encounters. I have various factions that ploy, surge, recede, etc. as the world turns. Player choices can radically affect their plans, but that includes ignoring them for too long when the opportunity has arisen to do stuff about it. Being able to give a consistent feel/flavor to each faction helps make them distinct, despite all of them fighting "from the shadows" as it were and striving to control/conquer, and helps the players make informed choices (e.g. preparing for known strategies/powers associated with specific factions.)
I don't make hyper-detailed notes about absolutely everything. I've actually forced myself to not be hyper-ultra prepared all the time, because I know I've got a risk of locking things down too far. But having _some_ notes, having _some_ prep work, really is very valuable to me and my group.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> No.  I can show you many games where they work exactly like this.  I won't claim I know every game but many many games with traits, advantages, disadvantages etc... have rules for taking a bad one and getting a good one.



We weren't talking about those games.  BIFTs refers to 5e D&D, it's not a wider discussion.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I... how the H-E-double-hockey-sticks can you _min-max BIFTs_?!  I really need to know because this is utterly alien to any thought I have in my head.



It's not really min-maxing, but you can choose a flaw or a FLAW.  Not all are equally negative.  You can minimize how bad for your character the flaw is likely to be.  You can also choose ideals, etc. the same way.  The ideal of tradition is less likely to garner good will and future reward than the ideal of charity is.  Or if keeping your hard won loot is more your thing, you'd pick power over charity.  There are better and worse choices to make for your character.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> It's not really min-maxing, but you can choose a flaw or a FLAW.  Not all are equally negative.  You can minimize how bad for your character the flaw is likely to be.  You can also choose ideals, etc. the same way.  The ideal of tradition is less likely to garner good will and future reward than the ideal of charity is.  Or if keeping your hard won loot is more your thing, you'd pick power over charity.  There are better and worse choices to make for your character.



I suppose, but the rewards are so meager that it seems to me like a lot of work for a reward of thin gruel. It's nothing like picking, i.e., Disadvantages in Champions, where you want more points for less actual in-play cost.


----------



## Emerikol

Ovinomancer said:


> We weren't talking about those games.  BIFTs refers to 5e D&D, it's not a wider discussion.



Well I missed that context.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> I suppose, but the rewards are so meager that it seems to me like a lot of work for a reward of thin gruel. It's nothing like picking, i.e., Disadvantages in Champions, where you want more points for less actual in-play cost.



It depends on who you are charitable to I suppose.  Sometimes having a place to hide where you have someone loyal and won't give you away is worth more than a pile of gold.  Sometimes the person is just at a down point in life and will return to power and be able to help you considerably for your favors.  And there are also other traits that can be chosen for PC gain, instead of neutral or bad.

I also agree with you, which is why I opened with, "It's not really min-maxing..."


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> It depends on who you are charitable to I suppose.  Sometimes having a place to hide where you have someone loyal and won't give you away is worth more than a pile of gold.  Sometimes the person is just at a down point in life and will return to power and be able to help you considerably for your favors.  And there are also other traits that can be chosen for PC gain, instead of neutral or bad.
> 
> I also agree with you, which is why I opened with, "It's not really min-maxing..."



I like the idea of having Patrons, advantages and disadvantages etc.... but I think I'd prefer them to be separate subsystems to prevent manipulation.  Starting the game with some allies is a good thing.  This is something that 13th Age did well.  Not endorsing that game for other reasons but I liked that aspect of it.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> I would say the 5 minute work day runs through all the "children" of Gygax which includes the early editions of D&D and a bunch of offshoots since.   Not all of them are OSR but many are of course.  They all seem to tout the old school feel though which it seems to me must be something they think people these days yearn for.



OSR play significantly deempahsizes the 5 minute work day. There are _far_ less per day abilities and far less per day healing. A greater emphasis on resource management also makes the 5MWD less appealing because there are significantly more pressures on the party's time due to things like food and torch use, things that are laughably hand wave-y in 5E and newer editions. The newer the edition, generally speaking, the more you deal with 5 minute workday style play. Pointing to OSR play here is probably a mistake on your part.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> OSR play significantly deempahsizes the 5 minute work day. There are _far_ less per day abilities and far less per day healing. A greater emphasis on resource management also makes the 5MWD less appealing because there are significantly more pressures on the party's time due to things like food and torch use, things that are laughably hand wave-y in 5E and newer editions. The newer the edition, generally speaking, the more you deal with 5 minute workday style play. Pointing to OSR play here is probably a mistake on your part.



In my experience, it was prevalent in every edition from Basic on up.  You pretty virtually every party had spellcasters and it was almost always the better choice to keep them rested to get spells back.  Especially if you had a cleric for magic healing.  Magic healing = overnight healing when you get high enough level.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> OSR play significantly deempahsizes the 5 minute work day.



I think this really depends on the scenario. ToH particularly, but also White Plume Mountain and Castle Amber, all seem to welcome it!


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> In my experience, it was prevalent in every edition from Basic on up.  You pretty virtually every party had spellcasters and it was almost always the better choice to keep them rested to get spells back.  Especially if you had a cleric for magic healing.  Magic healing = overnight healing when you get high enough level.



High level play is the least common play tier, so why is that the yardstick? I'd also submit that played with strict attention to detail on the resource side, this isn't how B/X or BECMI actually play, and certainly not at low or mid tier. I was specifically addressing the 5 minute workday remember, which isn't just about healing, but also blowing nova abilities, a thing that those editions don't really have.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> I think this really depends on the scenario. ToH particularly, but also White Plume Mountain and Castle Amber, all seem to welcome it!



Published adventures that are at odds with the game rules? Perish the thought sir, perish the thought.  Also, see above.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> High level play is the least common play tier, so why is that the yardstick?



It's not.  The 5 minute work day is actually more prevalent at lower levels than high levels.  First, when you only have 1-4 spells per day to cast(levels 1-4), you rest a whole lot after fights so that the spellcaster(s) can get back into combat.  Second, you can start fully or nearly fully healing the entire party overnight at mid levels, not high levels.

At high levels you have enough spells that you don't have to rest after every fight and can fully heal everyone who needs it multiple times before needing to rest, so occurrences of the 5 minute work day go down a bit.


Fenris-77 said:


> I'd also submit that played with strict attention to detail on the resource side, this isn't how B/X or BECMI actually play, and certainly not at low or mid tier. I was specifically addressing the 5 minute workday remember, which isn't just about healing, but also blowing nova abilities, a thing that those editions don't really have.



No, they didn't really "nova," but they did run out of resources after 1 fight at low levels.  Unless of course the wizard ineffectually attacked with a staff or daggers.  The cleric could at least wear armor, so fighting wasn't a God awful choice.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Maxperson said:


> It's not really min-maxing, but you can choose a flaw or a FLAW.  Not all are equally negative.  You can minimize how bad for your character the flaw is likely to be.  You can also choose ideals, etc. the same way.  The ideal of tradition is less likely to garner good will and future reward than the ideal of charity is.  Or if keeping your hard won loot is more your thing, you'd pick power over charity.  There are better and worse choices to make for your character.



Yeah, there's definitely an element of this. You also see the flipside, though, with people leaning so heavily into their stuff that it borders on "you have to be bad at things in order to roleplay!" territory. I have seen plenty of "but that's my character's alignment/flaw/whatever!" excuses in the past, in various games I've played.

I, personally, prefer to go for flaws that are relatable but not debilitating: often pride, wrath, or indecision. The latter is especially valuable because it allows even "you did the right thing" to _still_ logically and appropriately express the flaw, because doing the right thing _late_ can sometimes be just as bad as doing the wrong thing. Agonizing over what choice to make is also very, _very_ relatable for a lot of people.


----------



## Maxperson

EzekielRaiden said:


> Yeah, there's definitely an element of this. You also see the flipside, though, with people leaning so heavily into their stuff that it borders on "you have to be bad at things in order to roleplay!" territory. I have seen plenty of "but that's my character's alignment/flaw/whatever!" excuses in the past, in various games I've played.
> 
> I, personally, prefer to go for flaws that are relatable but not debilitating: often pride, wrath, or indecision. The latter is especially valuable because it allows even "you did the right thing" to _still_ logically and appropriately express the flaw, because doing the right thing _late_ can sometimes be just as bad as doing the wrong thing. Agonizing over what choice to make is also very, _very_ relatable for a lot of people.



Yeah.  I've seen that flipside as well.  Personally, I just look for whichever one fits my character concept the best and go with it.  Whether that's the best, most debilitating, or somewhere in-between.  Of course, if there are two choices that are equally valid, I'll go with the less debilitating of the two.


----------



## Umbran

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd also submit that played with strict attention to detail on the resource side, this isn't how B/X or BECMI actually play, and certainly not at low or mid tier.




How any RPG plays is a combination of the rules, adventure design, and GM runtime choices.  No D&D plays just one way.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> How any RPG plays is a combination of the rules, adventure design, and GM runtime choices.  No D&D plays just one way.



This is a tad lazy -- you haven't explained how @Fenris-77 is incorrect in his assertion (which I believe is largely correct), just offered a fairly obvious statement that games have a range of ways they can be played within their rules.  This statement does nothing to refute @Fenris-77's statement, but it seems to want to try to.  Just not very hard, mind.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a tad lazy




You probably want to get out of the habit of making public assessments about people's internal states as a way of dismissing what they say.  Including this makes it about _me_ the author, and my dedication to effort, rather than about any logic.  That's not appropriate.  So, don't do it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> You probably want to get out of the habit of making public assessments about people's internal states as a way of dismissing what they say.



The _argument _was lazy, I wasn't making any comment on your habits or behaviors.  So, yeah, I guess that you should get out of the habit of making public assessments about people's internal states as a way of dismissing what they say, eh?  Given you isolated this one thing and didn't have anything to say on the larger point (which the grammatical structure of the sentence you quoted indicates is an expansion of the bit your snipped out, and clearly shows that it refers to the argument made), I'd suppose this is much more relevant advice for you.


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Umbran said:


> How any RPG plays is a combination of the rules, adventure design, and GM runtime choices.  No D&D plays just one way.



This is effectively you saying "analysis of systems design is pointless".


----------



## Bedrockgames

PsyzhranV2 said:


> This is effectively you saying "analysis of systems design is pointless".



Honestly, any honest analysis, in my view also probably ought to account for what Umbran says here.

Also the ‘lazy x’ is kind of vague and overused (and assumed you know how much effort was exerted in something). I find it is often used when someone simply doesn’t like something.


----------



## Imaro

PsyzhranV2 said:


> This is effectively you saying "analysis of systems design is pointless".




When applied to the average gamer out in the wild... I wouldn't be surprised if this was a fair assessment.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> When applied to the average gamer out in the wild... I wouldn't be surprised if this was a fair assessment.



I don't disagree, and I also don't think it's a good thing.  I mean, in analogy, I guess it's fine if you want to just play backyard basketball, but learning a few plays and theory of the game will make your basketball better.  Well, maybe, I was always terrible at basketball.  Baseball, too.  Soccer, though... I was pretty good at that, and analysis was a big part of getting better.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> You mean with you issuing a blanket dismissal?  I thought that's not what was happening in this thread?  I get it's a hard pill to swallow -- you've got a lot of inertia here, and it's challenging to redirect.  I had the same issue.  But, ultimately, what counts as "dissociative" isn't really a baked in feature of the mechanic, but rather whether or not it fits into the paradigm we already have.  Viewing hitpoints as dissociative is a hard ask, especially if you've spent a lot of time with a specific (to you) explanation of them.



Viewing hit points as dissociative is fairly easy, if that's what one wants to do.

It's also every bit as easy to view them as having a connection to the fiction and causing/requiring fictional changes (at least in terms of description) as they are lost, if that's what one wants to do.

And this is perhaps the underlying root of the argument about what hit points represent.  The hit-points-as-plot-armour side views them more dissociatively, the hit-points-as-meat side views tham as having a basis in the fiction.

Or - as many do - one can see them as kind of a combination of both the above: to some extent plot armour, to some extent meat; and the dividing line on where one becomes the other varies for everyone.


Ovinomancer said:


> But, they are dissociative -- they're utterly disconnected from anything in the fiction and do not require any fictional changes until and unless you're out of them.  I mean, there's huge numbers of threads arguing what hitpoints actually are, so I fail to see how you can state that they are dissociative (if they weren't, there'd be many fewer arguments about what losing 10 hitpoints means in the fiction).


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Where did I say it was bad?  I said it was _different_.  The "bad" part is being afraid of gotchas (and running them), because gotchas are an abuse of the GM's authority in the game to hide information and then punish players with the hidden information.  It's icky.



It's only an abuse of the GM's authority if she doesn't give out information the PCs should reasonably have access to.  However, note this does NOT include foreshadowing every hidden hazard the PCs are about to face: it's on the PCs to assume there's potentially danger at every turn and to approach things in that frame of mind.

It's not an abuse in the slightest if the PCs neglect their due diligence and-or throw caution to the wind.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> It's only an abuse of the GM's authority if she doesn't give out information the PCs should reasonably have access to.  However, note this does NOT include foreshadowing every hidden hazard the PCs are about to face: it's on the PCs to assume there's potentially danger at every turn and to approach things in that frame of mind.
> 
> It's not an abuse in the slightest if the PCs neglect their due diligence and-or throw caution to the wind.



Yes, I'm aware of all of this.  Assume that when I'm saying it's bad, it's with this knowledge in mind.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't disagree, and I also don't think it's a good thing.  I mean, in analogy, I guess it's fine if you want to just play backyard basketball, but learning a few plays and theory of the game will make your basketball better.  Well, maybe, I was always terrible at basketball.  Baseball, too.  Soccer, though... I was pretty good at that, and analysis was a big part of getting better.



Wait... in the context of ttrpg's how are you defining getting better. I think for many nowadays rpg's for most are like a poker night or boardgame night as opposed to a field of study or job they are trying to get better at... but I might not be fully grasping the usage here.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Wait... in the context of ttrpg's how are you defining getting better. I think for many nowadays rpg's for most are like a poker night or boardgame night as opposed to a field of study or job they are trying to get better at... but I might not be fully grasping the usage here.



I don't treat it as a field of study, but I want to get better at it.  I mean, I paint minis, too,and while I could have stopped at the travesty of Ultramarines (they were blue), I also practiced, critiqued, and sought better techniques to do what I wanted.  You know, better.  Does my better equal your better? Absolutely not, but there's value in investigating new ideas and approaches, if only to say you won't/can't do that.


----------



## Campbell

I think there's a lot of value in the pursuit of mastery, even in your hobbies. Particularly in group hobbies. Developing new skills and getting better at existing skills is fun for me personally. In a shared hobby where we are all expected to contribute I think giving it your all is something you owe the other people you play with. Even from a completely selfish standpoint when you give it your all it's often contagious. You raise the bar and in doing so everyone starts to bring it more.

I believe in trying hard in everything you do. Professionally, personally, and in leisure activities. Obviously we all need to recover and we should make sure we properly prioritize things in our lives, but why not try to do our best rather than just good enough?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I believe in trying hard in everything you do. Professionally, personally, and in leisure activities. Obviously we all need to recover and we should make sure we properly prioritize things in our lives, but why not try to do our best rather than just good enough?




1) people have very different definitions of ‘best’ in RPGs

2) lots of people, probably most, engage in leisure activities to unwind and kick back. If you have a table of four chill people and you are trying to amp up the energy and get them to ‘bring their A game’ you are totally misreading the room (and probably reducing their enjoyment of the past time)


----------



## hawkeyefan

I can say with confidence that my games have improved since joining these boards and engaging in discussion here. My enjoyment of the hobby, and by extension the enjoyment of those I play with, has been enhanced. 

I attribute this to posting here and listening to people, especially people with ideas and experiences different than my own. To reading the games people were talking about and actually playing some of them to try and fully understand those games and the viewpoints of those posters.

I want to continue improving and learning. I would pretty much assume that of just about anyone here. 

Otherwise, what’s the point?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't treat it as a field of study, but I want to get better at it.  I mean, I paint minis, too,and while I could have stopped at the travesty of Ultramarines (they were blue), I also practiced, critiqued, and sought better techniques to do what I wanted.  You know, better.  Does my better equal your better? Absolutely not, but there's value in investigating new ideas and approaches, if only to say you won't/can't do that.



Eh I play games to have fun with my friends and family... if thats happening I'm not to worried about getting better. 

Edit I guess I could ask them to study other games and playstyles so that our fun might get "better" but the group probably wouldn't be interested in this type of homework to facilitate better fun.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I can say with confidence that my games have improved since joining these boards and engaging in discussion here. My enjoyment of the hobby, and by extension the enjoyment of those I play with, has been enhanced.
> 
> I attribute this to posting here and listening to people, especially people with ideas and experiences different than my own. To reading the games people were talking about and actually playing some of them to try and fully understand those games and the viewpoints of those posters.
> 
> I want to continue improving and learning. I would pretty much assume that of just about anyone here.
> 
> Otherwise, what’s the point?



This sounds like a job.  I think some people feel this way but the vast majority just aren't interested in pursuing the study of ttrpg's to the degree you and some others are... some people barely want to read a single rulebook.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> This sounds like a job.  I think some people feel this way but the vast majority just aren't interested in pursuing the study of ttrpg's to the degree you and some others are... some people barely want to read a single rulebook.




It’s not a job. It’s a hobby and people can and should engage with it in whatever manner they like. But wanting to improve isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing. 

If we were talking about sports or video games or poker or any other kind of game, I don’t know if this sentiment would come up. Wanting to improve doesn’t mean you become some kind of obsessed lunatic who forces everyone else to play with the same dedication. That’s just nonsense. 

And I don’t think folks taking part in a thread about play analysis for nearly 1500 posts and bordering on a month’s time would fall into any kind of “casual” classification. 

Let me ask you...do you think your skill as a GM or a player can improve? Do you think your enjoyment of RPGs can be enhanced or broadened or changed? 

I’d be surprised if just about anyone here said “no” to those questions.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> This sounds like a job.  I think some people feel this way but the vast majority just aren't interested in pursuing the study of ttrpg's to the degree you and some others are... some people barely want to read a single rulebook.




I don't have the time to digest posts, formulate my thoughts and appropriately respond to all of my pending responses.

But I'm curious about this.

This happens so often in these threads.  Outside of just conveying the words you've typed out above, what is it that animates a person (in this case imaro of ENWorld, but others like BRG and Lanefan who hold this same position) to (i) go to a conversation that is engaged in technical discussion and (ii) tell the people engaging in technical level discussion that the majority of fans/hobbyists are indifferent to a technical discussion of their leisure activity/hobby?

What is the impulse here?

Its an extreme curiosity of mine because I'm this way with several hobbies of mine from (a) Baseball and Football Analytics, to (b) serious NFL game film breakdown, to (c) extensive NFL prospect film eval (and Big Board creation), to (d) BJJ conversation and analysis.

Without fail, just like here when it comes to TTRGPs, there is a certain segment of people who invariably do exactly what you're doing here.  And those same people are SERIOUSLY adversarial toward both the interest in deep-dive technical evaluation of all of the above and feel inclined to do the (i) and (ii) above (actively seek out conversations to go to and tell those involved that what they're doing is extreme minority behavior and proceed to get hostile about it).

The symmetry is eerie.

What is it that makes you guys (and I'm assuming all of the other people that do this exact same things in the aforementioned (a) - (d) above) do this?  Do you think myself or others like me are suddenly going to go "oh...yeah, well, hell I didn't even think of it like that...I guess I'll just stop!"

What is the impulse you're following?  What realization or behavioral adjustment is it that you're trying to compel me toward?


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not a job. It’s a hobby and people can and should engage with it in whatever manner they like. But wanting to improve isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing.



Who said it was a bad thing? But its also not a bad thing to view a game as a game.


hawkeyefan said:


> If we were talking about sports or video games or poker or any other kind of game, I don’t know if this sentiment would come up. Wanting to improve doesn’t mean you become some kind of obsessed lunatic who forces everyone else to play with the same dedication. That’s just nonsense.



Who said any of this?


hawkeyefan said:


> And I don’t think folks taking part in a thread about play analysis for nearly 1500 posts and bordering on a month’s time would fall into any kind of “casual” classification.
> 
> Let me ask you...do you think your skill as a GM or a player can improve? Do you think your enjoyment of RPGs can be enhanced or broadened or changed?



I think I have other priorities and thus the amount of time, effort, study, and experimentation I put into getting better at ttrpg's are weighed against those. I think for more casual players it may be something that interests them very little if at all.


hawkeyefan said:


> I’d be surprised if just about anyone here said “no” to those questions.



And that would prove?? Or do you think most of us here are representative of the majority of people who play ttrpg's?


----------



## Manbearcat

One other question I'd be curious to get the answer on (this struck me a few hours ago).

Is the issue that some people have with technical analysis/demystifying GMing and TTRPGs have something to do with the idea of "taking the romance out of it?"  Sort of the same complaint that gets levied at evolutionary biology/psychology and Neuroendocrinology for breaking down love and attraction to process and its constituent parts/regimes?


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> One other question I'd be curious to get the answer on (this struck me a few hours ago).
> 
> Is the issue that some people have with technical analysis/demystifying GMing and TTRPGs have something to do with the idea of "taking the romance out of it?"  Sort of the same complaint that gets levied at evolutionary biology/psychology and Neuroendocrinology for breaking down love and attraction to process and its constituent parts/regimes?



I think a better comparison is the essay "Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas" in "The Watchmen." (Leaving aside whether the sciences you name have completely "solved" attraction and/or love as a different question.) There is a perpetual ... idea? concern? ... that analysis can destroy the ability to appreciate beauty (Dead Poets' Society is another example of this thinking, I think) and while I think I understand the worry I don't think I completely agree with it.

The only thing in your previous post I have any real knowledge of is baseball analytics. I think I'm inclined to say the heavy use of sabremetrics has rendered the game less aesthetically pleasing than it was, say, fifteen years ago. The game reduced to three true outcomes is stultifying. That's not saying the analysis is wrong, just that I don't like the game as much when it's played to the math.

How does that relate to TRPGs? I'm not really sure. Given that in my head GMing seems to come from the same place as writing fiction did, and GMing without prep _feels_ a lot like free-writing (which never, ever intimidated me), it's plausible-shading-to-likely that I'm coming at them from an entirely different angle than you are. I know I get something out of conversations with people coming from different positions/angles, and I'm inclined to presume others do, too. That's what I'm aiming for, not to direct anyone toward any specific realization or behavioral change.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Is the issue that some people have with technical analysis/demystifying GMing and TTRPGs have something to do with the idea of "taking the romance out of it?"  Sort of the same complaint that gets levied at evolutionary biology/psychology and Neuroendocrinology for breaking down love and attraction to process and its constituent parts/regimes?




No, this isn't it at all. it isn't that you are demystifying anything like a biologist. It is that we disagree with many of your conclusions and your analysis. And that is fair. If you post an idea that purports to explain how RPGs work, or if you post an idea advancing one style of play over another, people are going to push back if they disagree. We could just give you an echo chamber if that is what you prefer. But I think it is a lot more normal for people on a forum like this to have disagreements and for there not to be a consensus because there are lots of different schools of thought in RPGs and a lot of different styles.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I don't have the time to digest posts, formulate my thoughts and appropriately respond to all of my pending responses.
> 
> But I'm curious about this.
> 
> This happens so often in these threads.  Outside of just conveying the words you've typed out above, what is it that animates a person (in this case imaro of ENWorld, but others like BRG and Lanefan who hold this same position) to (i) go to a conversation that is engaged in technical discussion and (ii) tell the people engaging in technical level discussion that the majority of fans/hobbyists are indifferent to a technical discussion of their leisure activity/hobby?
> 
> What is the impulse here?
> 
> Its an extreme curiosity of mine because I'm this way with several hobbies of mine from (a) Baseball and Football Analytics, to (b) serious NFL game film breakdown, to (c) extensive NFL prospect film eval (and Big Board creation), to (d) BJJ conversation and analysis.
> 
> Without fail, just like here when it comes to TTRGPs, there is a certain segment of people who invariably do exactly what you're doing here.  And those same people are SERIOUSLY adversarial toward both the interest in deep-dive technical evaluation of all of the above and feel inclined to do the (i) and (ii) above (actively seek out conversations to go to and tell those involved that what they're doing is extreme minority behavior and proceed to get hostile about it).
> 
> The symmetry is eerie.
> 
> What is it that makes you guys (and I'm assuming all of the other people that do this exact same things in the aforementioned (a) - (d) above) do this?  Do you think myself or others like me are suddenly going to go "oh...yeah, well, hell I didn't even think of it like that...I guess I'll just stop!"
> 
> What is the impulse you're following?  What realization or behavioral adjustment is it that you're trying to compel me toward?



Let me ask a counter question... if your technical analysis, deep dives and pontificating of playstyles about gaming don't apply or aren't even discussed by the vast majority of the playerbase... what practical purpose besides the self gratification of a small niche group of posters does it serve? 

Again I'm pushing for discussion of actual techniques and concrete tools...Which is what I thought this thread was about since the OP's question was around the purpose of GM notes, but like most of these discussions it quickly devolved into a back and forth around groupings, nomenclature and classifications that not only havent taken hold with the playerbase at large even after years of existing but also don't apply or matter to the vast majority of people playing ttrpg's... something examples and actual discussion of GM notes would... so yeah sometimes I feel a reminder about the impractical nature of this type of discussion, especially when it overtakes what could be  a discussion that would have actual practical application for the majority of the hobby, is waranted.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> I think a better comparison is the essay "Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas" in "The Watchmen." (Leaving aside whether the sciences you name have completely "solved" attraction and/or love as a different question.) There is a perpetual ... idea? concern? ... that analysis can destroy the ability to appreciate beauty (Dead Poets' Society is another example of this thinking, I think) and while I think I understand the worry I don't think I completely agree with it.
> 
> The only thing in your previous post I have any real knowledge of is baseball analytics. I think I'm inclined to say the heavy use of sabremetrics has rendered the game less aesthetically pleasing than it was, say, fifteen years ago. The game reduced to three true outcomes is stultifying. That's not saying the analysis is wrong, just that I don't like the game as much when it's played to the math.
> 
> How does that relate to TRPGs? I'm not really sure. Given that in my head GMing seems to come from the same place as writing fiction did, and GMing without prep _feels_ a lot like fre-writing (which never, ever intimidated me), it's plausible-shading-to-likely that I'm coming at them from an entirely different angle than you are. I know I get something out of conversations with people coming from different positions/angles, and I'm inclined to presume others do, too. That's what I'm aiming for, not to direct anyone toward any specific realization or behavioral change.




On baseball - 

This is a great point and I agree with the implications.  However, what I will say is (a) analytics don't take away the glorious tail of the distribution romance that happens with baseball so often and (b) while it has created a minor blip in parity (which is a good thing), by no means has it (or can it) drown out the other variables of baseball (the "pay to play" nature of Big Market advantage + the massive advantage of 3 big arms + bullpen + analytics having a much reduced say in a swingy 7 game vs a 162 game season).

Finally, even if baseball does endure a "Romance Shift" due to analytics (I don't see it happening because, again, Postseason baseball sees the signature of analytics significantly reduced...the big market teams are still overwhelmingly going to be playing for and winning Pennants), there will just be an re-orienting of perspective.  The fans will adjust over time (but, again, I don't think they'll have to because the romance of Postseason baseball is still governed by all of the "stuff" that made the game so beloved).

On you - 

The payoff for you is different but you're not the target audience here.  I don't see you regularly doing what I'm talking about in the above post, whereas there is a facet of ENWorld and a facet of tons of other leisure/hobby groups that does exactly what I depicted above.

I'm curious about what animates them and what their conceptual payoff would be.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Without fail, just like here when it comes to TTRGPs, there is a certain segment of people who invariably do exactly what you're doing here.  *And those same people are SERIOUSLY adversarial* toward both the interest in deep-dive technical evaluation of all of the above and feel inclined to do the (i) and (ii) above (actively seek out conversations to go to and tell those involved that what they're doing is extreme minority behavior and proceed to get hostile about it).




I will certainly admit to being pugnacious about a few key issues in RPGs. But I think if you think this you are being extremely blind to the adversarial posts on your own side of the fence in the discussion. But I am not simply weighing in to be a jerk. When I disagree over something I think is important in the hobby, I make a point of being honest about disagreement with people. I think that is what you are supposed to do in any discussion (whether you feel outnumbered, or intellectually inferior to others, you still ought to say when you think people are wrong).


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> No, this isn't it at all. it isn't that you are demystifying anything like a biologist. It is that we disagree with many of your conclusions and your analysis. And that is fair. If you post an idea that purports to explain how RPGs work, or if you post an idea advancing one style of play over another, people are going to push back if they disagree. We could just give you an echo chamber if that is what you prefer. But I think it is a lot more normal for people on a forum like this to have disagreements and for there not to be a consensus because there are lots of different schools of thought in RPGs and a lot of different styles.




This in no way addresses what I wrote above and the implication that I want an echo chamber?

Seriously?  That is your response to me?

I'm not talking about disagreements about analysis here.  I'm talking about the propensity for people to effectively come to a thread and say "no one cares...this is all navel-gazing...the entire world of x hobby persists completely unabated by your windmill tilting."

I'm curious about what animates that SPECIFIC behavior (not the disagreement with details of the analysis) and what is the payoff?

See @prabe 's extremely insightful and interesting response regarding baseball analytics (this is actually the case study that provoked the question in my mind) regarding beauty and analysis of "revered thing" (whatever it might be).  The analysis could be utter crap.  I'm curious if merely attempting to break it down to its constituent parts and reveal the machinery is "romance-harming", lets say.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I will certainly admit to being pugnacious about a few key issues in RPGs. But I think if you think this you are being extremely blind to the adversarial posts on your own side of the fence in the discussion. But I am not simply weighing in to be a jerk. When I disagree over something I think is important in the hobby, I make a point of being honest about disagreement with people. I think that is what you are supposed to do in any discussion (whether you feel outnumbered, or intellectually inferior to others, you still ought to say when you think people are wrong).




Can you please respond to what I'm asking.  This isn't a response to what I'm asking above.   

And please stop with the partisan "your own side" stuff.  This isn't about sides.  I'm asking about a specific thing that happens on all hobby boards.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Can you please respond to what I'm asking.  This isn't a response to what I'm asking above.
> 
> And please stop with the partisan "your own side" stuff.  This isn't about sides.  I'm asking about a specific thing that happens on all hobby boards.




I did respond to your post. If you are going to wonder aloud if the reason is people feel their game is being demystified by your analysis and suggest we are being highly adversarial, that is my response. And it is a fair one in my opinion


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> This in no way addresses what I wrote above and the implication that I want an echo chamber?
> 
> Seriously?  That is your response to me?




Yes, because your post seems to be a request that we stop disagreeing with your analysis (or that we admit to some ulterior motive about our own posts in the thread)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> And please stop with the partisan "your own side" stuff.  This isn't about sides.  I'm asking about a specific thing that happens on all hobby boards.




Your post frames it as a partisan issue (you grouped us together as people who come in and attack the discussion)


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Let me ask a counter question... if your technical analysis, deep dives and *pontificating *of playstyles about gaming don't apply or aren't even discussed by the vast majority of the playerbase... what practical purpose besides the *self gratification* of a small niche group of posters does it serve?




Before I go further with talking to you about this, I want to make sure that we're both on the same page with what you're saying here with the deployment of "pontification" for "self-gratification." 

I don't know if you think this word is benign, but its not (*pompous and dogmatic*).  If you aren't aware that you're telling me I'm pompous and dogmatic and you meant another word...totally cool, just let me know and I accept that.

If you do mean it, then this is actually accidentally revelatory because it is precisely what I was looking for.  My sense is that there is a very high likelihood that people on hobby sites perceive the kind of thing I'm talking about as *pompous*. And there is a not-insignificant subset of people who go on attack when they perceive *pompous*.

So was this an accident (wrong word usage)?  Or are you purposefully or accidentally telling me what you think (of me and of this conversation and these conversations) and what is animating you (yet the payoff is still to be determined...typically when someone attacks someone they perceive as pompous or dogmatic, they want that person to be publicly "cut down to size" and issue some kind of mea culpa...unclear if that is the theoretical payoff here).



So I'll answer your question above, but I need to know if you're revealing exactly what I hypothesized about what is going on here (the perception of a bunch of pompous asses navel-gazing their way to self-gratification).

If that is what you think...that is cool.  I just want to hear you confirm my suspicions by cementing what you've written above.

I'll still answer the rest of your post, but understand that if I had to hypothesize what drives the kind of behavior I was talking about above, it would have 100 % have been what you wrote above -

"...because pompous, dogmatic asses, who is navel-gazing their way to self-gratification on a public forum need to be challenged and put in their place."

And understand that this reality puts us in the most hostile, most adversarial relationship possible on a message board.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> See @prabe 's extremely insightful and interesting response regarding baseball analytics (this is actually the case study that provoked the question in my mind) regarding beauty and analysis of "revered thing" (whatever it might be).  The analysis could be utter crap.  I'm curious if merely attempting to break it down to its constituent parts and reveal the machinery is "romance-harming", lets say.




For me this isn't the issue. The issue isn't that you are 'romance harming' it is that I disagree with the analysis and its conclusion. It is that I don't like having perfectly useful terminology taken away from me (under the guise of demystifying) but then all the replacements for that terminology seem a little self serving and even more mystifying


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Who said it was a bad thing? But its also not a bad thing to view a game as a game.




Well you described it as work, and of the “ugh work” kind and not the rewarding kind, so that’s what I was saying. And no, there’s nothing wrong with treating a game like a game. 

What I would say is wrong is thinking that a person can’t simultaneously want to improve their skill at a game and also remain aware that it is a game. 



Imaro said:


> Who said any of this?



Right here:


Bedrockgames said:


> 2) lots of people, probably most, engage in leisure activities to unwind and kick back. If you have a table of four chill people and you are trying to amp up the energy and get them to ‘bring their A game’ you are totally misreading the room (and probably reducing their enjoyment of the past time)




It’s just silly. It’s like saying if I want to work out and get in shape I’m going to become some muscle head with no etiquette, dropping dumbbells and  grunting loud enough to get the entire gym’s attention.



Imaro said:


> I think I have other priorities and thus the amount of time, effort, study, and experimentation I put into getting better at ttrpg's are weighed against those. I think for more casual players it may be something that interests them very little if at all.




Sure that’s fine. Who here is a casual gamer? 

You give me a thread where a general RPG question is posed, and I’ll approach it with the idea that there may be some new or inexperienced GMs/players who may see it, and my advice will be tailored accordingly. 

But as I said, I don’t think anyone here in this thread at this point is likely to fit that description. 

We’re all gamers here. Enthusiasts of the hobby. My comments are tailored accordingly. 



Imaro said:


> And that would prove?? Or do you think most of us here are representative of the majority of people who play ttrpg's?




What would it prove? I don’t know if it would prove anything...I’m simply stating what I’d expect of people engaged in this kind of conversation for this long, about a creative hobby. 

As I said, conversations like these (at its best parts) have expanded my enjoyment of the hobby. There have been some similar bright spots in this thread. It isn’t all just argument for the sake of argument.


----------



## Arilyn

I think all hobbyists generally like to improve their skills. Gardeners want better vegetables or amazing flower beds. Golfers want to improve their swings and painters work on composition and brush strokes. Considering the huge number of You Tube channels focussing on role playing tips and advice, I think there must be a lot of role players wanting to improve too. 

It doesn't have to be a burden. I have recently decided that my fight scenes are lack lustre, so I've been deliberately working on improving my descriptions both as a player or GM. I am interested in Story Now, so I read pemerton's posts, as well as other proponents, and have been giving it a whirl. I guess it's technically work, but it's work I enjoy. I'm assuming even the most casual beer and pretzel GM likes to hone skills to keep the players coming back for more.

How players improve their skills vary. Some might just watch a favourite you tuber, others play a wide variety of games, or discuss techniques on forums. Some dedicate a lot of time improving their craft, whereas others are improving simply by playing or GMing.

Saying that role playing is just for fun and improvements don't have to happen or be a priority seems an odd sentiment. Even the most casual player will improve just by doing. Role playing is engaging, and  learning new techniques and working on particular skills is too, and I don't think this is only true for "hard core" RPG philosophers. 

And BTW, doing deep dives into game philosophy and techniques is interesting, which is one reason these kinds of threads get so long.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> If you do mean it, then this is actually accidentally revelatory because it is precisely what I was looking for.  My sense is that there is a very high likelihood that people on hobby sites perceive the kind of thing I'm talking about as *pompous*. And there is a not-insignificant subset of people who go on attack when they perceive *pompous*.




I can definitely say I find much of this discussion pompous. But I don't find analysis on its own pompous. And someone being pompous is still not enough to make me dislike them or want to be adversarial. I have enjoyed a lot of our exchanges for example (when I haven't felt like I was being belittled). But I think the way in which the analysis is done and the certainty around it is one of the things that makes it feel pompous to me here. 

But I was pretty clear about this I feel earlier in the thread that one of the things I don't like is the intellectual bullying I see. I get a bit snappy when I see that, or when I feel like someone is saying I am an idiot (and I definitely feel I have seen this and been on the receiving end of the latter). But I also am not here to get angry or make enemies. I am always happy to move on and answer questions that feel sincere, and are not insulting. And I am always happy to hit the reset button.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> Your post frames it as a partisan issue (you grouped us together as people who come in and attack the discussion)




I grouped you with a few other people who typically express some formulation of the below refrain:

"this stuff is extremely niche...you are an extreme minority within a minority...the overwhelming majority of the hobby isn't impacted and doesn't care."

You do that.  It is a fact.  Its not "grouping you together."  Its describing a particular refrain and those who express it. There is nothing partisan about that and there is nothing personal in saying that a few people say this thing.

It would be like if you went in the opposite direction and said "Manbearcat commonly says digging into TTRPG theory and performing hardcore post-mortems on play excerpts is very helpful for TTRPG players to improve their craft...and so does x, y, and z."

Why in the world would I perceive that as a partisan attack or perceive that as you getting personal?  Its a fact about me.  Its undeniably true.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I grouped you with a few other people who typically express some formulation of the below refrain:
> 
> "this stuff is extremely niche...you are an extreme minority within a minority...the overwhelming majority of the hobby isn't impacted and doesn't care."
> 
> You do that.  It is a fact.  Its not "grouping you together."  Its describing a particular refrain and those who express it. There is nothing partisan about that and there is nothing personal in saying that a few people say this thing.
> 
> It would be like if you went in the opposite direction and said "Manbearcat commonly says digging into TTRPG theory and performing hardcore post-mortems on play excerpts is very helpful for TTRPG players to improve their craft...and so does x, y, and z."
> 
> Why in the world would I perceive that as a partisan attack or perceive that as you getting personal?  Its a fact about me.  Its undeniably true.




I don't disagree but then why is it partisan to talk about sides, when there are clearly sides in the discussion. I was just responding here to you saying I was being partisan. I get not everyone fits neatly into those sides, but there are two groups of posters with opposing views; no?  It just makes the conversation easier to speak about it in terms of sides


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I can definitely say I find much of this discussion pompous. But I don't find analysis on its own pompous. And someone being pompous is still not enough to make me dislike them or want to be adversarial. I have enjoyed a lot of our exchanges for example (when I haven't felt like I was being belittled). But I think the way in which the analysis is done and the certainty around it is one of the things that makes it feel pompous to me here.
> 
> But I was pretty clear about this I feel earlier in the thread that one of the things I don't like is the intellectual bullying I see. I get a bit snappy when I see that, or when I feel like someone is saying I am an idiot (and I definitely feel I have seen this and been on the receiving end of the latter). But I also am not here to get angry or make enemies. I am always happy to move on and answer questions that feel sincere, and are not insulting. And I am always happy to hit the reset button.




This is all I was looking for.  There was no trap.  No gotcha.  We didn't need to have any alternative discussion.

"The discussion and the participants are pompous and they engage in intellectual bullying.  This kind of behavior needs to be challenged."

That was my hypothesis on what happens here and what happens elsewhere.

So now that we have confirmed that is true.  What is the payoff you're looking for?  What is the behavioral or cultural adjustment you're hoping takes place after the challenge has been performed?


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> Before I go further with talking to you about this, I want to make sure that we're both on the same page with what you're saying here with the deployment of "pontification" for "self-gratification."
> 
> I don't know if you think this word is benign, but its not (*pompous and dogmatic*).  If you aren't aware that you're telling me I'm pompous and dogmatic and you meant another word...totally cool, just let me know and I accept that.
> 
> If you do mean it, then this is actually accidentally revelatory because it is precisely what I was looking for.  My sense is that there is a very high likelihood that people on hobby sites perceive the kind of thing I'm talking about as *pompous*. And there is a not-insignificant subset of people who go on attack when they perceive *pompous*.
> 
> So was this an accident (wrong word usage)?  Or are you purposefully or accidentally telling me what you think (of me and of this conversation and these conversations) and what is animating you (yet the payoff is still to be determined...typically when someone attacks someone they perceive as pompous or dogmatic, they want that person to be publicly "cut down to size" and issue some kind of mea culpa...unclear if that is the theoretical payoff here).
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll answer your question above, but I need to know if you're revealing exactly what I hypothesized about what is going on here (the perception of a bunch of pompous asses navel-gazing their way to self-gratification).
> 
> If that is what you think...that is cool.  I just want to hear you confirm my suspicions by cementing what you've written above.
> 
> I'll still answer the rest of your post, but understand that if I had to hypothesize what drives the kind of behavior I was talking about above, it would have 100 % have been what you wrote above -
> 
> "...because pompous, dogmatic asses, who is navel-gazing their way to self-gratification on a public forum need to be challenged and put in their place."
> 
> And understand that this reality puts us in the most hostile, most adversarial relationship possible on a message board.



I find a large part of this conversation comes off as pompous. I don't know you personally so I can't comment on you as a person or your motivations, I can only speak to how the tone of many of the posts in the thread come off to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s just silly. It’s like saying if I want to work out and get in shape I’m going to become some muscle head with no etiquette, dropping dumbbells and  grunting loud enough to get the entire gym’s attention.




I work out a lot and go to the gym. It can be very easy to become a muscle head without meaning to. It can also be easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone engages fitness in the same way, and that can cause friction. I am not saying an interest in taking RPGs seriously automatically translates into table issues. But my post was in response to the intensity of the original post, which to me seemed to be going in that direction.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't disagree but then why is it partisan to talk about sides, when there are clearly sides in the discussion. I was just responding here to you saying I was being partisan. I get not everyone fits neatly into those sides, but there are two groups of posters with opposing views; no?  It just makes the conversation easier to speak about it in terms of sides




Its partisan because its not true.  It isn't a true statement that I'm not "team D&D" or "team D&D sandbox" or whatever.  And the same thing for several other posters.  But its clear that your orientation toward me (and others) is that me being "team D&D" is not true (its clear you perceive me...and have as long as I can recall...as some kind of adversary...so you come into this through a partisan lens).

If ENWorld wasn't culturally the way it is (let us say it was exclusively a bunch of indie gamers that don't touch D&D and maybe there is a cultural inertia against D&D), you would see me in the exact opposite direction.  I am a HUGE D&D fan.  HUGE.  If you guys think you're a bigger fan of D&D than me, you're flat wrong.  I love it and I have defended it my whole life from the misperceptions and stigmas of our greater society.  I still do to this day.  But, on ENWorld, D&D is profoundly and consistently anointed.  It doesn't remotely need my defense.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> 1) people have very different definitions of ‘best’ in RPGs
> 
> 2) lots of people, probably most, engage in leisure activities to unwind and kick back. If you have a table of four chill people and you are trying to amp up the energy and get them to ‘bring their A game’ you are totally misreading the room (and probably reducing their enjoyment of the past time)



There's a game I play in that's fantastic, but the energy is super high.  We had one guy show up for a game and at the end of the night he was like, "That was the best game I've ever played in.  ::still shaking from adrenalin:::  I'm never coming back."  High energy has it's perks, but it's a very different kind of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> So now that we have confirmed that is true.  What is the payoff you're looking for?  What is the behavioral or cultural adjustment you're hoping takes place after the challenge has been performed?




That is an oversimplification. I originally weighed in because I felt the OPs framing was a bit of a trap (and I clearly stated that). But then I found myself drawn into a discussion about sandboxes, living worlds etc, which I was genuinely interested in once it got started. But I find when I participate in threads with people like you and Pemerton (and other posters who frequently post in the same threads), I find myself seeing posts that fit the above description and I feel the need to respond. For me there isn't any payoff, I think I am just built to react negatively when I feel like I see that stuff. If there is a payoff, maybe it's a hope that there is a place to bridge the gap, or possibly persuade people. Also, I think one of the reasons I post in reaction to things I disagree with strongly is I feel that its important.  A lot of people read these threads but don't post. And even people who post, are often afraid to disagree with something for fear of looking stupid. I think it is useful for people, when there appears to be a consensus around a conclusion in a thread, to be a dissenting voice if you disagree.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Its partisan because its not true.  It isn't a true statement that I'm not "team D&D" or "team D&D sandbox" or whatever.  And the same thing for several other posters.  But its clear that your orientation toward me (and others) is that me being "team D&D" is not true (its clear you perceive me...and have as long as I can recall...as some kind of adversary...so you come into this through a partisan lens).
> 
> If ENWorld wasn't culturally the way it is (let us say it was exclusively a bunch of indie gamers that don't touch D&D and maybe there is a cultural inertia against D&D), you would see me in the exact opposite direction.  I am a HUGE D&D fan.  HUGE.  If you guys think you're a bigger fan of D&D than me, you're flat wrong.  I love it and I have defended it my whole life from the misperceptions and stigmas of our greater society.  I still do to this day.  But, on ENWorld, D&D is profoundly and consistently anointed.  It doesn't remotely need my defense.




I don't play D&D


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Its partisan because its not true.  It isn't a true statement that I'm not "team D&D" or "team D&D sandbox" or whatever.  And the same thing for several other posters.  But its clear that your orientation toward me (and others) is that me being "team D&D" is not true (its clear you perceive me...and have as long as I can recall...as some kind of adversary...so you come into this through a partisan lens).



I wasn't saying you were team anti-D&D. I was seeing you more as team "Y mode of analysis"


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> That is an oversimplification. I originally weighed in because I felt the OPs framing was a bit of a trap (and I clearly stated that). But then I found myself drawn into a discussion about sandboxes, living worlds etc, which I was genuinely interested in once it got started. But I find when I participate in threads with people like you and Pemerton (and other posters who frequently post in the same threads), I find myself seeing posts that fit the above description and I feel the need to respond. For me there isn't any payoff, I think I am just built to react negatively when I feel like I see that stuff. If there is a payoff, maybe* it's a hope that there is a place to bridge the gap, or possibly persuade people*. Also, I think one of the reasons I post in reaction to things I disagree with strongly is I feel that its important.  *A lot of people read these threads but don't post. And even people who post, are often afraid to disagree with something for fear of looking stupid. I think it is useful for people, when there appears to be a consensus around a conclusion in a thread, to be a dissenting voice if you disagree.*




Ok, that is what I was looking for man.  I wish we could have saved all of the rest of this and you would have just written this paragraph.

* Meeting of the minds

and/or

* Persuade the other side to move toward my position or off their position

and/or

* Fight for the hearts and the minds of the people who are either interested onlookers or afraid to engage (some sort of Culture War impetus).

That is what I was looking for (and those would be 3 that all seemed likely).


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> Viewing hit points as dissociative is fairly easy, if that's what one wants to do.
> 
> It's also every bit as easy to view them as having a connection to the fiction and causing/requiring fictional changes (at least in terms of description) as they are lost, if that's what one wants to do.
> 
> And this is perhaps the underlying root of the argument about what hit points represent.  The hit-points-as-plot-armour side views them more dissociatively, the hit-points-as-meat side views tham as having a basis in the fiction.
> 
> Or - as many do - one can see them as kind of a combination of both the above: to some extent plot armour, to some extent meat; and the dividing line on where one becomes the other varies for everyone.



Doesn't this challenge the very idea of "dissociative mechanics"?

You've just presented the argument that dissociation in mechanics is a matter of perspective, not the inherent character. It is no longer accurate to say that every mechanic is inherently associative or dissociative.



Lanefan said:


> It's only an abuse of the GM's authority if she doesn't give out information the PCs should reasonably have access to.  However, note this does NOT include foreshadowing every hidden hazard the PCs are about to face: it's on the PCs to assume there's potentially danger at every turn and to approach things in that frame of mind.
> 
> It's not an abuse in the slightest if the PCs neglect their due diligence and-or throw caution to the wind.



And the serious problem lies exactly there: _which_ "information the PCs should reasonably have access to."

Well, that and instilling a deep and fundamental paranoia into your players isn't necessarily the healthiest or most enjoyable gaming experience.



Imaro said:


> Wait... in the context of ttrpg's how are you defining getting better. I think for many nowadays rpg's for most are like a poker night or boardgame night as opposed to a field of study or job they are trying to get better at... but I might not be fully grasping the usage here.



Question: If I write poetry for personal enjoyment, is it totally impossible to make sense of the idea that I want to improve my ability to do so? For example, increasing my vocabulary, reading example poems to see what other authors have done, or writing down interesting phrases I hear from others, would all seem examples of ways to improve my writing abilities, even though I do it purely because I enjoy it.



Imaro said:


> Eh I play games to have fun with my friends and family... if thats happening I'm not to worried about getting better.
> 
> Edit I guess I could ask them to study other games and playstyles so that our fun might get "better" but the group probably wouldn't be interested in this type of homework to facilitate better fun.



I guess I find that attitude really hard to grasp. Even when I do something because I like it (such as cooking for my family), I want to cook a really enjoyable meal. I ask for feedback and listen, and I experiment with new things (sometimes because I have to, but often because I want to). Sure, I don't want to be giving 110% literally every time, but I'd much rather deliver a meal that the family says, "Wow, that was great!" than one that we never finish off the leftovers because it was merely adequate. Likewise, when I run my game for my friends (the only people I would run a game for), I want it to be more than just an adequate experience. I truly work to make the most enjoyable game possible, and that means trying to do better over time.



Imaro said:


> This sounds like a job.  I think some people feel this way but the vast majority just aren't interested in pursuing the study of ttrpg's to the degree you and some others are... some people barely want to read a single rulebook.



There's a difference, IMO, between reading a rulebook and understanding design principles and techniques. The former is restricted to a single system. The latter is a generic skill you can bring to _anything_ you do in gaming, improving the games you provide. And it doesn't need to be incredibly fancy. This is stuff like (for example) learning how much probability affects the outcomes of things, so you can make your own random-gen tables or new moves (or whatever) to suit what you and your group want/need.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> I find a large part of this conversation comes off as pompous. I don't know you personally so I can't comment on you as a person or your motivations, I can only speak to how the tone of many of the posts in the thread come off to me.




That is what I was looking for and what I figured.  I appreciate your honesty.

You haven't told me the payoff you're looking for when you express what I wrote in the initial post yet, but here is why I engage on these subjects.

* I am a giant narcissist with a fragile, flailing ego and I desperately need people to think I'm smart and interesting and special.

* I'm a firm believer (in all things in life) that penetrating the mysteries of whatever you're doing and going as hard as you can is the best way to become "your best self" (at whatever it is you're doing).  Its aspirational.  I engage the material to challenge myself and challenge others to this end.

* Specific to the TTRPGing hobby, my sense (obviously) is that people playing a wider variety of games will be rewarding for them and that diversity will help the hobby grow in multiple axes.  It will be good for the games they're playing now, it might get them to enjoy some other stuff as well, and, throughout that alchemy, it might seed a deeper diversification of the hobby at large (because one person bringing a new perception or a new game to a home table has downstream effects because of the multiple participants involved).

* The best way I know to get better at something is be humble, scrutinize your efforts (whatever that might entail), have others scrutinize your efforts and grow from that.  When it comes to TTRPGs, I get better when I work my way through a post mortem of one of my games.  Just the practice of mentally recalling it in my mind is helpful.  But then going a step further to scrutinizing it (particularly where I felt I had a problem or didn't perform optimally).  Self-scrutiny and the sanitizing light of others is enormously helpful.  This is why I encourage intense post-mortem of the actual machinery of play (not an abstracted narrative of the play...the nuts-and-bolts of the play).  The biggest improvements I've made is when I've been challenged (by myself or by others) and have either (a) become better at articulating the conceptual space that we're discussing or (b) I've "downloaded" a different perspective on a grey issue and I've assimilated that for the future (which helps in a host of ways).



Unrelated to TTRPGing, take Football prospect analysis.  Evaluating the Edge (On-ball Linebacker or Defensive End) is difficult.  I didn't play that position (I was a Defensive Back - both CB and S) but I certainly understand it.  Through intense effort and correction by others with a better trained eye than myself I learned not just how the alchemy of (a) Snap Anticipation + (b) Burst + (c) Bend + (d) Effective Hand Usage + (e) Developing an Effective Pass Rush Suit/Counters comes together to create the base foundation for a promising prospect.  And not just the reality of that, but what that looks like on film (and when a prospect doesn't possess those traits...what that looks like).  There are several other facets of productive Edge play (identifying Pullers and Spilling them, attacking with the appropriate leverage, Stacking and Shedding in the run game, converting Speed to Power, how length and frame intersects with all of this), but that is the base.

I'm very glad I learned that through aggressive analysis and conversations with a wide variety of people from different backgrounds (along with my own intense regime of self-learning).  It helped me improve.  The exact same process of my TTRPGing could be ported over in lockstep to evaluating NFL Draft Prospects (and I give the same advice to people looking to be better at it).


----------



## Manbearcat

Well, I was hoping to get to the deluge of older posts out there that I have yet to respond to.  I thought this was going to be an innocuous aside (surprise!)!

I'll try to get back to the "offline/online" content evolution discussion tomorrow.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I work out a lot and go to the gym. It can be very easy to become a muscle head without meaning to. It can also be easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone engages fitness in the same way, and that can cause friction. I am not saying an interest in taking RPGs seriously automatically translates into table issues. But my post was in response to the intensity of the original post, which to me seemed to be going in that direction.




I don’t think that we should conflate the idea of “always doing our best” with the kind of over indulgence and lack if etiquette you’ve implied.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> I work out a lot and go to the gym. It can be very easy to become a muscle head without meaning to. It can also be easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone engages fitness in the same way, and that can cause friction. I am not saying an interest in taking RPGs seriously automatically translates into table issues. But my post was in response to the intensity of the original post, which to me seemed to be going in that direction.




I believe in self selection. Just like I'm going to search out training partners who want to train in the same way I want to train I choose to game with people with compatible tastes. I'm also very selective about the friends I have. I have cultivated a particular approach to life and find I enjoy life a lot more when I'm around people who share a similar interest in cultivating skills and basically trying hard in every aspect of their life. I will not apologize for that.

I'm pretty considerate to most people. I certainly would not join a casual group and start playing the game super hard. That's a dick move.

What I tend to get from a lot of these conversations is that engaging in the way I choose to is somehow wrong. That I have the wrong desires. I do not care how anyone plays who is not presently sitting at a table with me. No one should.

"Most gamers" are irrelevant to me. I just care about the individual conversations we get to have here. That's why I'm not a fan of this debate club nonsense. No one speaks for me except me.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I can definitely say I find much of this discussion pompous. But I don't find analysis on its own pompous. And someone being pompous is still not enough to make me dislike them or want to be adversarial. I have enjoyed a lot of our exchanges for example (when I haven't felt like I was being belittled). But I think the way in which the analysis is done and the certainty around it is one of the things that makes it feel pompous to me here.
> 
> But I was pretty clear about this I feel earlier in the thread that one of the things I don't like is the intellectual bullying I see. I get a bit snappy when I see that, or when I feel like someone is saying I am an idiot (and I definitely feel I have seen this and been on the receiving end of the latter). But I also am not here to get angry or make enemies. I am always happy to move on and answer questions that feel sincere, and are not insulting. And I am always happy to hit the reset button.



See, what's funny is that I get a bit snappy when people like to repeatedly come onto threads to accuse other people who they disagree with of being pompous, engaging in intellectual bullying, while also making repeated passive aggressive barbs about the behavior of "the other side" and rudely try treating them as a monolithic entity or political block. 



Imaro said:


> I find a large part of this conversation comes off as pompous. I don't know you personally so I can't comment on you as a person or your motivations, I can only speak to how the tone of many of the posts in the thread come off to me.



I find most of the counter arguments raised against said "pompous conversation" to be needlessly rude, aggressive, hostile, anti-intellectual, and reactionary. I can't speak about you as a person either, just the tone of how many of the counter arguments in the thread come off to me. 



Bedrockgames said:


> That is an oversimplification. I originally weighed in because I felt the OPs framing was a bit of a trap (and I clearly stated that). But then I found myself drawn into a discussion about sandboxes, living worlds etc, which I was genuinely interested in once it got started. But I find when I participate in threads with people like you and Pemerton (and other posters who frequently post in the same threads), *I find myself seeing posts that fit the above description and I feel the need to respond. For me there isn't any payoff,* I think I am just built to react negatively when I feel like I see that stuff. If there is a payoff, maybe it's a hope that there is a place to bridge the gap, or possibly persuade people.



But you do? Maybe you should learn to stop posting in these threads? 



Bedrockgames said:


> Also, I think one of the reasons I post in reaction to things I disagree with strongly is I feel that its important.  A lot of people read these threads but don't post. And even people who post, are often afraid to disagree with something for fear of looking stupid. I think it is useful for people, when there appears to be a consensus around a conclusion in a thread, to be a dissenting voice if you disagree.



So you are fighting to naysay a minority gaming position on this forum on behalf of faceless people who likely hold the super majority mainstream positions, but mostly don't care about these discussions? How truly noble and valiant!


----------



## AnotherGuy

Let's not be to hasty to close this thread just yet, topics still to be covered - DoaPM (the Partial is silent), Ticket to Ride is BadWrongFun and Alignment _what is it evil for_?


----------



## Aldarc

Campbell said:


> I believe in self selection. Just like I'm going to search out training partners who want to train in the same way I want to train I choose to game with people with compatible tastes. I'm also very selective about the friends I have. I have cultivated a particular approach to life and find I enjoy life a lot more when I'm around people who share a similar interest in cultivating skills and basically trying hard in every aspect of their life. I will not apologize for that.



I don't think that it's pompous or intellectually self-serving to try understanding the fundamental differences in games, systems, and modes of play in our diverse hobby. Mainstream views in the hobby can definitely take the criticism it gets, and it doesn't need white knights defending it from internet nobodies. 

I wouldn't be interested in learning about the art and craft of this hobby if I didn't engage these sort of conversations that actually dared to question the normal paradigms of mainstream gaming. I have learned a lot about my own gaming preferences (and those outside of my preferences) through these conversations and how to elucidate those preferences that I have. These conversations have also expanded my growing list of games that I've played and would like to play. 

I understand that my level of philosophical engagement of the topic may not match the typical gamer, but look into any hobby. I enjoy watching basketball when I can, but there are people who love memorizing the stats, the plays, the rules, etc. That's not me, but I'm not one to brow beat others for engaging this at an overly intellectualized or mathematical level. One of my relatives is an amateur wildlife photographer. The level of engagement that they immerse themselves with is far beyond that of a casual photographer taking outdoor pictures. They are constantly reading, learning, practicing, engaging other amateur and professional wildlife photographers about how to make better nature photographs in terms of their their timing, their framing, their techniques, their equipment, their software, etc. For many people, myself included, they are perfectly fine with being the sort who takes casual photos in the wilderness. However, I wouldn't dare accuse them of intellectual fanwankery just because it's above my own level of engagement in the hobby. 



Campbell said:


> What I tend to get from a lot of these conversations is that engaging in the way I choose to is somehow wrong. That I have the wrong desires. I do not care how anyone plays who is not presently sitting at a table with me. No one should.
> 
> "Most gamers" are irrelevant to me. I just care about the individual conversations we get to have here. That's why I'm not a fan of this debate club nonsense. No one speaks for me except me.



Yeah. Same.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> I think there's a lot of value in the pursuit of mastery, even in your hobbies. Particularly in group hobbies. Developing new skills and getting better at existing skills is fun for me personally. In a shared hobby where we are all expected to contribute I think giving it your all is something you owe the other people you play with. Even from a completely selfish standpoint when you give it your all it's often contagious. You raise the bar and in doing so everyone starts to bring it more.
> 
> I believe in trying hard in everything you do. Professionally, personally, and in leisure activities. Obviously we all need to recover and we should make sure we properly prioritize things in our lives, but why not try to do our best rather than just good enough?



This is interesting.

I probably come at this with a different set of ideas. They might lead to the same general conclusion - I'm not sure.

When I'm GMing, I want the game to be _exciting_, _engaging _and at least a little bit _meaningful_. And I don't want the excitement to be 'performative', in the sense of gripping narration or suddenly raising my voice - I will do those things from time to time, but they're not what I'm thinking of for excitement. I mean that the fiction itself - as a set of shared ideas, possibilities, characters, situations - is exciting. The engagement and meaningfulness I'm hoping for aren't separate from this - given what players _do _in a RPG, which is manage their PCs and declare actions for them, I want the fiction itself to really call on them to declare actions, to act on it and through it; and I want the upshot of action resolution to have a bit of depth or weight to it.

I think this is something that I can get better at, by learning new techniques, paying attention to what I'm currently doing, thinking about what parts of the systems I'm using will help me push towards these goals and how I can use them more, etc.

When I'm playing (which is much less often), I want to live my character in the full sense of that idea - emotions, hopes, 'what will happen next for me?', etc. And I want to bring that out to the other participants. Sometimes this requires taking risks, or making calls, and sucking up setbacks. That's something I can improve at too.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not a job. It’s a hobby and people can and should engage with it in whatever manner they like. But wanting to improve isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing.



I have a good friend who plays local club snooker. He has a 3/4 size table at home that he practices on. He's not obsessive. He just enjoys his game and wants to get better.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, this post is agreeing with @hawkeyefan.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> having perfectly useful terminology taken away from me



No one has taken away anyone's terminology.

The fact that some people reject your terminology (eg because they think it's obfuscating) doesn't preclude you from using it. It does have the possible consequence that your communication with them will suffer, but sometimes that happens in life.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> No one has taken away anyone's terminology.
> 
> The fact that some people reject your terminology (eg because they think it's obfuscating) doesn't preclude you from using it. It does have the possible consequence that your communication with them will suffer, but sometimes that happens in life.



Yeah, I don't think that "living world" is bad terminology - though it does come across as "marketing speak"* - but as a term it's not necessarily pertinent or lucid in a discussion about the underlying process of play and differences with other game models with similar objectives but different play processes. It conflates the _ends_ with the _means_.

* The computer game Guild Wars 2 also markets itself as having a "Living World," but what they mean by this is not necessarily what a typical TTRPG sandbox game means by this. Yet they both use the term "Living World" to describe their ongoing fictional world. In fact, GW2 shows up in a Google search for "living world" long before it does for TTRPG sandbox play. Actually, I recall reading that "sandbox game" was actually a term coined by the video game community that the TTRPG community subsequently appropriated.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> What I tend to get from a lot of these conversations is that engaging in the way I choose to is somehow wrong. That I have the wrong desires. *I do not care how anyone plays who is not presently sitting at a table with me. No one should.
> 
> "Most gamers" are irrelevant to me. I just care about the individual conversations we get to have here.*



The two bits I've bolded are true for me too.

When it comes to how I ride my bike on the road, what everyone else is doing and expecting matters. If I try and cut against the grain, I might get hit by a car!

When it comes to how I engage with RPGing - either playing or posting - what everyone else is doing and expecting is irrelevant, _except _as something I might need to keep in mind to try and facilitate communication when I post.

The idea that me playing as I play, and posting as I post, is some sort of _threat_ to other RPGers strikes me as completely bizarre. I don't think I've introduced as many players to actual RPG experiences as some others on these boards - I mostly play in my own group of friends whom I've known for a long time - but there are a number of posters on these boards over the years who have said that they got something useful from out of my posts, especially I think my actual play posts. And there are posters here whom I have learned from.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Yeah, I don't think that "living world" is bad terminology - though it does come across as "marketing speak"* - but as a term it's not necessarily pertinent or lucid in a discussion about the underlying process of play and differences with other game models with similar objectives but different play processes. It conflates the _ends_ with the _means_.
> 
> * The computer game Guild Wars 2 also markets itself as having a "Living World," but what they mean by this is not necessarily what a typical TTRPG sandbox game means by this. Yet they both use the term "Living World" to describe their ongoing fictional world. In fact, GW2 shows up in a Google search for "living world" long before it does for TTRPG sandbox play. Actually, I recall reading that "sandbox game" was actually a term coined by the video game community that the TTRPG community subsequently appropriated.




I'll probably engage with this topic less after this post but I just want to give one example.  Now @Aldarc you aren't the only poster who has done this in the thread but this was the most recent example and so I grabbed it. 

I'd love for posters to tell me how there isn't a certain air of pompousness or arrogance when one side (A) can claim an imaginary word (Protagonism) that is clearly rooted in a real word (Protagonist) define it and restrict it in any way they please and when it is asserted by the other side (B) that they are using a word that has caused confusion, or made it unclear for many posters to engage with the ideas being put forth are basically told to suck it up, it was defined and we are being petty, argumentative and difficult by engaging with the nomenclature instead of the ideas behind it...

Side B then claims a phrase(Living World) and are willing to define it in the way they wish to use it but side A summarily declares it unfit, unclear and for all intents and purposes refuses to engage with it on the basis of nomenclature...

How is one side (A) able to control the entire discussion in this way, including not only what is or is not valid for their own nomenclature and ideas, but what is or is not valid for the other side as well?

EDIT: As a secondary thought, I would ask @pemerton and @Manbearcat... what do you get from these discussions?  I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions, so I'm just curious what is your pay off here?


----------



## Aldarc

@Imaro, I do think that "protagonism" is also marketing speak, though it's also not a conversation thread that I have been following too closely here, though I don't recall if alternative terms were ever offered to describe "protagonism" in TTRPGs. I did propose an anthropocentric and geocentric model, but I can't remember how that intersected with the sub-conversation you have in mind. 

But my issue is, again, not with the term "living world" per se, but that it conflates the _aesthetical_ _ends_ (i.e., the living world) with the _technical_ _means _of the play process, which was the primary focus of the discussion. This is an issue because very different games may desire to create a "living world" but achieve this through obviously divergent means, mechanics, and methods, particularly in regards to player/GM responsibilities. I don't see a problem with using "living world" as a term, but context matters, and simply liking the term to describe one's play doesn't make it ipso facto the most pertinent term for a given discussion. 

But to answer your overarching question without getting bogged down into matters: _two wrongs don't make a right_.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions



In that case you've not read very closely.

Eg I have learned a lot from discussions of how AW plays. @Campbell has particularly helped in this respect by posting quite often about the contrast between scene-framed play and AW/PbtA play.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> In that case you've not read very closely.
> 
> Eg I have learned a lot from discussions of how AW plays. @Campbell has particularly helped in this respect by posting quite often about the contrast between scene-framed play and AW/PbtA play.




That didn't really answer the question though.  What exactly about your playstyle or goals has changed as a result of that knowledge?  I may have missed it but I haven't seen you post about any actual change or influence on how you play...

EDIT: And I readily admit maybe your goal in these threads isn't to find techniques or advice to change or modify your playstyle and if so that's fine, I'm just curious.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

I'm not either of the two you tagged @Imaro but I learned a lesson long ago: it's really damn hard to know what you actually like until you experience things. I missed out on the first couple years of 4e because I thought it was garbage, due to friends who irrationally hated it solely because it wasn't the way 3.5e did things. When I finally started sinking my teeth into it (believe it or not, in order to respond to arguments on a forum!), I started liking what I saw. And then I dug deeper, and started to realize how deeply mistaken I was both about my overall gaming preferences and about the kind of experience provided by 4e.

It's been many years since then, so more awareness has accreted slowly, and I am better aware of my interests than I was before. But there's still things to learn, even if you have to work harder to learn them. The two best sources of experience--outside of direct teaching, which isn't always relevant in this context--are direct action, and engaging in serious conversation with earnest people who don't share your views on a subject. Either you have to refine your own position so that it is successful, or you learn that there's actually a position that matters more to you than what you used to hold, or you (at bare minimum) gain a greater appreciation for the things that aren't for you even though you don't end up changing anything yourself.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Let me ask a counter question... if your technical analysis, deep dives and pontificating of playstyles about gaming don't apply or aren't even discussed by the vast majority of the playerbase... what practical purpose besides the self gratification of a small niche group of posters does it serve?



Gygax ring any bells?


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> @Imaro, I do think that "protagonism" is also marketing speak, though it's also not a conversation thread that I have been following too closely here, though I don't recall if alternative terms were ever offered to describe "protagonism" in TTRPGs. I did propose an anthropocentric and geocentric model, but I can't remember how that intersected with the sub-conversation you have in mind.
> 
> But my issue is, again, not with the term "living world" per se, but that it conflates the _aesthetical_ _ends_ (i.e., the living world) with the _technical_ _means _of the play process, which was the primary focus of the discussion. This is an issue because very different games may desire to create a "living world" but achieve this through obviously divergent means, mechanics, and methods, particularly in regards to player/GM responsibilities. I don't see a problem with using "living world" as a term, but context matters, and simply liking the term to describe one's play doesn't make it ipso facto the most pertinent term for a given discussion.
> 
> But to answer your overarching question without getting bogged down into matters: _two wrongs don't make a right_.




Yes but my bigger point was that one side (A) had the power (and used it) to not only enforce their nomenclature on the other side (B) but to summarily dismiss any attempts of side B to establish nomenclature for their playstyle because it wasn't to their liking.  In other words there;s 2 points I am trying to make...
1.  How can there be a true discussion of equal merit when one side has and wields such an imbalance of power?
2.  Can you not see how Side B could perceive side A as both arrogant and pompous when this imbalance of power is wielded in the thread.

It's not about right or wrong it's about perception and respect so that honest discourse can take place.


----------



## Imaro

EzekielRaiden said:


> I'm not either of the two you tagged @Imaro but I learned a lesson long ago: it's really damn hard to know what you actually like until you experience things. I missed out on the first couple years of 4e because I thought it was garbage, due to friends who irrationally hated it solely because it wasn't the way 3.5e did things. When I finally started sinking my teeth into it (believe it or not, in order to respond to arguments on a forum!), I started liking what I saw. And then I dug deeper, and started to realize how deeply mistaken I was both about my overall gaming preferences and about the kind of experience provided by 4e.
> 
> It's been many years since then, so more awareness has accreted slowly, and I am better aware of my interests than I was before. But there's still things to learn, even if you have to work harder to learn them. The two best sources of experience--outside of direct teaching, which isn't always relevant in this context--are direct action, and engaging in serious conversation with earnest people who don't share your views on a subject. Either you have to refine your own position so that it is successful, or you learn that there's actually a position that matters more to you than what you used to hold, or you (at bare minimum) gain a greater appreciation for the things that aren't for you even though you don't end up changing anything yourself.




@EzekielRaiden I don't have a problem with any of this but let's not overlook the fact that it was a comment that treating the game as just a game was a bad thing that sent us down this line of discussion.  

I've explained why I think it is important to keep in mind that this discussion isn't for the vast majority of people who play ttrpg's and also why I think a frank discussion of actual techniques and concrete actions would be much better than discussing overarching playstyles that don't ever seem to fully apply to most people (It was the same issue I had with the forge terminology, of gamism, narrativism, etc... back in the day... no one played in those strict categories).   But I won't ever agree that people playing for enjoyment and not concerned with bettering their roleplaying is a bad thing...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> So you are fighting to naysay a minority gaming position on this forum on behalf of faceless people who likely hold the super majority mainstream positions, but mostly don't care about these discussions? How truly noble and valiant!



No, I am engaged in a conversation in a thread, and when I see posts that bother me or I disagree with, I state my opinion. A lot of the opinions I have been defending (like sandbox and living world) are not super mainstream at all.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Yes but my bigger point was that one side (A) had the power (and used it) to not only enforce their nomenclature on the other side (B) but to summarily dismiss any attempts of side B to establish nomenclature for their playstyle because it wasn't to their liking.  In other words there;s 2 points I am trying to make...
> 1.  How can there be a true discussion of equal merit when one side has and wields such an imbalance of power?
> 2.  Can you not see how Side B could perceive side A as both arrogant and pompous when this imbalance of power is wielded in the thread.
> 
> It's not about right or wrong it's about perception and respect so that honest discourse can take place.



Okay, so let's make your bigger point even bigger. Take that hypothetical power imbalance that exists in this thread (or sub-forum) and then reverse it, magnify the scope, and apply it to the hobby at large. That broadly describes the "other side's" experience in our hobby. That's the sword of mainstream gaming that's been collectively pointed against the indie gaming scene (and the more story now-focused subset) for decades, constantly reminding indie gamers of how insignificant they are by comparison. The fact that a hypothetical power imbalance of conversational capital exists in isolated form in this thread is potentially short-sighted when looking at it from that bigger picture perspective. And that is one reason why I can't take the supposed "power imbalance" seriously at face value. It ignores the vast privilege at which more mainstream games (and their heart-breaker kin) and perspectives already wields as orthodoxy. 

Another highly imperfect analogy: 


Spoiler



It is similar to, though not in terms of meaningfully real stakes and scope of, LBGTQ+ discourse fighting an uphill battle to deconstruct mainstream cis-heteronormative societal discourse on sexuality, gender, and disability. Who gets to control or frame the terms? Who wields the power to define these things? Who gets the privilege to define "normal" or "man" or "woman" or "marriage"? You would no doubt agree that it would be quite silly if I went on a FTM thread as a cis male and said that they were pompous and arrogant for redefining terms for gender (and possibly more) as I traditionally knew them, that they were just engaging in pointless ivory tower pontifications that were detached from that of the vast majority of men, or even that I felt that there was an acute power imbalance of conversational capital that existed between me (a cis man) on a FTM thread discussing gender. Because outside of that thread, I have far more social privilege and acceptance of my gender as a cis male.





Bedrockgames said:


> No, I am engaged in a conversation in a thread, and when I see posts that bother me or I disagree with, I state my opinion. A lot of the opinions I have been defending (like sandbox and living world) are not super mainstream at all.



It would be nice if you could do so without accusing others of being pompous, intellectual bullies, or pontificating when they do the same. That said, even if more mainstream AP/GM-driven play lies outside of your preferences, I would nevertheless estimate that your opinions are more closely aligned with mainstream gaming, particularly in regards to the GM/player power imbalance, than that of either @pemerton or @Manbearcat's games.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Nevermind, shouldn't post with a fever.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> It would be nice if you could do so without accusing others of being pompous, intellectual bullies, or pontificating when they do the same. That said, even if more mainstream AP/GM-driven play lies outside of your preferences, I would nevertheless estimate that your opinions are more closely aligned with mainstream gaming, particularly in regards to the GM/player power imbalance, than that of either @pemerton or @Manbearcat's games.




In one instance I was essentially asked point blank by a poster if I thought people were being pompous, and I answered that question honestly. Prior to that point I tried to use more civil, but still accurate language, to describe the behavior I was seeing.  

I have a completely different estimation here of the popularity of styles. I think the stye you are promoting is one that is gaining tremendous traction. I don't know who is more niche. I think I have expressed though an openness to there being a wider net when it comes to sandbox, so long as we are making distinctions between things that matter within that framework. And I don't think there is anything bad about the approach you are promoting. The only time I get into disagreements about it is when someone aggrandizes that style in a way that seems at the expense of other styles (for example when I see people asserting living worlds are impossible or that  they are really 'just playing to discover the notes', or when they try to diminish the role of agency in a sandbox and claim it for something more player facing).


----------



## Campbell

Imaro said:


> @EzekielRaiden I don't have a problem with any of this but let's not overlook the fact that it was a comment that treating the game as just a game was a bad thing that sent us down this line of discussion.
> 
> I've explained why I think it is important to keep in mind that this discussion isn't for the vast majority of people who play ttrpg's and also why I think a frank discussion of actual techniques and concrete actions would be much better than discussing overarching playstyles that don't ever seem to fully apply to most people (It was the same issue I had with the forge terminology, of gamism, narrativism, etc... back in the day... no one played in those strict categories).   But I won't ever agree that people playing for enjoyment and not concerned with bettering their roleplaying is a bad thing...




I feel should clarify my desires here. I suspect it will make matters worse, but it reflects my true desires. When I say I want to play with people who try to get better I mean at the specific game we are playing. Not some overly precious generalized notion of what roleplaying is. I mean if we are playing Burning Wheel try to be the best Burning Wheel player you can. If we are playing old school D&D try to be the best at that you can. That includes learning the rules, what the game expects, and embracing those expectations. It's why I like games with strong reward systems.

If I'm playing poker with friends I want to win because I played my best against their best. If I'm playing Magic same damn thing. In cooperative play I have an expectation that everyone will contribute and give it their all as best as they are able to.

You will probably say something along the lines of most gamers are not like me. So what? I'm just here to offer my perspective on what I think makes for the best gaming. People can make their own judgments. "Most gamers" do not need you to defend their interests. You do not speak for them anymore than I do. Why not just offer your own perspective without trying to act as some arbiter for the unwashed masses?

I personally would prefer to have a frank discussion of actual play techniques and feel like I often provide that. In the past when I have attempted to do so I often receive pushback (often from you personally). Do not get me wrong here. No one has the right to expect no pushback. I do think some of the pushback is overly precious about language use. I don't expect you to completely abandon the framework you to use to understand RPGs in order to have a discussion with me. I do not understand why you expect me to.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Okay, so let's make your bigger point even bigger. Take that hypothetical power imbalance that exists in this thread (or sub-forum) and then reverse it, magnify the scope, and apply it to the hobby at large. That broadly describes the "other side's" experience in our hobby. That's the sword of mainstream gaming that's been collectively pointed against the indie gaming scene (and the more story now-focused subset) for decades, constantly reminding indie gamers of how insignificant they are by comparison. The fact that a hypothetical power imbalance of conversational capital exists in isolated form in this thread is potentially short-sighted when looking at it from that bigger picture perspective. And that is one reason why I can't take the supposed "power imbalance" seriously at face value. It ignores the vast privilege at which more mainstream games (and their heart-breaker kin) and perspectives already wields as orthodoxy.




The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this?  The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff... That isn't me trying to denigrate the conversation just put it into perspective it's a small subset of the hobby overall regardless of playstyle, techniques, etc that take part in this so no, I don't think your claim of imbalance in the wider hobby holds up and for the record it also seems "two wrongs don't make a right" only applies in certain circumstances. 



Aldarc said:


> Another highly imperfect analogy:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It is similar to, though not in terms of meaningfully real stakes and scope of, LBGTQ+ discourse fighting an uphill battle to deconstruct mainstream cis-heteronormative societal discourse on sexuality, gender, and disability. Who gets to control or frame the terms? Who wields the power to define these things? Who gets the privilege to define "normal" or "man" or "woman" or "marriage"? You would no doubt agree that it would be quite silly if I went on a FTM thread as a cis male and said that they were pompous and arrogant for redefining terms for gender (and possibly more) as I traditionally knew them, that they were just engaging in pointless ivory tower pontifications that were detached from that of the vast majority of men, or even that I felt that there was an acute power imbalance of conversational capital that existed between me (a cis man) on a FTM thread discussing gender. Because outside of that thread, I have far more social privilege and acceptance of my gender as a cis male.




This really is a highly imperfect analogy... as a black male in America I'm just going to say this... there is a big difference in being actively persecuted for your race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.  and them being ignored.  This discussion is a non-starter to the wider hobby they aren't going out of their way to engage you or setting up systems that oppress your playstyle... the wide majority just don't care.  It's kind of insulting to compare the two.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Bedrockgames  - Promoting a style? You miss the point sir, entirely. _Analyzing_ a style would be correct. Even _comparing_ styles might be correct. To say promoting very much identifies a conflict where none exists. Your use of _aggrandizing_ is also pointlessly combative. To put those into a sentence using their definitions you get something like this: _You are trying to enhance the reputation of game X beyond what is justified by the facts. _When you add in pompous (affectedly and irritatingly self important) you get quite the ad hominem brew of aggression. Perhaps this wasn't your intent, I'm not sure, but that is certainly the result.

The idea that anyone here is doing anything at the expense of other styles, or asserting that X is impossible in other styles, or trying to diminish X, is entirely a fiction. Trying to figure out how game X is different from game Y, especially in terms of producing similar effect Z, isn't a work of diminishment but of comparison.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Aldarc said:


> That's the sword of mainstream gaming that's been collectively pointed against the indie gaming scene (and the more story now-focused subset) for decades, constantly reminding indie gamers of how insignificant they are by comparison.




Not that I agree with your sword of MSG, but are you saying indie gamers in this thread feel less than or hard done by?


----------



## Fenris-77

Imaro said:


> The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this?  The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff... That isn't me trying to denigrate the conversation just put it into perspective it's a small subset of the hobby overall regardless of playstyle, techniques, etc that take part in this so no, I don't think your claim of imbalance in the wider hobby holds up and for the record it also seems "two wrongs don't make a right" only applies in certain circumstances.



The fact that your average gamer only understands the games they play enough to play them, but not analyze them, dissect them, or indeed write them themselves isn't a point that has anything to say about the segment of the hobby that can and indeed enjoys doing all three of those things. I'm not talking about the 'sides' here either, just about the interest and ability to engage in higher level discussion.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Aldarc said:
			
		

> But my issue is, again, not with the term "living world" per se, but that it conflates the aesthetical ends (i.e., the living world) with the technical means of the play process, which was the primary focus of the discussion. This is an issue because very different games may desire to create a "living world" but achieve this through obviously divergent means, mechanics, and methods, particularly in regards to player/GM responsibilities. I don't see a problem with using "living world" as a term, but context matters, and simply liking the term to describe one's play doesn't make it ipso facto the most pertinent term for a given discussion.




I feel this post is worth unpacking. 
Lots of good material to work from here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> @Bedrockgames  - Promoting a style? You miss the point sir, entirely. _Analyzing_ a style would be correct. Even _comparing_ styles might be correct. To say promoting very much identifies a conflict where none exists. Your use of _aggrandizing_ is also pointlessly combative. To put those into a sentence using their definitions you get something like this: _You are trying to enhance the reputation of game X beyond what is justified by the facts. _When you add in pompous (affectedly and irritatingly self important) you get quite the ad hominem brew of aggression. Perhaps this wasn't your intent, I'm not sure, but that is certainly the result.




@Fenris-77 , I don't think you promote styles. I think you have a genuine interest in analysis. I think the line between analysis and promotion gets very blurry in this kind of thread with a lot of posters. Sometimes I think it is unintentional (we don't know our own biases and can often analysis without meaning to in ways that glorify our own style over others), but sometimes I think it is intentional. 

I wasn't trying to be aggressive nor hostile. But there is a lot of hostility towards the approaches I engage in and even towards posters who engage in it. And I feel like a lot of my responses have been reactions to that. I was asked if one of the reasons I responded the way I did to a set of posts, was because I found them pompous, and that was one of the reasons. I pointed to the kinds of posts where I think this sort of thing is going on. I wasn't trying to be anti-intellectual or anything. I do think education and self improvement are good. I just don't think using your education or your own strengths to mock other people, belittle them is a good thing in a discussion about RPGs. Also, look back at the thread, you will see plenty of instances of people attacking me and others, belittling us, and engaging in behavior that could be described as pompous. I will fully admit, when I've been irritated, I don't always make the best posts, and may have been hostile to someone when it wasn't warranted. But this isn't always just neutral analysis and a lot the disputes here in this thread have long histories between the posters involved.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not talking about the 'sides' here either, just about the interest and ability to engage in higher level discussion.




I think this assumption is part of why there is so much disagreement. From our point of view we are not seeing higher level discussion. We are seeing a particular lens be appleid to games and it is a lens we don't especially agree with. Now there is nothing wrong with having a lens if it works for you. Where it is becoming a problem is assertions like:

"The fact that your average gamer only understands the games they play enough to play them"

...simply because they don't analyze games using your framework. I've been playing with and posting among your average gamers for a long time. They are mostly very intelligent, very astute at observing things about rules, systems, etc (I mean I've been on the receiving end of such astuteness in debates around 3rd edition, around game balance, etc). I think the problem isn't that most gamers don't understand the games they play (my experience is most gamers do understand and they have a very clear idea of what they like as well), it is that they don't play games according to your model. And I think the reason is, the model only works for highly focused styles of play (which most gamers aren't interested in). Heck, most gamers aren't interested in living world sandbox either. I don't see that as a reflection of them failing to grasp high concepts or being worse GMs. I can totally understand its lack of appeal to the mainstream. Now what I get out of such games definitely hits the right buttons for me in a better way, and feels like a higher level of play to me, but it only feels that way because it appeals to my particular set of tastes and frustrations with other styles of play.

Not saying your analysis isn't useful. There are probably gamers for whom it is helpful. I don't think framing it as you being above regular gamers is helpful though in bringing that message to people


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> In one instance I was essentially asked point blank by a poster if I thought people were being pompous, and I answered that question honestly. *Prior to that point I tried to use more civil, but still accurate language, to describe the behavior I was seeing.*



We are all the virtuous heroes in the stories that we tell about ourselves.  



Bedrockgames said:


> I have a completely different estimation here of the popularity of styles. I think the stye you are promoting is one that is gaining tremendous traction. I don't know who is more niche. I think I have expressed though an openness to there being a wider net when it comes to sandbox, so long as we are making distinctions between things that matter within that framework. And I don't think there is anything bad about the approach you are promoting. The only time I get into disagreements about it is when someone aggrandizes that style in a way that seems at the expense of other styles (for example when I see people asserting living worlds are impossible or that  they are really 'just playing to discover the notes', or when they try to diminish the role of agency in a sandbox and claim it for something more player facing).



Considering the amount of games played of D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, OSR, etc. - yes I know that you don't play D&D - that all envision a similar GM/player role that exists apart from the paradigm found in the sort of story now games that pemerton, Manbearcat, etc. play, I don't think we need a rocket scientist to figure out which is more niche regardless of how much traction it may be gaining. 



Imaro said:


> The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this?  The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff... That isn't me trying to denigrate the conversation just put it into perspective it's a small subset of the hobby overall regardless of playstyle, techniques, etc that take part in this so no, I don't think your claim of imbalance in the wider hobby holds up and for the record it also seems "two wrongs don't make a right" only applies in certain circumstances.



The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this because their positions on these matters are largely taken for granted as the norm. Why should they have to discuss the norms? It's not like they are the ones who have to justify having differences of gaming opinions or preferences that exist apart from this norm.  So trying to complain about a power imbalance of conversational capital that only exists in this thread but not in the hobby as a whole where the situation is largely reversed, if not more so, so it comes across as missing the big picture. I'm sorry that I can only play you the world's smallest violin about perceived power balances in this thread conversation in light of that overarching context. 



Imaro said:


> This really is a highly imperfect analogy... as a black male in America I'm just going to say this... there is a big difference in being actively persecuted for your race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.  and them being ignored.  This discussion is a non-starter to the wider hobby they aren't going out of their way to engage you or setting up systems that oppress your playstyle... the wide majority just don't care.  It's kind of insulting to compare the two.



My analogy drawing upon LGBTQ+ issues came directly from my FTM partner but whatevs. The wide majority of people don't care about trans issues or systemic oppression of trans people either. Most people just wanna go about their day to day life in peace and they resent anything that rocks the boat of the status quo or requiring them to change things about themselves or their behavior. 



AnotherGuy said:


> Not that I agree with your sword of MSG, but are you saying indie gamers in this thread feel less than or hard done by?



It may be more accurate to say that indie gamers are well aware that their gaming views don't necessarily represent those of the hobby as a whole.


----------



## Fenris-77

Let's clear the air, for the sake of this thread, about 'your style'. Bedrock enjoys a very oldschool sandbox approach (among other things, of course). I also play that style of sandbox and enjoy it immensely, as does @Manbearcat and probably most of use here. There's no element of denigration of that style involved.

What that leaves us with is word use and mockery. That's been flying think and fast from most corners here at times. I do hope you aren't disclaiming any part in that? 

Moving on to your second post. If you aren't seeing higher level discussion you aren't looking hard enough. There was no critique of the 'average gamer' implied there. They don't have to be interested in this kind of conversation in order for it to have merit. I notice that your immediate response there is to ride to the defense of that (entirely fictional) average gamer in the face of my, IDK, intellectual bullying? I didn't say I was 'above' the average gamer, only that I was interested in aspects of our shared in hobby that they aren't. Is this something you pulled from my use of 'higher level discussion'? Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's *not* what that means. 

Perhaps, rather than ascribing me the worst intellectual failings you can think of, you could just respond to the actual content? Analysis isn't a bad thing, deeper understanding isn't a bad thing - and neither need to be the product of intellectual arrogance. 

Also, I'm not bloody robin hood, I'm not trying to 'bring the message to the people' (and neither are you in this instance).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> We are all the virtuous heroes in the stories that we tell about ourselves.




I am not claiming to be a virtuous hero. I am claiming to be responding honestly when I say these kinds of posts bother me


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> What that leaves us with is word use and mockery. That's been flying think and fast from most corners here at times. I do hope you aren't disclaiming any part in that?




I am not, but I think it has been very lopsided. Obviously I could be missing posts that were coming from people who agreed with me, and like I said, I've made some of my own. But the hostility I have been getting from some posters has been in my view intense


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Let's clear the air, for the sake of this thread, about 'your style'. Bedrock enjoys a very oldschool sandbox approach (among other things, of course). I also play that style of sandbox and enjoy it immensely, as does @Manbearcat and probably most of use here. There's no element of denigration of that style involved.



Just for the record, I wouldn't describe my style as very old school. I take a lot of inspiration from old school. But I do a lot of things old school GMs would reject.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not claiming to be a virtuous hero. I am claiming to be responding honestly when I say these kinds of posts bother me



You may be missing my wider point in favor of nitpicking my particular word choice.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Just for the record, I wouldn't describe my style as very old school. I take a lot of inspiration from old school. But I do a lot of things old school GMs would reject.



That is pretty much what I meant. I was using the phrase as shorthand to stand in for a lot of discussion we've had elsewhere. Specifically about sandboxes. Anyway, just so people understand that that style is something that most of us enjoy.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Perhaps, rather than ascribing me the worst intellectual failings you can think of, you could just respond to the actual content? Analysis isn't a bad thing, deeper understanding isn't a bad thing - and neither need to be the product of intellectual arrogance.




Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with analysis. I think it is good. but an honest analysis has to be open to the possibility that it is wrong, has a flawed assumptions somewhere, etc (no matter how convincing it is: this is why I am always pushing back against some of the sandbox dogma on my own side). But the intellectual arrogance comes in when there is absolutism and certainty around that analysis. To be honest, I have found you very non-arrogant, very flexible in terms of your thinking. But that isn't the case with everyone, and the reason I quoted your post was because I think it reflected some of the assumptions that go into some of this analysis that does lead to the arrogance I was talking about. And lets be clear, arrogance exists on my side too. I don't think it is that present in this particular thread. Out in the world though, arrogance is pretty evenly distributed. If you wander into discussions where living world sandbox GMs have the upper hand, there is a lot of exclusionary and arrogant language I disagree with (which is why I am always arguing in favor a sandbox that is expanding and broader and includes other styles of play: including ones that use things like player facing mechanics). I also don't like a lot of the hard lines people draw and I don't like a lot of the belittling language used to describe more narrative approaches and more player facing approaches.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Well, @Imaro has managed to deftly turn this thread from a discussion of games to a discussion of the participants.  A quite nice derailing by ad hominem.  Kudos, I think, given it appears the intent was to stop any possible discussion about games to begin with.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with analysis. I think it is good. but an honest analysis has to be open to the possibility that it is wrong, has a flawed assumptions somewhere, etc (no matter how convincing it is: this is why I am always pushing back against some of the sandbox dogma on my own side). But the intellectual arrogance comes in when there is absolutism and certainty around that analysis. To be honest, I have found you very non-arrogant, very flexible in terms of your thinking. But that isn't the case with everyone, and the reason I quoted your post was because I think it reflected some of the assumptions that go into some of this analysis that does lead to the arrogance I was talking about. And lets be clear, arrogance exists on my side too. I don't think it is that present in this particular thread. Out in the world though, arrogance is pretty evenly distributed. If you wander into discussions where living world sandbox GMs have the upper hand, there is a lot of exclusionary and arrogant language I disagree with (which is why I am always arguing in favor a sandbox that is expanding and broader and includes other styles of play: including ones that use things like player facing mechanics). I also don't like a lot of the hard lines people draw and I don't like a lot of the belittling language used to describe more narrative approaches and more player facing approaches.



I think that criticizing the ideas and arguments presented would be more productive for this thread and reduce a lot of the hostility rather than criticizing people for their perceived intellectual arrogance or accusing them of intellectual bullying, as the latter is most definitely ventures in the realm of ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> EDIT: As a secondary thought, I would ask @pemerton and @Manbearcat... what do you get from these discussions?  I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions, so I'm just curious what is your pay off here?




Well, a couple things I learned last night:

* Imaro and Bedrockgames think I'm a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people...which tells me they CLEARLY dislike me WAAAAAY more than I even thought.  I knew there was hostility there after nearly a decade of conversation, but I didn't realize the temperature was that hot.

* If you're having an interesting conversation about "online/offline" content in Sandbox gaming and the impetus to evolve "offline content suddenly turned online"....DO NOT ASK PEOPLE (a) what their impulse and hopeful payoff is when challenging conversation with "this analysis is deeply niche and the overwhelmingly majority of the hobby doesn't care about it" and (b) when you have a thought like "self, I wonder if some of the frustration around looking at TTRPGs through an engineering lens is similar to the pushback on baseball/football analytics and the Evolutionary Biology/Psychology and Neuroendocrinology in research on love...again, DO NOT ASK IT.  

The results will crush the interesting conversation you were having.

Across the span of engaging at ENWorld, two particular things stand out among many (and ironically, you were at the heart of the first one):

1) You remember our infamous "Gorge Conflict" conversation which spun out from a post-mortem of one of my play excerpts?  Communicating with you and Nagol was actually extremely helpful to me in (a) preemptively trouble-shooting how complication generation can be a problem broadly and (b) how a particular type of Fail Forward complication generation can be a problem specifically for a certain segment of people and (c) helped me better understand the cognitive framework of one of my dearest friends.

The downstream effect of that is (i) I worked at better articulating myself in these conversations (with respect to discussing complications) but, more importantly, (ii) I worked at my play such that I've become better at identifying potential cognitive framework disparity at my tables when it comes to complications as an outgrowth of action resolution and (iii) I've become better at ensuring all parties are on the same page when it comes to decision-points > action resolution > foreseeable consequences (whether its in a system that features Fail Forward or not).

2)  Unlike the above positive, the next one is a profound negative.  A HUGE preponderance of data that culture war inertia and attendant coalitional thinking (as I already knew...but more data helps) turns otherwise earnest, sincere, autonomous, likely kind and fair in the rest of their life, people into something (an inversion of all of those descriptors) that they would surely regret if they could find their way out of the orbit of what they've been caught in.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, @Imaro has managed to deftly turn this thread from a discussion of games to a discussion of the participants.  A quite nice derailing by ad hominem.  Kudos, I think, given it appears the intent was to stop any possible discussion about games to begin with.




I wasn't going to reply, but your post re @Imaro touches on this point.
The issue I had was "playing to discover the GM's notes" - doesn't at the outset paint a particular roleplaying style in good stead, and no I'm not equipped to give a decent enough definition of the style, but I do not need to in order to recognise a negatively slanted one. And yes, facts do not care about your feelings, but if one wishes to have a productive thread where one can encourage others to peer outside and over their sandboxes then what you should aim for is _you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar_

So I also mentioned upthread that some were replying in earnest and receiving unnecessarily sharp replies and that is because the waters were tainted from the beginning.

This is not an attack but an observation. I hope you take it in that spirit.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> "Most gamers" are irrelevant to me. I just care about the individual conversations we get to have here. That's why I'm not a fan of this debate club nonsense. No one speaks for me except me.



The first rule of debate club, is nobody speaks at debate club.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> Well, a couple things I learned last night:
> 
> * Imaro and Bedrockgames think I'm a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people...which tells me they CLEARLY dislike me WAAAAAY more than I even thought.  I knew there was hostility there after nearly a decade of conversation, but I didn't realize the temperature was that hot.




This just isn't true.  You're making it personal and it's not.  I don't think anything about you and I stated as much earlier.  I can dislike how you deliver something without being hostile to you as a person.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, @Imaro has managed to deftly turn this thread from a discussion of games to a discussion of the participants.  A quite nice derailing by ad hominem.  Kudos, I think, given it appears the intent was to stop any possible discussion about games to begin with.




I'll take whatever responsibility here that I can muster.  

I totally thought it was going to be an innocuous, nothingburger aside.  I was sincerely interested in the two questions I asked that fueled this whole thing.  I shouldn't have asked them.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> When it comes to how I ride my bike on the road, what everyone else is doing and expecting matters. If I try and cut against the grain, I might get hit by a car!



Or a tender bite of steak.  Cutting against the grain isn't always bad.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, @Imaro has managed to deftly turn this thread from a discussion of games to a discussion of the participants.  A quite nice derailing by ad hominem.  Kudos, I think, given it appears the intent was to stop any possible discussion about games to begin with.




Wow... just wow.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Well, a couple things I learned last night:
> 
> * Imaro and Bedrockgames think I'm a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people...which tells me they CLEARLY dislike me WAAAAAY more than I even thought.  I knew there was hostility there after nearly a decade of conversation, but I didn't realize the temperature was that hot.
> 
> *



I don’t dislike you at all, and I don’t think you are an ass. I have found some of the things you have said to be a bit pompous at times (mostly though I don’t think this is the case: mainly I think you have more of an engineer mind and I have more of an artist mind and that is where much our disagreement arises). Also you saying something I think sounds pompous doesn’t mean I conclude you are a pompous person. But I have also found your posts to be incredibly honest and genuine, and I have found many of your posts to be insightful and you’ve been willing to bridge gaps when I don’t understand your meaning (you don’t just doing jargon at me but show empathy when I don’t understand). Also I like talking with you about martial arts

edit: to get specific, the aspect of your post that felt pompous to me was when you said people were reacting to concepts like living world being demystified (and drew a tacit parallel to science demystifying superstition)


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> This just isn't true.  You're making it personal and it's not.  I don't think anything about you and I stated as much earlier.  I can dislike how you deliver something without being hostile to you as a person.




I'm not offended and I'm not taking it personal.  We don't know each other outside of our interactions on here. 

But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people is not a person of integrity...they're despicable)...then I'll extend you the courtesy of buying in.  

EDIT - @Bedrockgames , we cross-posted.  Same above here applies to your post.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Nevermind, shouldn't post with a fever.



Feel better man.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> I'll take whatever responsibility here that I can muster.
> 
> I totally thought it was going to be an innocuous, nothingburger aside.  I was sincerely interested in the two questions I asked that fueled this whole thing.  I shouldn't have asked them.




Nah, your questions were absolutely fine. I'm still keen to hear your responses!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> That is pretty much what I meant. I was using the phrase as shorthand to stand in for a lot of discussion we've had elsewhere. Specifically about sandboxes. Anyway, just so people understand that that style is something that most of us enjoy.




I got that, I just think it is worth making the clarify


Manbearcat said:


> But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people is not a person of integrity...they're despicable)...then I'll extend you the courtesy of buying in.



I want to be clear: I don’t think you were bullying anyone. Your posts never seem to venture into intellectual bullying (quite the opposite)


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> Nah, your questions were absolutely fine. I'm still keen to hear your responses!




I meant the latter two that sparked this.

The two you're talking about brought about some interesting discussion!  I don't regret those!  I still have to get back to a ton of posts and get responses up (yours included).

That is likely not going to happen until some time this weekend.  I've got a lot of stuff going on including a game tonigh.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I'm not offended and I'm not taking it personal.  We don't know each other outside of our interactions on here.
> 
> But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people is not a person of integrity...they're despicable)...then I'll extend you the courtesy of buying in.




You asked me about this particular thread, and not you personally.  I felt the thread did have undertones of arrogance and pompousness to it, and I answered honestly... not sure how that became what I think about Manbearcat but the two are totally different questions.  There are particular posters in this thread that I do feel are pompous and arrogant overall but you're seriously not on that list... that said they have contributed to that general feeling in the thread. So yes your takeaway is wrong.  If I thought you as a person were bullying, arrogant or pompous I wouldn't engage with you.  Again I may not agree with you and I may not always be correct but I'm engaging with you and others because I find you all interesting and worth engaging with.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> I wasn't going to reply, but your post re @Imaro touches on this point.
> The issue I had was "playing to discover the GM's notes" - doesn't at the outset paint a particular roleplaying style in good stead, and no I'm not equipped to give a decent enough definition of the style, but I do not need to in order to recognise a negatively slanted one. And yes, facts do not care about your feelings, but if one wishes to have a productive thread where one can encourage others to peer outside and over their sandboxes then what you should aim for is _you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar_
> 
> So I also mentioned upthread that some were replying in earnest and receiving unnecessarily sharp replies and that is because the waters were tainted from the beginning.
> 
> This is not an attack but an observation. I hope you take it in that spirit.



I think that the fact that you can't come up with a better description is telling, though.  It "playing to discover the GM's notes" somewhat blunt and unromantic?  Absolutely it is.  It's also a succinct description of the play.  And, I one I willing admit to using myself.  If your interest is in teasing out what's actually happening in play, so that you can do it better, a blunt, unromantic description is best.  It's not a negative, though, because it produces fun play, it's just blunt.  

I think a large part of the hostility that occurs in these threads is that a number of people have how they game as a core identifier of self -- it's important to their self image.  So, any statement that seems to reduce the import of that becomes extremely fraught very quickly.  It's why we get people trying to shut down these threads or lockdowns about terminology.  If you use a positive sounding term for other gaming, it's bad, because it suggests that positive things isn't about your gaming.  If you describe a process bluntly (playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction vs living world, for instance), then there's a feeling that this is an attack on self.  The people that hold gaming as part of their identity are always going to be resistant to any breakdown or analysis, because this threatens their sense of self.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> You asked me about this particular thread, and not you personally.  I felt the thread did have undertones of arrogance and pompousness to it, and I answered honestly... not sure how that became what I think about Manbearcat but the two are totally different questions.  There are particular posters in this thread that I do feel are pompous and arrogant overall but you're seriously not on that list... that said they have contributed to that general feeling in the thread. So yes your takeaway is wrong.  If I thought you as a person were bullying, arrogant or pompous I wouldn't engage with you.  Again I may not agree with you and I may not always be correct but I'm engaging with you and others because I find you all interesting and worth engaging with.




10-4

I'm going to stick a fork in this dreadful aside that I sparked.

Maybe folks want to get back to talking about what we were talking about before I sidetracked this.  I'll get thoughts up to the pending responses that I have to work through some time this weekend.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I think that the fact that you can't come up with a better description is telling, though.  It "playing to discover the GM's notes" somewhat blunt and unromantic?  Absolutely it is.  It's also a succinct description of the play.  And, I one I willing admit to using myself.  If your interest is in teasing out what's actually happening in play, so that you can do it better, a blunt, unromantic description is best.  It's not a negative, though, because it produces fun play, it's just blunt.
> 
> I think a large part of the hostility that occurs in these threads is that a number of people have how they game as a core identifier of self -- it's important to their self image.  So, any statement that seems to reduce the import of that becomes extremely fraught very quickly.  It's why we get people trying to shut down these threads or lockdowns about terminology.  If you use a positive sounding term for other gaming, it's bad, because it suggests that positive things isn't about your gaming.  If you describe a process bluntly (playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction vs living world, for instance), then there's a feeling that this is an attack on self.  The people that hold gaming as part of their identity are always going to be resistant to any breakdown or analysis, because this threatens their sense of self.




If we can define it... why can't you accept it?  In the same way you defined protagonism and many had too... without all the pseudo-psychoanalyzation about our thoughts, identities or beliefs?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> If we can define it... why can't you accept it?  In the same way you defined protagonism and many had too... without all the pseudo-psychoanalyzation about our thoughts, identities or beliefs?



It hasn't been defined.  I'll be all ears to hearing it defined.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I think that the fact that you can't come up with a better description is telling, though.  It "playing to discover the GM's notes" somewhat blunt and unromantic?  Absolutely it is.  It's also a succinct description of the play.  And, I one I willing admit to using myself.  If your interest is in teasing out what's actually happening in play, so that you can do it better, a blunt, unromantic description is best.  It's not a negative, though, because it produces fun play, it's just blunt.
> 
> I think a large part of the hostility that occurs in these threads is that a number of people have how they game as a core identifier of self -- it's important to their self image.  So, any statement that seems to reduce the import of that becomes extremely fraught very quickly.  It's why we get people trying to shut down these threads or lockdowns about terminology.  If you use a positive sounding term for other gaming, it's bad, because it suggests that positive things isn't about your gaming.  If you describe a process bluntly (playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction vs living world, for instance), then there's a feeling that this is an attack on self.  The people that hold gaming as part of their identity are always going to be resistant to any breakdown or analysis, because this threatens their sense of self.



Maybe a somewhat more neutral phrasing would be "playing to discover the GM's world/setting." At least that allows for the possibility that the GM might be discovering (OK, more probably realizing) things about the world about the same time the players are. If you broaden it slightly to "playing to discover the world/setting as created by the players" (where "players" includes the GM for economy of phrasing) it allows for players other than the GM to create/place setting elements--something I allow as GM readily before/between campaigns but reluctantly during them. Of course, then it seems as though there's less differentiation between playstyles--and differentiation between playstyles is, I suspect, a large part of the phrasing.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> * If you're having an interesting conversation about "online/offline" content in Sandbox gaming and the impetus to evolve "offline content suddenly turned online"....DO NOT ASK PEOPLE (a) what their impulse and hopeful payoff is when challenging conversation with "this analysis is deeply niche and the overwhelmingly majority of the hobby doesn't care about it" and (b) when you have a thought like "self, I wonder if some of the frustration around looking at TTRPGs through an engineering lens is similar to the pushback on baseball/football analytics and the Evolutionary Biology/Psychology and Neuroendocrinology in research on love...again, DO NOT ASK IT.



 You can ask me.  I don't mind delving questions from people who are genuinely interested in conversation.  There are some here who appear to use these conversations as cover to put forward their style and bash the others, but I don't think that you are one of them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Maybe a somewhat more neutral phrasing would be "playing to discover the GM's world/setting." At least that allows for the possibility that the GM might be discovering (OK, more probably realizing) things about the world about the same time the players are. If you broaden it slightly to "playing to discover the world/setting as created by the players" (where "players" includes the GM for economy of phrasing) it allows for players other than the GM to create/place setting elements--something I allow as GM readily before/between campaigns but reluctantly during them. Of course, then it seems as though there's less differentiation between playstyles--and differentiation between playstyles is, I suspect, a large part of the phrasing.



So the negative connotation is "GM's notes?"  As you note, softening this leads to ambiguity in approach, and I'm really not sure how this is negative if the GM has written extensive notes?  These aren't rhetorical.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> Maybe a somewhat more neutral phrasing would be "playing to discover the GM's world/setting." At least that allows for the possibility that the GM might be discovering (OK, more probably realizing) things about the world about the same time the players are. If you broaden it slightly to "playing to discover the world/setting as created by the players" (where "players" includes the GM for economy of phrasing) it allows for players other than the GM to create/place setting elements--something I allow as GM readily before/between campaigns but reluctantly during them. Of course, then it seems as though there's less differentiation between playstyles--and differentiation between playstyles is, I suspect, a large part of the phrasing.



That's a nice definition, but I think it misses a key element that GM Notes captures perfectly. Let's set aside, for a moment, everything about play style and adjudication, and focus for a moment on the specific idea of deep prep. This is a common thing for many GMs running many systems. It is also not, in itself, a bad thing as it can certainly lead to enormously deeply compelling and developed game worlds, something that I think we all enjoy to some degree. The nature of that prep, in other words the content and purpose of the notes, can differ greatly from GM to GM, and the differences there start to outline some of the negatives that can accompany this particular approach to setting design.

I think we can agree that prep about mythology isn't harmful, nor are maps and geography, nor indeed are NPCs and factions. All of those things can exist in GM notes and be produced as needed to add depth and interest to a game. However, when those notes contain items that index more to plot than content that is where problems can start to arise. That sort of prep involves things like where specific information can be found, which NPCs know what, which factions are doing what, and more broadly, what the next steps of the adventure will look like. None of that has to be a negative, but it certainly can be. The extent to which a GM relies on those notes and his existing prep to try and guide the game in a specific direction, and the extent to which, in play, he does or does not make other avenues of action and investigation options functionally available to the players is also probably, quite fairly, the extent to which the term railroad might be applied to that game. In short, the extent to which the *plot* is something to be discovered is probably where this turns into a problem in a lot of games. Taking a different tack, the extent to which those notes are treated as inviolate in play is telling.

The point of this is to differentiate the existence of GM notes period as an issue, which is isn't, from some specific uses and approaches to those notes, which can be a problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous



someone who bullies has no integrity, but I know a lot of pompous people who just don’t know the effect their words have on others (who are upstanding good people). On a forum where tone isn’t clear and everything is literal it is easy to post in ways others find pompous, even if that isn’t the intention.


Ovinomancer said:


> So the negative connotation is "GM's notes?"  As you note, softening this leads to ambiguity in approach, and I'm really not sure how this is negative if the GM has written extensive notes?  These aren't rhetorical.



but then that means the divide is over more than language. One of the reasons we find it insulting as a descriptor is because of how in a curate it seems. So it’s the persistence of using an inaccurate label that provoked the reaction. The reason it is inaccurate is it is not just about notes or just about what is in the GMs mind, it is about being oriented towards and open to all the stuff happening at the table in the setting the notes and GMs mind are meant to model. And there is a focus, even on the part of the GM on acting through characters, driving the game forward through what characters choose to do (not through events, scenes, story, etc). And the techniques and procedures described earlier are ways in which all that is achieved (though I would say there isn’t a single recipe for making living world sandbox work: there are tool sets to draw on)


----------



## Aldarc

Nuance often gets lost in these sort of discussions, particularly as we tend to treat our games and how we run them as a *gestalt *rather than a series of interlocked constituent approaches, goals, mechanical systems, play feedback loops, etc. For example, can one have sandbox play without a "living world"? Sure. Can one have a "living world" in games with more story now games? Sure. Can one have sandbox games in story now games? Sure. Can one have non-sandbox games with more traditional GMing and player roles? Most definitely. 



prabe said:


> Maybe a somewhat more neutral phrasing would be "playing to discover the GM's world/setting." At least that allows for the possibility that the GM might be discovering (OK, more probably realizing) things about the world about the same time the players are. If you broaden it slightly to "playing to discover the world/setting as created by the players" (where "players" includes the GM for economy of phrasing) it allows for players other than the GM to create/place setting elements--something I allow as GM readily before/between campaigns but reluctantly during them. Of course, then it seems as though there's less differentiation between playstyles--and differentiation between playstyles is, I suspect, a large part of the phrasing.



This has been proposed before. I still think that phrase is inaccurate to the play process: i.e., GM as the nigh sole intermediary/arbiter/filter between the players and the fiction of the setting. Regardless of the goals of the GM, the positive/negative framing of the point or its phrasing, or whatever other new tangent or goal post put forth, this point has been fundamentally acknowledged as accurate at numerous points in this conversation.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> So the negative connotation is "GM's notes?"  As you note, softening this leads to ambiguity in approach, and I'm really not sure how this is negative if the GM has written extensive notes?  These aren't rhetorical.



To me, the "discovering the GM's notes" sounds ... more like reading a book. (Note: I have never particularly enjoyed sandbox play--all my experiences have been roughly consistent with being told by the GM, "Go and find the fun.") It sounds less interactive and more one-sided than I have found it to be in practice, other than the most linear AP-style play.

I think "playing to discover the GM's notes" misses the idea the GM might not know everything (and probably doesn't, no matter how extensive their notes). I think there's often the implication the GM's notes include plot--as @Fenris-77 indicates, that's the worst-case scenario (I think there's probably some disagreement about whether it's the only bad instance, but I suspect it's the case most likely to be considered bad).


----------



## prabe

Aldarc said:


> This has been proposed before. I still think that phrase is inaccurate to the play process: i.e., GM as the nigh sole intermediary/arbiter/filter between the players and the fiction of the setting. Regardless of the goals of the GM, the positive/negative framing of the point or its phrasing, or whatever other new tangent or goal post put forth, this point has been fundamentally acknowledged as accurate at numerous points in this conversation.



I think what I'm trying to get at is that the GM may also be discovering/realizing things about the setting, even if they are effectively the sole arbiter thereof.

There's also, I think, something in the phrasing that tends to change from being about the process of play to being about the purpose of play. If the intended purpose of play is to change the setting, there needs to be some definition of what the setting is before the change.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> To me, the "discovering the GM's notes" sounds ... more like reading a book. (Note: I have never particularly enjoyed sandbox play--all my experiences have been roughly consistent with being told by the GM, "Go and find the fun.") It sounds less interactive and more one-sided than I have found it to be in practice, other than the most linear AP-style play.
> 
> I think "playing to discover the GM's notes" misses the idea the GM might not know everything (and probably doesn't, no matter how extensive their notes). I think there's often the implication the GM's notes include plot--as @Fenris-77 indicates, that's the worst-case scenario (I think there's probably some disagreement about whether it's the only bad instance, but I suspect it's the case most likely to be considered bad).



I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are _supposed_ to discover rather than something they _can_ discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Fenris-77 said:


> I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are _supposed_ to discover rather than something they _can_ discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.




But are you not ignoring Skilled Play - how much Agency is there within Skilled Play?


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. *Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs.* Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are _supposed_ to discover rather than something they _can_ discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.



Yes.  It's a DM problem, not a style problem. If a DM holds too tightly to the notes and constrains the players inappropriately with them, that's bad.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are _supposed_ to discover rather than something they _can_ discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.



Most of the good GMs I've been around have written up things because they wanted the players to find out about them. Whether that means the GMs wanted to be in charge of plot is plausibly debatable. In my instance, I enjoy being asked specific questions about my setting--I have a number to answer before a session tomorrow night, and I'm expecting to have a good deal of fun doing so; but the questions are relevant to PC goals, so very much in service of PCs' dramatics needs, IMO.


----------



## Fenris-77

AnotherGuy said:


> But are you not ignoring Skilled Play - how much Agency is there within Skilled Play?



Skilled play isn't synonymous with railroad GMing. In a skilled play campaign, lets assume the OSR version for the sake of clarity, you will indeed have GM notes in plenty. You'll have set encounters in set places, you'll have nefarious traps and trickery, all sorts of goodies, all usually backstopped by rigorous resource management and a plethora of random tables. However, the agency in that game still lies firmly with the players as it's up to them to decide how to engage with obstacle X, or even to engage with it at all. An important note about skilled play is that it is usually not balanced in the way that, say, 5E is balanced, at the encounter level, but rather it is left to the players to decide if they are in over their heads in a given encounter and should flee. 

The issues I outlined upstream can easily happen in a skilled play game of course, but with experienced players the attempt by the GM there will be glaringly obvious as it's quite at odds with the expected teleos of play in those games.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> Most of the good GMs I've been around have written up things because they* wanted the players to find out about them*. Whether that means the GMs wanted to be in charge of plot is plausibly debatable. In my instance, I enjoy being asked specific questions about my setting--I have a number to answer before a session tomorrow night, and I'm expecting to have a good deal of fun doing so; but the questions are relevant to PC goals, so very much in service of PCs' dramatics needs, IMO.



The difference between _want_ and _expect_ or even _insist_ is really the key here.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> The difference between _want_ and _expect_ or even _insist_ is really the key here.



It's kinda the difference between filling a bird feeder and making pate, innit?


----------



## Fenris-77

To give a specific example, I'm running a pretty skilled play sandbox kind of game right now, PbP, using the Black Hack 2E rules set. We're still early days, but before we started I'd sat down and done a bunch of prep in the direction I thought the players were going to decide to go first. I build a bespoke bestiary, developed a bunch of encounter areas, and had a cool background faction game all ready to go. Needless to say the players went another direction entirely, and that's what we're playing. I made no overt attempt to guide them back to my prep, or make that other direction problematic and thus easily abandoned. We may never end up using that prep, but that's fine. It's not my job to guide the emerging narrative, only to frame it well and place appropriate obstacles in front of the party in whatever direction they choose to go. So notes without the negatives.

Edit - so I might want them to play through that prep, it's pretty cool, but I don't expect them to.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> To give a specific example, I'm running a pretty skilled play sandbox kind of game right now, PbP, using the Black Hack 2E rules set. We're still early days, but before we started I'd sat down and done a bunch of prep in the direction I thought the players were going to decide to go first. I build a bespoke bestiary, developed a bunch of encounter areas, and had a cool background faction game all ready to go.* Needless to say the players went another direction entirely, and that's what we're playing. I made no overt attempt to guide them back to my prep, or make that other direction problematic and thus easily abandoned. We may never end up using that prep, but that's fine.* It's not my job to guide the emerging narrative, only to frame it well and place appropriate obstacles in front of the party in whatever direction they choose to go. So notes without the negatives.
> 
> Edit - so I might want them to play through that prep, it's pretty cool, but I don't expect them to.



Exactly.


----------



## Aldarc

prabe said:


> I think what I'm trying to get at is that the GM may also be discovering/realizing things about the setting, even if they are effectively the sole arbiter thereof.



Sure, and the taxi driver may know things about their passengers' desired destination or they may discover things about their passengers' destination as they drive there. 



prabe said:


> There's also, I think, something in the phrasing that tends to change from being about the process of play to being about the purpose of play. If the intended purpose of play is to change the setting, there needs to be some definition of what the setting is before the change.



I think that differences in the process of play is more informative and insightful than the purpose of play. This is why I would prefer to keep the focus on _how_ rather than _why _or_ to what end._ 

For example, let's take another system: i.e., government. The purpose of a style of government may broadly be to create a democratic republic that represents the people, but that will look different between a political system like the United States, which invests a lot of governing power in the President through first-past-the-post elections, or one of the various European parliamentary systems, which places greater governing power in legislative coalitions that form governments headed by a prime minister with executive heads-of-state often serving as figure-heads. There are also sorts of variables, such as who gets to vote, who can veto legislation, the balance of power, etc. 

That underlying process is an important part of how that purpose of play is achieved, whatever that may be. The purpose of play may be to generate a good story, but some will do so through AP play, highly GM-curated experiences, railroaded play, open world sandbox play, PC-driven dramatic play, etc.


----------



## prabe

@Fenris-77 I think there's a difference between expecting the players to do something because you prepped it, and expecting them to do something because you know them (and/or how they're playing these specific characters). I think the former is closer to insisting. I do the latter, but I have no problem tossing prep if the PCs end up going other places or doing other things (the fact I don't prep more than the next session keeps me from wasting as much prep, I think).


----------



## Campbell

AnotherGuy said:


> Not that I agree with your sword of MSG, but are you saying indie gamers in this thread feel less than or hard done by?




Not presently, but a less creatively secure version of myself absolutely did. During my development as a gamer and a GM there have been a number of people on this particular board, elsewhere online, and in meat space have said and done things that made me feel unwelcome in this hobby. I'm 36 right now. I was like 14 when I started posting on Eric Noah's message boards. Several posters are still posting in this thread. There are times where I have felt like my discontent with mainstream play meant there must be something wrong with me or like that I was in the wrong hobby.

Posters like @Imaro , @Bedrockgames (although in other spaces) and @Ovinomancer definitely contributed to that experience for me back then. For awhile they became like my Detroit Pistons. This was especially true in the 4e era where I was still finding my footing as a GM. I used every time someone would say that I was basically irrelevant, that I just did not have experience with good GMs, or that I was not really playing a roleplaying game as motivation. I developed a Michael Jordan size chip on my shoulder.







I feel like I have gotten to a place where I do not have as much of a chip on my shoulder and can address this stuff in more reasoned ways, but I probably still have a bit of a chip on my shoulders. As a pretty competitive person and a lifelong athlete I tend to use motivation where I can get it. I think I'm older, somewhat wiser, and definitely more experienced now. Things have a lot less stakes (to me) now because I have gotten to experience what I was looking for and not finding when I was younger.

For one I am a lot more open to more mainstream games now to the point where some of my favorite games like Pathfinder 2, Exalted 3e, Vampire 5e, Legend of the Five Rings 5e and Worlds Without Number are fairly mainstream in approach.

The living world stuff is a bit of a cultural thing for me, largely because I have heard overly romantic depictions of it sold to me for years when I was struggling as a young GM. They made it sound so easy, like it just happens naturally. There was no road map. No procedures. Just throw yourself to the fire repeatedly. It led to years of frustration for me personally. 

I also really do think it's impossible to actually do. I think it's pursuit is valuable. There are all sorts of impossible that are valuable to pursue. However, I think it's really frustrating when you are someone trying to do it and not getting there when people act like they are routinely achieving the impossible. You can feel like an imposter even when the people you are playing with are really enjoying themselves. I spent years feeling like I could not measure up because it seemed like everyone was doing what I could not until I realized they weren't actually doing it.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> @Fenris-77 I think there's a difference between expecting the players to do something because you prepped it, and expecting them to do something because you know them (and/or how they're playing these specific characters). I think the former is closer to insisting. I do the latter, but I have no problem tossing prep if the PCs end up going other places or doing other things (the fact I don't prep more than the next session keeps me from wasting as much prep, I think).



Those are two pretty different uses of expect. The former indexes the point I'm making about negative uses of GM prep, but the latter is more about anticipation of player direction or interest, which is non-problematic IMO.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Those are two pretty different uses if expect. The former indexes the point I'm making about negative uses of GM prep, but the latter is more about anticipation of player direction or interest, which is non-problematic IMO.



I don't disagree. I just kept having to think through it every time I saw the word, because my brain occasionally does me dirt that way. Figured it was worth a little clarification.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Not presently, but a less creatively secure version of myself absolutely did. During my development as a gamer and a GM there have been a number of people on this particular board, elsewhere online, and in meat space have said and done things that made me feel unwelcome in this hobby. I'm 36 right now. I was like 14 when I started posting on Eric Noah's message boards. Several posters are still posting in this thread. There are times where I have felt like my discontent with mainstream play meant there must be something wrong with me or like that I was in the wrong hobby.
> 
> Posters like @Imaro , @Bedrockgames (although in other spaces) and @Ovinomancer definitely contributed to that experience for me back then. For awhile they became like my Detroit Pistons. This was especially true in the 4e era where I was still finding my footing as a GM. I used every time someone would say that I was basically irrelevant, that I just did not have experience with good GMs, or that I was not really playing a roleplaying game as motivation. I developed a Michael Jordan size chip on my shoulder.




I am 44, so I probably wasn't interacting with you until you were in your mid-20s is my guess, but if I posted anything that made you feel unwelcome to the hobby, that definitely wasn't my intent. And I wasn't trying to say living world sandboxes are easy: it took me a long time to find my way with RPGs and figure out what worked for me (this is why I point to that feast of Goblyns section as a bit of a genesis for me, but then I didn't really start going into the desert and figuring things out for myself until around 2004 or so: I know where I was living in Boston at the time, but can't recall the precise year). And for me it wasn't until after 4E that living world sandbox became a style I was really wrapping my head around (prior to that I was focused mostly on standard type adventures, mysteries/investigations, and character driven situational adventures). It took a while for me to find a way to make sandbox work (realizing that half of the puzzle was basically that box from Feast of Goblyns was a big part of it, because I already was taking that into my games---especially for monster hunt scenarios and investigations).


----------



## Imaro

Campbell said:


> Not presently, but a less creatively secure version of myself absolutely did. During my development as a gamer and a GM there have been a number of people on this particular board, elsewhere online, and in meat space have said and done things that made me feel unwelcome in this hobby. I'm 36 right now. I was like 14 when I started posting on Eric Noah's message boards. Several posters are still posting in this thread. There are times where I have felt like my discontent with mainstream play meant there must be something wrong with me or like that I was in the wrong hobby.
> 
> Posters like @Imaro , @Bedrockgames (although in other spaces) and @Ovinomancer definitely contributed to that experience for me back then. For awhile they became like my Detroit Pistons. This was especially true in the 4e era where I was still finding my footing as a GM. I used every time someone would say that I was basically irrelevant, that I just did not have experience with good GMs, or that I was not really playing a roleplaying game as motivation. I developed a Michael Jordan size chip on my shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I have gotten to a place where I do not have as much of a chip on my shoulder and can address this stuff in more reasoned ways, but I probably still have a bit of a chip on my shoulders. As a pretty competitive person and a lifelong athlete I tend to use motivation where I can get it. I think I'm older, somewhat wiser, and definitely more experienced now. Things have a lot less stakes (to me) now because I have gotten to experience what I was looking for and not finding when I was younger.
> 
> For one I am a lot more open to more mainstream games now to the point where some of my favorite games like Pathfinder 2, Exalted 3e, Vampire 5e, Legend of the Five Rings 5e and Worlds Without Number are fairly mainstream in approach.
> 
> The living world stuff is a bit of a cultural thing for me, largely because I have heard overly romantic depictions of it sold to me for years when I was struggling as a young GM. They made it sound so easy, like it just happens naturally. There was no road map. No procedures. Just throw yourself to the fire repeatedly. It led to years of frustration for me personally.
> 
> I also really do think it's impossible to actually do. I think it's pursuit is valuable. There are all sorts of impossible that are valuable to pursue. However, I think it's really frustrating when you are someone trying to do it and not getting there when people act like they are routinely achieving the impossible. You can feel like an imposter even when the people you are playing with are really enjoying themselves. I spent years feeling like I could not measure up because it seemed like everyone was doing what I could not until I realized they weren't actually doing it.



@Campbell  just wanted to say I apologize, I definitely don't intend to make anyone feel like they don't belong in the hobby but with that said I do know that during the 4e time period (And even now) many discussions get heated and I shoulder my fair share of blame for taking many of them too far.  So I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable in our hobby and I will endeavor to try and dial back some in these discussions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> @Campbell  just wanted to say I apologize, I definitely don't intend to make anyone feel like they don't belong in the hobby but with that said I do know that during the 4e time period (And even now) many discussions get heated and I shoulder my fair share of blame for taking many of them too far.  So I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable in our hobby and I will endeavor to try and dial back some in these discussions.




I agree with this. Definitely extend my apologies to you if I made you feel this way. I think one thing to keep in mind is we don't know anything about one another besides the name we choose for ourselves and how we speak. If you were very young when you came onto En World, and you received strong push back, my guess is people probably mistook you for being older (because generally it seems people try not to engage posters who seem like teenagers that way). One problem I often have is I just assume people are all my age when I am  talking with them. I don't know why I make that assumption, but I find in my head I imagine an audience my own age.


----------



## Campbell

Back to the main topic. 

One of the issues I have personally experienced with traditional sandbox techniques (particularly OSR style sandbox techniques) where a GM will spend months designing a setting with the expectation that players will want to actively explore it is that on both sides of the screen it often feels like space aliens coming to a new planet. Characters seldom feel like integrated parts of the setting, often because there is very little effort in actually building out a real life for them. Games like RuneQuest, Classic Traveller, and their modern cousins like Conan 2d20 feel slightly better here, but often the setting is constructed too high a level for my tastes. 

I find a lot of sandbox design tends to over focus on social groupings and not enough on characters as people with real relationships and connections to the outside world. In gaming I think there is often an over intellectualization of setting material where GMs often fall into the economist's trap of treating everyone like rational actors. In my personal experience most people (myself included) are phenomenal at posthoc rationalization, but not often guided by their rational minds when making decisions. This might be actor's bias creeping through though.

To  a certain extent I think sometimes making exploration a central goal of play can harm the sense of being there in the moment. Mostly because I want my characters to feel like they live in the world rather than like they are exploring it. Things that are part of their everyday lives should not feel new to their player.

Generally when I'm playing a character focused game I do not want to have a detached view of the fiction. Within reason I want sense of my character's perspective of the world. That includes intuition, what they know, what they have experienced, who they care about, and their emotional responses to the events unfolding before them. I want things to feel like personal and not in a performative way. 

Not saying people using more traditional sandbox techniques do not want that, but in my experience that sense of integration can often be lacking. That's why to a certain extent I tend to be a strong believer in a more integrated and ongoing approach to setting design for more character focused play. I tend to prefer that authority over framing and backstory still remains firmly in the GM's hands, but think a focus on the more immediate situation and the character's daily life is beneficial.

This all does assume that you are not really playing an adventuring game. My character focused games tend to focus on characters whose normal existence pretty much is an adventure.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Back to the main topic.
> 
> One of the issues I have personally experienced with traditional sandbox techniques (particularly OSR style sandbox techniques) where a GM will spend months designing a setting with the expectation that players will want to actively explore it is that on both sides of the screen it often feels like space aliens coming to a new planet. Characters seldom feel like integrated parts of the setting, often because there is very little effort in actually building out a real life for them. Games like RuneQuest, Classic Traveller, and their modern cousins like Conan 2d20 feel slightly better here, but often the setting is constructed too high a level for my tastes.
> 
> I find a lot of sandbox design tends to over focus on social groupings and not enough on characters as people with real relationships and connections to the outside world. In gaming I think there is often an over intellectualization of setting material where GMs often fall into the economist's trap of treating everyone like rational actors. In my personal experience most people (myself included) are phenomenal at posthoc rationalization, but not often guided by their rational minds when making decisions. This might be actor's bias creeping through though.
> 
> To  a certain extent I think sometimes making exploration a central goal of play can harm the sense of being there in the moment. Mostly because I want my characters to feel like they live in the world rather than like they are exploring it. Things that are part of their everyday lives should not feel new to their player.
> 
> Generally when I'm playing a character focused game I do not want to have a detached view of the fiction. Within reason I want sense of my character's perspective of the world. That includes intuition, what they know, what they have experienced, who they care about, and their emotional responses to the events unfolding before them. I want things to feel like personal and not in a performative way.
> 
> Not saying people using more traditional sandbox techniques do not want that, but in my experience that sense of integration can often be lacking. That's why to a certain extent I tend to be a strong believer in a more integrated and ongoing approach to setting design for more character focused play. I tend to prefer that authority over framing and backstory still remains firmly in the GM's hands, but think a focus on the more immediate situation and the character's daily life is beneficial.
> 
> This all does assume that you are not really playing an adventuring game. My character focused games tend to focus on characters whose normal existence pretty much is an adventure.




I actually agree with a lot of this. I might quibble over specific phrasing in instances, but I agree that one of the big challenges of sandbox is getting players to feel connected to the world they live in initially (this is why I think in most of the advice and even in the Justin Alexander video there is usually a phrase like "*eventually *the sandbox should run itself because the players are finding their own hooks". It takes time to get the point where the players know enough about the setting to do that and where their characters have enough connections in the world to feel like they truly inhabit it. In my experience the first couple of months of play are sort of like movies where an out of town character shows up in the big city for the first time and they need to get their footing. 

I also agree about exploration. I don't really see exploration as the focus, I see characters as the focus and I agree about PCs and NPCs not being purely rational actors. This is why I talk a lot about intuition and emotion. When I am running an NPC, obviously I know their stated motives and goals on the page, but I also feel how that character responds to the things and that guides my judgement just as much, often more. 

And I think something you said here reminds me why things like family ties are so important. The more sandboxes I've run, the more I've tried to establish with players what their family background is and who their living relatives are (and I often let them have a lot of creative control here, though I will push back simply to avoid it being wish fulfillment----since I think their family members need to have goals, secrets and desires of their own). This has really helped make my sandboxes work much better. When characters are rooted to family it definitely makes them behave differently. That is also why I think characters getting married and having children can really be beneficial in a campaign.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> This all does assume that you are not really playing an adventuring game. My character focused games tend to focus on characters whose normal existence pretty much is an adventure.




Mine are often still adventuring but family life is often very important too


----------



## Aldarc

Campbell said:


> To  a certain extent I think sometimes making exploration a central goal of play can harm the sense of being there in the moment. Mostly because I want my characters to feel like they live in the world rather than like they are exploring it. Things that are part of their everyday lives should not feel new to their player.



Playing to explore a living world with characters vs. playing to explore a living character in a world?


----------



## Fenris-77

@Campbell - What you describe is an interesting dichotomy. There is indeed a particular style of sandbox wherein the players tend to rebel at anything that constrains what they see as their agency. This is usually in service of the common wandering band of adventurers trope, where the PCs have no initial connection to the setting at all. Things like relationships and obligations are very much constraints the way that kind of player sees them. However, I also find that lack of connection a negative in terms of my immersion into a story (I'm stopping short of _immersion in character_ there on purpose). I find that connections to the setting in terms of groups, people, experience, whatever, tend on increase my immersion rather than decrease it.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Sry BRG, I've modified your post somewhat for this



Bedrockgames said:


> (a) the big challenges of sandbox is getting players to feel connected to the world they live in initially
> (b) "*eventually *the sandbox should run itself because the players are finding their own hooks".
> (c) It takes time to get the point where the players know enough about the setting to do that and where their characters have enough connections in the world to feel like they truly inhabit it. In my experience the first couple of months of play are sort of like movies where an out of town character shows up in the big city for the first time and they need to get their footing.
> (e) The more sandboxes I've run, the more I've tried to establish with players what their family background is and who their living relatives are (and I often let them have a lot of creative control here, though I will push back simply to avoid it being wish fulfillment----since I think their family members need to have goals, secrets and desires of their own). This has really helped make my sandboxes work much better. When characters are rooted to family it definitely makes them behave differently. That is also why I think characters getting married and having children can really be beneficial in a campaign.




My thoughts are the _other side_ jump-starts this with a lot of initial player creative control to arrive at (b) faster because THAT is where the magic is both for the GM and for the players in whatever system you're playing.

One can also release this creative control to the players as bursts during a campaign to accelerate the process, to build hooks both for the PCs and the GM. And this is something I have experienced DMing in traditional D&D games.

The above, as always, depends on your players. I've had a player who never took advantage of the creativity granted her.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I actually agree with a lot of this. I might quibble over specific phrasing in instances, but I agree that one of the big challenges of sandbox is getting players to feel connected to the world they live in initially (this is why I think in most of the advice and even in the Justin Alexander video there is usually a phrase like "*eventually *the sandbox should run itself because the players are finding their own hooks". It takes time to get the point where the players know enough about the setting to do that and where their characters have enough connections in the world to feel like they truly inhabit it. In my experience the first couple of months of play are sort of like movies where an out of town character shows up in the big city for the first time and they need to get their footing.



This is one reason that I run the Forgotten Realms almost exclusively.  My players know it well, since I've been running it or so long, but even if a new player shows up, there's lots that he can learn just from looking around the internet.  It doesn't take as long to get to know the setting.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hey, kumbaya everybody!



AnotherGuy said:


> I feel this post is worth unpacking.
> Lots of good material to work from here.




I agree it was a great post. I think that it highlights some of the breakdown earlier in the thread, about terms and how they are used. 

To me, the idea of a "Living World" is a goal. That's the result you want. There are different means of getting there, and they can be quite different, and so I think that's part of why the term is a bit fraught. However, there are plenty of people who use it not as a goal, but as a quick descriptor of how they play, based on many elements commonly found to produce that goal. 

They've essentially taken a noun and turned it into a verb. 

And I think that's fine in a casual way. But I think in a discussion like this, it creates more problems than it's worth because you can have two radically different games both aimed at portraying a Living World, that use entirely different techniques. 

It would be like taking the goal of "Fun" and then referencing it as the technique. "I tend to take a Fun approach to GMing". Hey, awesome.....but to anyone who is trying to understand how you make a game fun, it does nothing.



Campbell said:


> The living world stuff is a bit of a cultural thing for me, largely because I have heard overly romantic depictions of it sold to me for years when I was struggling as a young GM. They made it sound so easy, like it just happens naturally. There was no road map. No procedures. Just throw yourself to the fire repeatedly. It led to years of frustration for me personally.




Yeah, it's tricky.....because really, ultimately it's all artifice. And I've found this resistance to that idea, at times, where people can be reluctant to admit the mundane process in place of the effect it may have on them. And I know I've done this myself, for sure. 

I think a lot of long time gamers (and this is probably true of any hobby, though not universally so for any of them) have just internalized so many things about gaming and the processes involved that it can be hard to step back and examine things in a step by step manner, breaking things down into their most basic components. 

This is one of the reasons I've become really drawn to games that clearly describe a process or play loop with the expectation that it is to be applied as described. I just like that as a GM, and I like that it makes things so clear for players.




Campbell said:


> To a certain extent I think sometimes making exploration a central goal of play can harm the sense of being there in the moment. Mostly because I want my characters to feel like they live in the world rather than like they are exploring it. Things that are part of their everyday lives should not feel new to their player.




So that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind at the start of the post. One GM can be preparing an OSR style sandbox hexcrawl, with a mix of prepared locations and procedural generation using tables and the like. The PCs are to be newcomers to this area, with the goal to explore and maybe report back to some employer or patron. Maybe they've been tasked with mapping a frontier or similar. This GM wants to portray a living world for his players to explore through their PCs.

Another GM could be preparing a no-myth game set in an industrial city, with factions competing for power and influence. The PCs are to be citizens of this city, and so they will have connections and obligations and goals based on that. The PCs will be working together to further their own goals while dealing with the other factions in the city. This GM also wants to portray a living world for the players to interact with. 

They both want a living world. The scenarios are different, the methods of GMing are different, perhaps the player input will be different....my examples are mostly absent mechanics, but even so, we can see there would be things that need to be handled differently. The biggest in my mind is the fact that the setting doesn't need to be discovered by both the players AND the characters....the characters will already have a good deal of knowledge about the setting. Perhaps the players will, too, but perhaps not. How to handle that seems to me to be one of the biggest factors to consider. 

These games will play differently, for sure, but the goal is largely the same.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Bedrockgames said:


> I actually agree with a lot of this. I might quibble over specific phrasing in instances, but I agree that one of the big challenges of sandbox is getting players to feel connected to the world they live in initially (this is why I think in most of the advice and even in the Justin Alexander video there is usually a phrase like "*eventually *the sandbox should run itself because the players are finding their own hooks". It takes time to get the point where the players know enough about the setting to do that and where their characters have enough connections in the world to feel like they truly inhabit it. In my experience the first couple of months of play are sort of like movies where an out of town character shows up in the big city for the first time and they need to get their footing.



Jumping into this discussion because this paragraph reminded me of something I learned about recently: Kishotenketsu.

Here's a brief article introducing the concept. Kishōtenketsu for Beginners - An Introduction to Four Act Story Structure This reddit post talks about it in reference to DnD: 
Short short version: it's a type of story structure, an alternative to three-act or five-act structures. It has four parts: Introduction, development, complication, and resolution. The big difference is that the main conflict (so to speak, it's not a one-to-one correlation of concepts) doesn't come at or near the beginning - it comes after the development of characters and setting.

And now my own thought to add: in a sandbox game, you need to do a lot of introduction before the players are really exploring the setting, and you need to do a lot of exploration before you can introduce conflicts/twists/fronts. It takes a while before the players are confident enough in who their characters are and _where_ they are, both physically and narratively, before they can really explore. If they set out to early, they're just wandering around lost. 

This is why it's best to keep them in a smallish area at first - they need to define themselves before they can explore the world.

The second phase, if entered correctly, is where the real OSR exploration can take place: they're mapping and learning and growing as characters. The relationships, between the pc's and between them and the world, are developing (and developing meaning). But things happen at their own pace - new places are explored, one after another, in whatever order seems the most fun.

The twist shouldn't come until you're running low on stuff to do in the existing setting. Then, you can throw a wrench at the whole thing and the players can _use what they have learned_ to resolve the issue.

Resolution would either be denouement and/or opening up a new place to explore (ie planar travel), which brings us back to phase 2.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not a job. It’s a hobby and people can and should engage with it in whatever manner they like. But wanting to improve isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing.



There's a difference between a) actively wanting to improve and b) naturally improving through simple experience without any conscious effort involved.  Most people are quite happy with b) and many see a) as overkill and all too often - rightly - equate it with wanting to be "the best".


hawkeyefan said:


> Let me ask you...do you think your skill as a GM or a player can improve? Do you think your enjoyment of RPGs can be enhanced or broadened or changed?
> 
> I’d be surprised if just about anyone here said “no” to those questions.



That's about seven questions in two.  To break them out some:

-1- Do I think my skill as a player or GM can improve?  Yes.
-2- Do I think my enjoyment of playing/GMing would be enhanced by such improvement?  Uncertain. (see below)
-3- Do I think putting active effort into such improvement is necessary?  Meh.  Trial and error is good enough as long as I cop to the errors.
-4- Do I see such active effort by myself or others as a positive thing?  Oftentimes no.
-5- Do I think the natural improvement that comes throguh simple experience is good enough?  Yes, mostly.
-6- Do I think my enjoyment of RPGs can be enhanced in general?  Maybe, but this might at times conflict with other people's enjoyment.
-7- Do I think my enjoyment of RPGs can be changed?  Maybe, though I'm pretty much happy where I am.

To expand on -2- a bit: there's things I've learned through GMing that as a player I'd be much happier having never known.  There's also things I've learned through these forums that my players on ine side and my GM on the other side would probably be much happier had I never known.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> I don't have the time to digest posts, formulate my thoughts and appropriately respond to all of my pending responses.
> 
> But I'm curious about this.
> 
> This happens so often in these threads.  Outside of just conveying the words you've typed out above, what is it that animates a person (in this case imaro of ENWorld, but others like BRG and Lanefan who hold this same position) to (i) go to a conversation that is engaged in technical discussion and (ii) tell the people engaging in technical level discussion that the majority of fans/hobbyists are indifferent to a technical discussion of their leisure activity/hobby?
> 
> What is the impulse here?
> 
> Its an extreme curiosity of mine because I'm this way with several hobbies of mine from (a) Baseball and Football Analytics, to (b) serious NFL game film breakdown, to (c) extensive NFL prospect film eval (and Big Board creation), to (d) BJJ conversation and analysis.
> 
> Without fail, just like here when it comes to TTRGPs, there is a certain segment of people who invariably do exactly what you're doing here.  And those same people are SERIOUSLY adversarial toward both the interest in deep-dive technical evaluation of all of the above and feel inclined to do the (i) and (ii) above (actively seek out conversations to go to and tell those involved that what they're doing is extreme minority behavior and proceed to get hostile about it).
> 
> The symmetry is eerie.
> 
> What is it that makes you guys (and I'm assuming all of the other people that do this exact same things in the aforementioned (a) - (d) above) do this?  Do you think myself or others like me are suddenly going to go "oh...yeah, well, hell I didn't even think of it like that...I guess I'll just stop!"
> 
> What is the impulse you're following?  What realization or behavioral adjustment is it that you're trying to compel me toward?



In my case it's simple: I don't take much of it anywhere nearly as seriously as some of you and can't for the life of me understand why anyone would.

It's a game, for cryin' out loud; and while we can always try to make our games better there comes a point (which has long since been passed) where it goes beyond simple game improvement and becomes little more than theorycrafting of a sort that would never survive first contact with almost any table perhaps excepting those of the people crafting that particular theory in that moment.

Same for sports analytics.  99% of it is complete bloody overkill.  It's ruining hockey, and isn't doing baseball any good.

Side question: I've seen "BJJ" mentioned a few times now, what is it?


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> One other question I'd be curious to get the answer on (this struck me a few hours ago).
> 
> Is the issue that some people have with technical analysis/demystifying GMing and TTRPGs have something to do with the idea of "taking the romance out of it?"  Sort of the same complaint that gets levied at evolutionary biology/psychology and Neuroendocrinology for breaking down love and attraction to process and its constituent parts/regimes?



Yes, that's also a significant part of it.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Side question: I've seen "BJJ" mentioned a few times now, what is it?



Pretty sure it's Brazilian Jiu-jitsu (sp?). I know MBC is a practitioner, and there may be others.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> In my case it's simple: I don't take much of it anywhere nearly as seriously as some of you and can't for the life of me understand why anyone would.
> 
> It's a game, for cryin' out loud; and while we can always try to make our games better there comes a point (which has long since been passed) where it goes beyond simple game improvement and becomes little more than theorycrafting of a sort that would never survive first contact with almost any table perhaps excepting those of the people crafting that particular theory in that moment.



I don't know why everyone (or anyone) else takes it so seriously. I know I take it seriously because I don't want to be the one to ruin someone (or everyone) else's fun at the table--and that's very possible as GM.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> It's a game, for cryin' out loud; and while we can always try to make our games better there comes a point (which has long since been passed) where it goes beyond simple game improvement and becomes little more than theorycrafting of a sort that would never survive first contact with almost any table perhaps excepting those of the people crafting that particular theory in that moment.



Well, since the people in question have stated that they garner significant practical benefit from certain sorts of analysis and deconstruction, who are you to say it's not useful? I find it enormously useful in terms of growing my practical at-the-table skill set. So what? Am I lying? Mistaken? I don't get what you're trying to achieve here.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Doesn't this challenge the very idea of "dissociative mechanics"?
> 
> You've just presented the argument that dissociation in mechanics is a matter of perspective, not the inherent character. It is no longer accurate to say that every mechanic is inherently associative or dissociative.



Glad to know I was able to contribute to the chaos. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> And the serious problem lies exactly there: _which_ "information the PCs should reasonably have access to."
> 
> Well, that and instilling a deep and fundamental paranoia into your players isn't necessarily the healthiest or most enjoyable gaming experience.



I disagree.  The characters should be somewhat paranoid, thus giving the players a taste of that only makes sense.

Further: if everything really is against you then victories, when they come, are that much more special.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Question: If I write poetry for personal enjoyment, is it totally impossible to make sense of the idea that I want to improve my ability to do so? For example, increasing my vocabulary, reading example poems to see what other authors have done, or writing down interesting phrases I hear from others, would all seem examples of ways to improve my writing abilities, even though I do it purely because I enjoy it.



Great example for me personally, as I do just this and have done for decades.

My question, though, is one of intent: do you do those things - increase vocabulary, write down conversation snippets, etc. - with the _specific thought in mind_ of "Ooh, yes, this will improve my poetic skills"?

Or do you do it with the thought in mind of "Cool line, I'm going to use that sometime!" without regard as to skill improvement?

Me, I'm the latter.  I'm not and never really have been specifically _trying_ to improve my skill.  Instead I just keep banging them out and let any improvement come naturally through experience.  And over time, I dare say, it has.

Intentioally putting effort specifically into skill improvement, above and beyond just doing it, is IMO taking it more seriously than just a hobby.  Nothing wrong with that, but it's gone beyond casual hobby and into something else that maybe doesn't have a good term - unpaid work is the closest I can get, but that's not right either.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> Intentioally putting effort specifically into skill improvement, above and beyond just doing it, is IMO taking it more seriously than just a hobby.  Nothing wrong with that, but it's gone beyond casual hobby and into something else that maybe doesn't have a good term - unpaid work is the closest I can get, but that's not right either.



Ugh. Judgey much? Are there any other parts of the hobby that people are doing wrong based on your perfect balance and comprehension of what's involved? Gimme a break. I suspect I know what you're trying to achieve here, but all you've managed is being bloody rude and dismissive. I feel like _avoiding_ badwrongfun accusations is the way go, rather than leaning into them.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> I do not care how anyone plays who is not presently sitting at a table with me. No one should.



I do.

Why?  Because, however unlikely, one day we might find we are at the same table. 


Campbell said:


> "Most gamers" are irrelevant to me.



Not to me.

Feather-light though each individual one might be, every voice here has an impact on future RPG design.  However, not every gamer has a voice here; and thus all of us are (in nearly all cases unintentionally) almost certainly speaking on behalf of many others beyond just our own selves, who share our views but are not represented here.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> I'll take whatever responsibility here that I can muster.
> 
> I totally thought it was going to be an innocuous, nothingburger aside.  I was sincerely interested in the two questions I asked that fueled this whole thing.  I shouldn't have asked them.



I for one think your questions were perfectly valid.

That they've drawn some answers that don't please everyone isn't your fault.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Yes but my bigger point was that one side (A) had the power (and used it) to not only enforce their nomenclature on the other side (B) but to summarily dismiss any attempts of side B to establish nomenclature for their playstyle because it wasn't to their liking.  In other words there;s 2 points I am trying to make...
> 1.  How can there be a true discussion of equal merit when one side has and wields such an imbalance of power?



I don't understand what you are saying about "power".

I started a post. Various people post in it. Where is this imbalance of power located?

@Bedrockgames entered the thread, as far as I can tell, to contest my use of a particular phrase. No "enforced" any nomenclature. No one "summarily dismissed" anything. I, and @Aldrac, and some other posters too, have explained why we find terminology such as "exploring the world" unhelpful for an actual explanation of the methods of play. You might disagree, but thousands of words of posts are not "summary dismissal".

@Emerikol has described various approaches to play as "shallow", but I assume that is not the summary dismissal that concerns you.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I've explained why I think it is important to keep in mind that this discussion isn't for the vast majority of people who play ttrpg's



What's your explanation?

I discuss all sorts of things that the vast majority of people who participate in the institutions, practices etc I discuss aren't interested in discussing. It's called being  scholar. Why is it important that scholars keep in mind at all time that most people aren't scholars? Do furniture restorers need to keep in mind at all times that most people buy their furniture at Ikea?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this?  The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff



If your point is that more indie-game RPGers engage in analysis than D&D players, that's probably true. For similar reasons more fans of Ingmar Bergman than Michael Bay engage in film criticism. But so what? What is supposed to follow from that? Transformers fans hardly lack the opportunity to enjoy their movies!


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I also don't like a lot of the hard lines people draw



Do you mean like unilaterally placing posters into "sides"?


----------



## pemerton

AnotherGuy said:


> The issue I had was "playing to discover the GM's notes" - doesn't at the outset paint a particular roleplaying style in good stead



Why not?

This is how crosswords work. This is how escape rooms work. This is how Call of Cthuhlu modules work. This is how Tomb of Horrors work. This is how Christopher Tolkien has made his living. Many of those are regarded as fun pursuits by a non-trivial number of people. The notion that it's pejorative to actually describe how puzzles work in the context of a RPG is strange to me.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, since the people in question have stated that they garner significant practical benefit from certain sorts of analysis and deconstruction, who are you to say it's not useful? I find it enormously useful in terms of growing my practical at-the-table skill set. So what? Am I lying? Mistaken? I don't get what you're trying to achieve here.



I am neither saying nor suggesting that you're either lying or mistaken; and if it came across as such, apologies.

You find this all useful, which is excellent.  Personally, though I find some of these threads quite interesting to start with I find they almost inevitably go rather over-the-top; and I'm not above bursting the occasional balloon. 

I also find I often have to defend my own playstyle and-or try to blunt what can sometimes seem a wave of evangelism from proponents of other styles.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> I am neither saying nor suggesting that you're either lying or mistaken; and if it came across as such, apologies.
> 
> You find this all useful, which is excellent.  Personally, though I find some of these threads quite interesting to start with I find they almost inevitably go rather over-the-top; and I'm not above bursting the occasional balloon.
> 
> I also find I often have to defend my own playstyle and-or try to blunt what can sometimes seem a wave of evangelism from proponents of other styles.



That's fine and reasonable. I was struggling with what you were trying to achieve, both with this post and the other one I replied to. My apologies if I didn't give you enough leeway, I'm having a bit of a grumpy evening.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Ugh. Judgey much? Are there any other parts of the hobby that people are doing wrong based on your perfect balance and comprehension of what's involved? Gimme a break. I suspect I know what you're trying to achieve here, but all you've managed is being bloody rude and dismissive. I feel like _avoiding_ badwrongfun accusations is the way go, rather than leaning into them.



If what amounts to a broad-based "lighten up" comes across as rude and dismissive there's not much I can say.

That said, if _in my opinion_ someone's doing it wrong I don't mind saying so, just as I expect the same in return if they think the same of me. Otherwise we have an echo chamber, and what's the point of that?


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> That's fine and reasonable. I was struggling with what you were trying to achieve, both with this post and the other one I replied to. My apologies if I didn't give you enough leeway, I'm having a bit of a grumpy evening.



You and me both!


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> If what amounts to a broad-based "lighten up" comes across as rude and dismissive there's not much I can say.
> 
> That said, if _in my opinion_ someone's doing it wrong I don't mind saying so, just as I expect the same in return if they think the same of me. Otherwise we have an echo chamber, and what's the point of that?



It was a bit pointy for a "lighten up" comment, which was why I wasn't sure what to make of it. Maybe it reads different than you were hoping? IDK, anyway, I think we've cleared up any confusion.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> What exactly about your playstyle or goals has changed as a result of that knowledge?  I may have missed it but I haven't seen you post about any actual change or influence on how you play...



Look at my actual play posts for my Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller game.

In the latter in particular you'll see me developing both my PbtA-ish techniques (I've never GMed a PbtA game - Classic Traveller is as close as I've come) and also my use of notes and approach to "exploration"-oriented play.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> Look at my actual play posts for my Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller game.
> 
> In the latter in particular you'll see me developing both my PbtA-ish techniques (I've never GMed a PbtA game - Classic Traveller is as close as I've come) and also my use of notes and approach to "exploration"-oriented play.



Interestingly, while I have GMed PbtA I find myself using some of those techniques in just about any game I GM. I think it's got to do with the clarity with which some of those techniques and precepts there [are presented].


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Maybe a somewhat more neutral phrasing would be "playing to discover the GM's world/setting." At least that allows for the possibility that the GM might be discovering (OK, more probably realizing) things about the world about the same time the players are.



See, this is where I get stuck. The world doesn't exist, so how is the GM discovering or realising things about it?

This is possible in mathematics - ie 2+2 = 4 even if someone hasn't noticed yet.

But how is it possible to discover that Elminster is wearing red rather than blue stockings other than by having someone make that up?



Bedrockgames said:


> One of the reasons we find it insulting as a descriptor is because of how in a curate it seems. So it’s the persistence of using an inaccurate label that provoked the reaction. The reason it is inaccurate is it is not just about notes or just about what is in the GMs mind, it is about being oriented towards and open to all the stuff happening at the table in the setting the notes and GMs mind are meant to model. And there is a focus, even on the part of the GM on acting through characters, driving the game forward through what characters choose to do



Again, this is where I get stuck. _There is nothing that is being modelled_. Not in any literal sense. When the player says _I check out Elminster's legs. What colour are his stockings?_ the GM isn't deriving an answer from a model in the way that a weather forecaster might try to. The GM is making a decision.

This seems to be a sticking point. As far as I can tell, you seem unwilling to discuss play from the starting point that someone has to make up the imaginary stuff.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> To me, the "discovering the GM's notes" sounds ... more like reading a book.



I don't see why.

I've often posted that one important aspect of RPGing is that _players declare actions for their PCs that oblige the GM to narrate more stuff_. _What do we see?_ is a paradigm example but there are many others.

That is very different from reading a book, but it is still playing to discover the GM's conception of the fiction.


----------



## Fenris-77

A properly prepared GM would have a random chart for Elminster's Stockings.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> In my case it's simple: I don't take much of it anywhere nearly as seriously as some of you and can't for the life of me understand why anyone would.




I mean, some folks have literally explained why they look at games the way they do. 

Like you just did. You just explained your stance on it. Should I respond with “I can’t understand why Lanefan feels the way he does” or “Why don’t you care?” or “Why aren’t your views the same as mine?”

Some people take a hobby seriously, some don’t. Either is perfectly fine.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> See, this is where I get stuck. The world doesn't exist, so how is the GM discovering or realising things about it?
> 
> This is possible in mathematics - ie 2+2 = 4 even if someone hasn't noticed yet.
> 
> But how is it possible to discover that Elminster is wearing red rather than blue stockings other than by having someone make that up?



Have you ever written fiction, aside from gaming? The GM is discovering or realizing (or I suppose composing) what's in the world in the same way a free-writing novelist does, approximately. GMing feels different to me than writing fiction did (note the past tense--I quickly ran out of things to say as a writer) but it's the closest thing in my experience I can point to. It feels a lot like discovery--at least one writer I respect has compared it to being a paleontologist on a dig, and that makes sense to me, though it wasn't exactly my experience of it.

To use your Elminster example: The GM hasn't considered the color of his stockings, until asked. I'm not going argue that the answer isn't a decision, but it doesn't feel like one--any more than describing a character in fiction does, most of the time.

I think this is where our respective ways of thinking about (and possibly experiencing) what happens at a TRPG table are different enough that bridging the gap is difficult.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't see why.
> 
> I've often posted that one important aspect of RPGing is that _players declare actions for their PCs that oblige the GM to narrate more stuff_. _What do we see?_ is a paradigm example but there are many others.
> 
> That is very different from reading a book, but it is still playing to discover the GM's conception of the fiction.



GMing that way, I mean, would feel more like reading a book. I mean, playing a TRPG isn't a lot like reading a book, and neither really is GMing one. I guess that your description feels more ... rote, than my experience of it is. Like writing from an outline (something I've never, ever been much good at).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Again, this is where I get stuck. _There is nothing that is being modelled_. Not in any literal sense. When the player says _I check out Elminster's legs. What colour are his stockings?_ the GM isn't deriving an answer from a model in the way that a weather forecaster might try to. The GM is making a decision.
> 
> This seems to be a sticking point. As far as I can tell, you seem unwilling to discuss play from the starting point that someone has to make up the imaginary stuff.




Forget it. not worth it


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Why not?
> 
> This is how crosswords work. This is how escape rooms work. This is how Call of Cthuhlu modules work. This is how Tomb of Horrors work. This is how Christopher Tolkien has made his living. Many of those are regarded as fun pursuits by a non-trivial number of people. The notion that it's pejorative to actually describe how puzzles work in the context of a RPG is strange to me.



I'm sure you understand how words work.  You can say something that is true in two different ways.  One neutral and one highly offensive.  I very much doubt that you fail to understand how "playing to discover the DM's notes." is pejorative.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> See, this is where I get stuck. The world doesn't exist, so how is the GM discovering or realising things about it?
> 
> This is possible in mathematics - ie 2+2 = 4 even if someone hasn't noticed yet.
> 
> But how is it possible to discover that Elminster is wearing red rather than blue stockings other than by having someone make that up?



The world does exist in our thoughts.  It just doesn't have an independent existence or an existence outside of it.

If I decide that one country does X and that another country does Y, those are decisions.  If I ponder how X and Y work together, sometimes I discover Z.  I'm not making a decision for Z to happen.  I'm discovering that X + Y = Z.  If X + Y might have multiple outcomes, I have to decide on one.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> To use your Elminster example: The GM hasn't considered the color of his stockings, until asked. I'm not going argue that the answer isn't a decision, but it doesn't feel like one--any more than describing a character in fiction does, most of the time.
> 
> I think this is where our respective ways of thinking about (and possibly experiencing) what happens at a TRPG table are different enough that bridging the gap is difficult.




I wouldn't say that a GM's notes somehow preclude discovery on their part. I think that there are things they will discover through play based on their notes. I think that's something that can happen in play in even the most railroaded "GM's fiction as game" situation. 

Having said that, my experience has been that such discoveries are more of the "Elminster's stockings are mauve" variety, where as in games where I rely less on my notes, it's more about something like "Elminster's an awful person" or "Elminster can't be relied upon", something along those lines. 

Generally speaking, of course.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Most of the good GMs I've been around have written up things because they wanted the players to find out about them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In my instance, I enjoy being asked specific questions about my setting--I have a number to answer before a session tomorrow night, and I'm expecting to have a good deal of fun doing so; but the questions are relevant to PC goals, so very much in service of PCs' dramatics needs, IMO.



I think this is an example where we can probably talk meaningfully about the point of the GM's notes, how they contribute to play, and how player's learning what they say factors into that.

Of the past four sessions of Clasic Traveller that I GMed, two of them had a large component of the players discovering the GM's notes: the PCs were escavating and exploring an ancient pyramid complex buried under 4 km of ice. Some of the play was focsed on the action declarations that would put the PCs in the fictional position that would enable their players to declare the actions that would trigger my exposition. I had deliberately set it up so that those action declarations woldn't be "puzzle solving" (as in _how do we excavate 4 km of ice_) but rather social dynamics: there was a group of NPCs at the site, with drilling and blasting equipment, _and_ the PCs had a starship with a triple beam laser that is prety deadly even over 100s of thousands of km in space, so the immediate situation was about how to resolve rival claims to the site and how to integrate (or not) the efforts of the two expeditions.

Once the PCs entered the complex, I narrated away, referring to my notes (ie Shadows in Double Advntre 1) and making appropriate adjustments on the fly to bring the ficational elemements into line with my conception of the place which was built on what had already been established about these aliens (which was different from some of the premises of the module).

In the last two sessions, the "exploration" aspect has dropped away a bit, which I have found good. The old Traveller modules are not terribly dynamic situations as written.



prabe said:


> If the intended purpose of play is to change the setting, there needs to be some definition of what the setting is before the change.



This is an interesting point, but I don't think I agree with it. At least not fully.

For the players to self-consciously change the setting there does need to be some shared conception of what the setting is. But I don't think that requires the sort of GM-side prep work that I (at least - maybe others would agree with me) would associate with a sandbox.

Dogs in the Vineyard, for instance, includes changing the setting as part of the goal of play. But it's approach to setting is very different from what (say) @Emerikol is describing in this thread.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> There's a difference between *a) actively wanting to improve* and b) naturally improving through simple experience without any conscious effort involved.  Most people are quite happy with b) *and many see a) as overkill *and all too often - rightly - equate it with wanting to be "the best".



This assertion seems pretty blatantly contradicted by not only the number of GM's actively looking for advice online discussions on how to improve, including here on ENWorld, Reddit, Discord, and other forums, but also the sheer number of GMing Advice videos on YouTube. There are a LOT of D&D content creators on YouTube who mostly cater their content to GMs, new and veterans alike. On the whole, Generation Y and Z are the main players of D&D, and they have long been using YouTube as a general resource for instructional material.


----------



## AnotherGuy

pemerton said:


> Why not?




@Ovinomancer is likely right in that we probably should remove the romance out of the definition, however the various definitions come across as:

Setting Tourism *-*
Play to Discover GM's Notes *-*
Railroad *-*
Sandbox *neutral to +*
Protagonist Play *+*
Skilled Play *+*

I very much doubt I'm alone in this - in fact even @innerdude commented similarly on Play to Discover the GMs Notes in this very thread.

Analysing playstyles is far from my forte, however if I had to come up with something neutral for the two specific styles that exist between the various participants here... and this is not original as I've heard it before, but I'm unsure of the context.

I would charactertise your style as *Player Stance* and BRG's as *Character Stance*
Your Player Stance fits well with the active authorial power granted by the game/GM and Character Stance fits well with players passively digesting the setting/GM notes.

Maybe someone has a better suggestion.


----------



## Campbell

Aldarc said:


> Playing to explore a living world with characters vs. playing to explore a living character in a world?



I used to refer to more character focused as character exploration, but I am not entirely comfortable with that label or any depiction of something is living or having an independent existence. I think that erases the act of authorship. That includes the pride we should feel for the things we actively create through play and prep. It also includes the responsibility we bear for those creative decisions. I'm not a big fan of when authors or actors talk that way about their own material either.

I tend to view authorship in RPGs as a necessary evil (on both sides of the screen) that enables play. We author so we can play, but we still engage in acts of authorship. All of us do.

If anyone thinks I am wrong about this feel free to tell me how, but this is my honest perspective.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> One of the issues I have personally experienced with traditional sandbox techniques (particularly OSR style sandbox techniques) where a GM will spend months designing a setting with the expectation that players will want to actively explore it is that on both sides of the screen it often feels like space aliens coming to a new planet. Characters seldom feel like integrated parts of the setting, often because there is very little effort in actually building out a real life for them. Games like RuneQuest, Classic Traveller, and their modern cousins like Conan 2d20 feel slightly better here, but often the setting is constructed too high a level for my tastes.
> 
> I find a lot of sandbox design tends to over focus on social groupings and not enough on characters as people with real relationships and connections to the outside world. In gaming I think there is often an over intellectualization of setting material where GMs often fall into the economist's trap of treating everyone like rational actors. In my personal experience most people (myself included) are phenomenal at posthoc rationalization, but not often guided by their rational minds when making decisions.



This is a really good post. Upthread I quoted Gygax telling the GM to tell the players that they know nothing of the world except that they are in this village where they can pick up rumours of the nearby dnugeon.

Keep on the Borderlands starts like this. X2 is like this both for the castle and Averoigne. In Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan I think the default starting point is a shipwreck.

You are correct that Classic Traveller is very high level in its default setting (a noble-dominated Imperium with  navy, space marines and an Imperial scout service). My current game has involved a reasonable amount of world-hopping and so the PCs have never been in a place where they should feel at home. That is most likely to happen if they return to the ship-owning PCs homeworld of Hallucida, in which case I will give that player the stats (that I've rolled up) but probably let him decide on a lot of the details.

In the BW game where I'm a player I am returning to my ancestral estate which I have been exiled from for the past 5 years. So to the extent that it feels alien that will reflect the changes that have taken place in that time - a bit like when the Hobbits return to Sharky's Shire towards the end of LotR.

On NPCs as "rational actors": the only game where a version of this makes sense is The Dying Earth (in fact it's practically a trope in that game). Classic Traveller  with its bribable bureaucrats and predictable costs for travel and for goods, can come close but the reaction table changes this. When the PC von Jerrel kissed the NPC Lady Askol and the reaction roll was a 12 (genuine friendship) the whole dynamic of that relationship, and the interaction between the PCs and the local Navy outpost (which Lady Askol was in charge of) changed. She has since acted quite non-rationally to advance the interests of von Jerrel and hence (as she sees it) of her relationship with von Jerrel.

Without this sort of thing, NPCs can seem like robots.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> Interestingly, while I have GMed PbtA I find myself using some of those techniques in just about any game I GM. I think it's got to do with the clarity with which some of those techniques and precepts there.



Right. I don't think that Apocalypse World breaks new ground at every moment with its GM advice/techniques. "Reveal impending badness", "Think offscreen", "Misdirect and never speak you move" - these are all things that GMs have done before Vincent Baker wrote them down as principles.

But Baker puts them all together in a coherent, clearly-set out package. And shows what you don't _need_ as much as what you do - eg you can reveal impending badness, and hence get the pacing and dramatic benefits of foreshadowing, _without _knowing what exactly it is that is being foreshadowed. Likewise for thinking offscreen. There is real insight there into what RPGs, as an interactive medium carried by audience participation, are able to do that different narrative forms (eg books, film) can't.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> A properly prepared GM would have a random chart for Elminster's Stockings.



Appendix I of Gygax's DMG has a lot of random charts, including one for condiments in a kitchen. But I think it omits haberdashery.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> Appendix I of Gygax's DMG has a lot of random charts, including one for condiments in a kitchen. But I think it omits haberdashery.



QED I think. No gentleman of quality would omit haberdashery.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> @Ovinomancer is likely right in that we probably should remove the romance out of the definition, however the various definitions come across as:
> 
> Setting Tourism *-*
> Play to Discover GM's Notes *-*
> Railroad *-*
> Sandbox *neutral to +*
> Protagonist Play *+*
> Skilled Play *+*
> 
> I very much doubt I'm alone in this - in fact even @innerdude commented similarly on Play to Discover the GMs Notes in this very thread.
> 
> Analysing playstyles is far from my forte, however if I had to come up with something neutral for the two specific styles that exist between the various participants here... and this is not original as I've heard it before, but I'm unsure of the context.
> 
> I would charactertise your style as *Player Stance* and BRG's as *Character Stance*
> Your Player Stance fits well with the active authorial power granted by the game/GM and Character Stance fits well with players passively digesting the setting/GM notes.
> 
> Maybe someone has a better suggestion.



Except that Setting Tourism has been defended as not a bad thing, in and of itself.  Nor has playing to Discover the GM's notes.  Nor, even, a railroad.  Meanwhile, the definition of Protagonism has been rounded decried as "shallow" by others.  Skilled play is, to me, neutral, and not a positive connotation -- it's specifically talking about player skilled play, and so is divorced from character, and so would seem to argue against a lot of the goals sited in this thread.

Arguing about word connotations is, really, just surface analysis and detracts from the discussion.  It's a tone argument, not a substance one.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> Except that Setting Tourism has been defended as not a bad thing, in and of itself.  Nor has playing to Discover the GM's notes.  Nor, even, a railroad.  Meanwhile, the definition of Protagonism has been rounded decried as "shallow" by others.  Skilled play is, to me, neutral, and not a positive connotation -- it's specifically talking about player skilled play, and so is divorced from character, and so would seem to argue against a lot of the goals sited in this thread.
> 
> Arguing about word connotations is, really, just surface analysis and detracts from the discussion.  It's a tone argument, not a substance one.




Yes, tone poisoning the waters of conversation was what I was answering. 
Would have been nice if someone had made a comment about my proposals.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Arguing about word connotations is, really, just surface analysis and detracts from the discussion.  It's a tone argument, not a substance one.




Word connotations matter though. I don't want to beat this further into the ground, but "playing to discover the GM's notes" came up as a dismissal of sandbox and living world in a much earlier thread. That was the first time I saw it used. I am not saying people should be on edge all the time for perceived slights, but when there is a long history between posters of different styles feuding, just accepting terminology that seems both inaccurate (it is only accurate if you accept many of Pemerton's critiques of living world and sandbox---which many of us do not) and insulting, I don't know that doesn't seem wise to me. As the reaction to my own posts show, tone matters. There were clearly moments in this thread where my tone not only impacted peoples' ability to read what I was writing charitably but also probably distorted the meaning of what I was trying to say because my words reflected my biases not an even handed measurement of things. I would argue that stuff like playing to discover the GM's notes contains a lot of biased assumptions and overlooks so many of the things we have pointed to that are in fact well encapsulated by terms like Living World, Living World Sandbox, etc (provided one is permitted to explain what those mean: which isn't unique, playing to discover the GM's notes also requires further explanation)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Except that Setting Tourism has been defended as not a bad thing, in and of itself.....




I can't see how this isn't bad. It is almost always used as a pejorative in gaming circles.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Appendix I of Gygax's DMG has a lot of random charts, including one for condiments in a kitchen. But I think it omits haberdashery.



So I took a look.  First at the general furnishings and the closest thing I could find would be the wardrobe, but that may or may not have anything in it.  There was even a butt on the list.  Then I wandered over to magic user furnishings and found spatulas, tweezers and stuff animals(so you could find Elmo), but still no socks.  Then it was on to religious furnishings where I saw cassocks, cloth, robes and vestments, but no footwear was to be found.  Then I saw misc. utensils and personal items and thought, "Aha!  It has to be here." Alas, while it had such things as earspoons, wigs and thongs(wonder what they did with those), there were still no socks in sight.  Then at last I got to clothing and footwear and this is what I found.  Boots, hose, leggings, sandals, slippers, and even stockings, but socks seemed to have been omitted.  

It seems you were right!


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I can't see how this isn't bad. It is almost always used as a pejorative in gaming circles.



This.  They've been used pejoratively in virtually every thread that I've seen them come up in.  You can defend anything.  Simply being defended doesn't keep it from being pejorative.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> Yes, tone poisoning the waters of conversation was what I was answering.
> Would have been nice if someone had made a comment about my proposals.



Your proposals have the negative of being very close to old Forge terminology, and so are either already posed to start an argument (lots of people, for good reason in my opinion, dislike the Forge) or are confusing due to this.

As for tone poisoning, this isn't something that analysis should be concerned with.  It's a dodge to avoid discussion, not an engagement of discussion.  You can tell, because many in this thread use these terms to describe their own gaming.  Even @pemerton has spent many posts talking about how his play in Traveler has a lot of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes.  I'm running a railroad, with no protagonism.  If these terms are actually meant to be intentionally slanted, it's an odd argument that the people advocating for them are using them to cast their own play in the assumed bad light.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Your proposals have the negative of being very close to old Forge terminology, and so are either already posed to start an argument (lots of people, for good reason in my opinion, dislike the Forge) or are confusing due to this.
> 
> As for tone poisoning, this isn't something that analysis should be concerned with.  It's a dodge to avoid discussion, not an engagement of discussion.  You can tell, because many in this thread use these terms to describe their own gaming.  Even @pemerton has spent many posts talking about how his play in Traveler has a lot of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes.  I'm running a railroad, with no protagonism.  If these terms are actually meant to be intentionally slanted, it's an odd argument that the people advocating for them are using them to cast their own play in the assumed bad light.



Whether you @pemerton intend them to be so or not, a great many people perceive them to be pejorative.  You're going to continue to get a lot of arguments just like with the Forge terminology if you continue to use them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> As for tone poisoning, this isn't something that analysis should be concerned with.  It's a dodge to avoid discussion, not an engagement of discussion.



no it isn’t a dodge because we have also engaged the discussion (taking pains at times to point to the premises and assumptions we find faulty and taking pains to offer a detailed explanation of the process as we see it. It would be a dodge if all we did was critique the tone. And it would be a dodge if we didn’t offer up the above. But more than that, the tone is carrying assumptions into the discussion that are faulty. The tone of certainty here: where ‘because analysis’ is used to not only justify insulting tone but used as a means to assert the truth of your position and to claim ownership of logic and reason in the discussion. No one here is side stepping analysis. We are engaged in analysis too and rejecting many of your conclusions (via our analysis).


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I wouldn't say that a GM's notes somehow preclude discovery on their part. I think that there are things they will discover through play based on their notes. I think that's something that can happen in play in even the most railroaded "GM's fiction as game" situation.
> 
> Having said that, my experience has been that such discoveries are more of the "Elminster's stockings are mauve" variety, where as in games where I rely less on my notes, it's more about something like "Elminster's an awful person" or "Elminster can't be relied upon", something along those lines.
> 
> Generally speaking, of course.



I've had realizations dawn on me at pretty much any point you care to name from thinking about prep to writing prep to running a session--some of them have been the results of players asking questions, others have just been from seeing one or more connections. (Such as the one that came up in a different thread about an NPC suddenly needing to be wearing a leg brace, because I needed him to be a retired adventurer.)


pemerton said:


> For the players to self-consciously change the setting there does need to be some shared conception of what the setting is. But I don't think that requires the sort of GM-side prep work that I (at least - maybe others would agree with me) would associate with a sandbox.



Yeah. My point was that the setting needed to be established, not that the GM needed to establish it. I do the setting work in my campaigns, because I enjoy doing it (and because I didn't particularly enjoy the setting/s in game/s where some of the players at my tables contributed) but I wasn't attempting to universalize that. Other than playstyle-preferences, I don't think there's much daylight between us, here.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I've had realizations dawn on me at pretty much any point you care to name from thinking about prep to writing prep to running a session--some of them have been the results of players asking questions, others have just been from seeing one or more connections. (Such as the one that came up in a different thread about an NPC suddenly needing to be wearing a leg brace, because I needed him to be a retired adventurer.)




Yeah, I think that this kind of thing can happen at any time. My preference is that I discover something during play along with my players. I mean, the game is a group activity so my gut would say for such discoveries to be made with the group, rather than aline while prepping. But that’s just a preference, and I do think these kinds of things can happen at any time. 

I really love when that happens, when something in play just clicks...someone makes what seems like a casual remark, but it inspires a thought and suddenly a few elements of the fiction just click into place in such a way that it seems to be by design.  

In my 5E campaign, I ran the PCs through Curse of Strahd. I tweaked some things to fit it into our campaign...there was more of a reason for the PCs to actively go to Barovia and there were rivals who also had goals there. One of the PCs, a kind of shared PC to help round out the party, was a female diviner wizard. It wasn’t until play got to Barovia that it occurred to me that she was actually of Vistani heritage. This explained her divination powers and then many other plot points kind of plugged into that. Just like that some vague ideas I had came sharply into focus, and the thrust of the fiction shifted accordingly. 

I love those moments. I find them leas common when playing a game like D&D than I do with PbtA or Blades in the Dark. Such discoveries are more frequent and usually of more importance in those games precisely because less is being decided by the GM ahead of time.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Have you ever written fiction, aside from gaming?



Not for a long time.



prabe said:


> The GM is discovering or realizing (or I suppose composing) what's in the world in the same way a free-writing novelist does, approximately.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> -at least one writer I respect has compared it to being a paleontologist on a dig, and that makes sense to me, though it wasn't exactly my experience of it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think this is where our respective ways of thinking about (and possibly experiencing) what happens at a TRPG table are different enough that bridging the gap is difficult.



I don't write fiction, but I write professionally. It's the most important part of my job (I'm a humanities academic). I compose my work. I make decisions - just the other day I was two or three pages into one section of a paper when I realised that the structure I'd adopted wasn't working, and that a different structure was required.

A palaeontologist on a dig may be able to choose in what order to proceed, based on reasons; but is not deciding what it is that gets revealed.

Once a composer of fiction has conceived of an idea, there may be reasons that govern or constrain in what way it is set out, comparable to the reasons that govern the structure of an argument. In the latter case at least I know there is not typically one unique solution, though only one solution may occur to me as the writer.

There is certainly more than one idea that might be conceived of.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Whether you @pemerton intend them to be so or not, a great many people perceive them to be pejorative.  You're going to continue to get a lot of arguments just like with the Forge terminology if you continue to use them.




So make a counter point beyond “That term is pejorative”. Do you have any actual play example you can share which displays how a GM’s notes or a GM’s prepped material somehow enhances play? Or where it supports protagonism? 

@pemerton has described some of his own play in this way. I would say a large part of my play fits this description. Other parts...particularly with games beside D&D...would not fit this description. I can provide examples. 

I think it would really help if we moved beyond the dislike of the term and just started talking about how GM notes/prep/world can facilitate play and how it can restrict play.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've often posted that one important aspect of RPGing is that players declare actions for their PCs that oblige the GM to narrate more stuff. What do we see? is a paradigm example but there are many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GMing that way, I mean, would feel more like reading a book. I mean, playing a TRPG isn't a lot like reading a book, and neither really is GMing one. I guess that your description feels more ... rote, than my experience of it is. Like writing from an outline (something I've never, ever been much good at).
Click to expand...


Well, in my Traveller game, once the players _had_ established the requisite fictional positioning for their PCs I _did_ read from a book:




Though with some ad-libbing as I posted not far upthread.

When I have notes written down and I refer to them either literally or by recollection, my narration of the setting or situation as prompted by the players' action declarations for their PCs is rather reading-from-a-book-like.

In my Prince Valiant session that I posted about upthread, when the squire PC tried to go past Sir Lionheart after the latter refused to joust, I had to decide how Sir Lionheart would respond. I did read from a book to ascertain Sir Lionheart's disposition (and I quoted the extract upthread). I then applied the action resolution rules.

I know there is some RPGing where a player who hoped to be knighted by a NPC would not obtain it via the sort of action resolution process I described but rather would be expected to ascertain what the NPC expects or wants to have done in order to grant such a benefit. We've seen discussions on this board, of a similar sort, around the hypothetical Chamberlain and about the literal mayor (was it?) of the village in Curse of Strahd. In that sort of RPGing there is the same reference to notes or to the recollection of notes or to a conception of the fiction to work out what the NPC wants - which is not too different as a cognitive process from me establishing my conception of what Sir Lionheart wants - _and then_ there is a sequence of play in which the players engaged with and discover that conception.

The closest parallel to that that I've GMed recently was the players deciphering the controls in one of the rooms in Shadows; though I think I shortcutted it a little more than the module envisages as it is not all that interesting a puzzle.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I'm sure you understand how words work.  You can say something that is true in two different ways.  One neutral and one highly offensive.  I very much doubt that you fail to understand how "playing to discover the DM's notes." is pejorative.



So am I being pejorative of my own game when I describe episodes of it that have this character?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The world does exist in our thoughts.  It just doesn't have an independent existence or an existence outside of it.
> 
> If I decide that one country does X and that another country does Y, those are decisions.  If I ponder how X and Y work together, sometimes I discover Z.  I'm not making a decision for Z to happen.  I'm discovering that X + Y = Z.  If X + Y might have multiple outcomes, I have to decide on one.



All the mathematicians in the world agree that 2+2 = 4. That's part of what reveals mathematics to be a scientific discipline.

All the philologists in the world could ponder the possibility of a mythology for England, but only one would come up with LotR: JRRT.

When we read LotR and its appendices, we are learning what JRRT invented. When we read critical treatments of it (I am familiar with Christopher Tolkien's commentaries in Unfinished Tales, plus Thomas Shippey's book; some posters here might be familiar also with The History of Middle Earth series) we see how JRRT made decisions, and changed his mind.

When I play D&D with a GM, and that GM reveals to me his/her conception of the fiction, it is not _more_ maths-like than JRRT!


----------



## pemerton

AnotherGuy said:


> I would charactertise your style as *Player Stance* and BRG's as *Character Stance*



I don't know quite what you mean by these phrases. They seem related to the notions of _Stance_ used on The Forge.

As a player my ideal is to inhabit my character. When the player in my Prince Valiant game tried to ride past Sir Lionheart, he was inhabiting his character.

The only sense I can make of your descriptions is that _player stance_ means more of the fiction is established out of the process of action declaration than in _character stance_. Eg in the Prince Valiant case, the fiction of whether or not Sir Lionheart will knight the PC.

But I don't get the sense that that is what you are intending.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I think it would really help if we moved beyond the dislike of the term and just started talking about how GM notes/prep/world can facilitate play and how it can restrict play.



Particularly the facilitation. That is what the OP of this thread was about.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Not for a long time.



Last time I generated a complete story was like three years ago. Before that, it was like almost a decade, I think. As I've said elsewhere, these days when I play with language it's more likely to be poetry.

My reasoning for asking, though, was mostly because my experience of GMing is that it in large part uses the same ... "machinery" is the metaphor I usually reach for, as writing fiction does/did, at least in my brain. If writing fiction is not a recent or major experience for you, then it's plausibly less-helpful as a basis of comparison, at least for the purposes of our conversation.


pemerton said:


> I don't write fiction, but I write professionally. It's the most important part of my job (I'm a humanities academic). I compose my work. I make decisions - just the other day I was two or three pages into one section of a paper when I realised that the structure I'd adopted wasn't working, and that a different structure was required.



That sounds more like when I generated a villanelle for our Christmas cards, and had to try several times before I had lines that were going to work, repeated as often as they would be (and were reasonably easy to rhyme, of course).


pemerton said:


> A palaeontologist on a dig may be able to choose in what order to proceed, based on reasons; but is not deciding what it is that gets revealed.



I believe the point of the metaphor was that the writer in question felt as though the story was there--complete, in their brain--and the work wasn't so much creating the story as uncovering it. I free-wrote all my fiction, and it probably wouldn't have been the metaphor I would have used, but it made some sense to me.


pemerton said:


> Once a composer of fiction has conceived of an idea, there may be reasons that govern or constrain in what way it is set out, comparable to the reasons that govern the structure of an argument. In the latter case at least I know there is not typically one unique solution, though only one solution may occur to me as the writer.
> 
> There is certainly more than one idea that might be conceived of.



That sounds close to the experience of a writer who knows there's a story but can't figure out how to get to it. So, you try starting it at different points, you try coming back to it, you try different structures, and you hope one of them is your way into the story.


----------



## pemerton

There is emerging in this thread, and I have seen it emerge in many previous threads, an implicit assumption that there are four basic ways to produce the fiction of RPGing:

(1) GM authorship in advance;​​(2) GM unilateral (or close to unilateral) authorship in the moment of play, which is like an ad-libbed version of (1);​​(3) Player authorship in advance;​​(4) Player authorship in the moment of play _which requires stepping out of the character _because it is very similar to (2) and hence to (1).​
The great insight which RPGs like Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel try to systematise is that this list is in fact not exhaustive. There are at least two other possibilities:

(5) GM authorship in the moment of play based on constraints that emerge (significantly, probably not exclusively) from the player's play of his/her PC;​​(6) Player authorship in the moment of play that does not require stepping out of character because it is part and parcel of action declaration for the player's PC.​
AW, DW and (to the best of my knowledge) many other PbtA games make extensive use of (5).

BW makes extensive use of (6) and uses (5) when it comes both to scene-framing and the narration of consequences of failed checks.

This elaborates my explanation of why I don't think that @AnotherGuy's suggested labels are very helpful. It also relates to what @Aldarc and (I think) @Fenris-77 have posted upthread about "living world" describing a goal or a result rather than a process. (5) and (6) are eminently viable contributors to the generation of a living world in which (for instance) NPCs are not just "sitting about" in room A as pre-conceived by the GM waiting for a PC to turn up. But at least as @Bedrockgames and @Maxperson present their play, (5) and (6) do not seem to be important techniques in it.


----------



## Fenris-77

I think using writing fiction as a comparison is kinda fraught, as appropriate as it may be. Writing camapaign materials uses some of the same skills, but really doesn't (or shouldn't) use others. The kind of evocative detail you want is similar to fiction, and you want structure, but the structure is the opposite of fiction. You want what you're writing to be as flexible as possible and to support as many possible outcomes (endings?) as you can. You want the moving pieces, but you don't want them strung on a necklace in order. It takes some discipline to avoid some of the writerly things you might do that are pretty counter to useful prep (outside something closer to railroad, or some kind of very linear action).


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I think using writing fiction as a comparison is kinda fraught, as appropriate as it may be. Writing camapaign materials uses some of the same skills, but really doesn't (or shouldn't) use others. The kind of evocative detail you want is similar to fiction, and you want structure, but the structure is the opposite of fiction. You want what you're writing to be as flexible as possible and to support as many possible outcomes (endings?) as you can. You want the moving pieces, but you don't want them strung on a necklace in order. It takes some discipline to avoid some of the writerly things you might do that are pretty counter to useful prep (outside something closer to railroad, or some kind of very linear action).



I agree. I don't treat GMing as though I'm writing stories--at least in part because I believe the story should emerge from play, not from just my brain. My experience of GMing is that my brain seems to operate similarly to how it did when I was writing fiction, in the sense of there being things emerging that I didn't know were there, but my experience of TRPGing is in general really more like my experience of being in a band. At this point the only things I do that I'd call "writerly" are A) if I'm working a description of a scene that I know will happen (such as at the start of a campaign or story arc, when I can frame _hard_) and B) if/when a PC goes looking for information and I get to write it up between sessions. Sometimes C), when I compose documents the PCs have found (I am probably proudest of the letters they found between a husband and his wife).

I think most of that paragraph just amplifies "I agree." Oops.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> There is emerging in this thread, and I have seen it emerge in many previous threads, an implicit assumption that there are four basic ways to produce the fiction of RPGing:
> 
> (1) GM authorship in advance;​​(2) GM unilateral (or close to unilateral) authorship in the moment of play, which is like an ad-libbed version of (1);​​(3) Player authorship in advance;​​(4) Player authorship in the moment of play _which requires stepping out of the character _because it is very similar to (2) and hence to (1).​
> The great insight which RPGs like Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel try to systematise is that this list is in fact not exhaustive. There are at least two other possibilities:
> 
> (5) GM authorship in the moment of play based on constraints that emerge (significantly, probably not exclusively) from the player's play of his/her PC;​​(6) Player authorship in the moment of play that does not require stepping out of character because it is part and parcel of action declaration for the player's PC.​
> AW, DW and (to the best of my knowledge) many other PbtA games make extensive use of (5).
> 
> BW makes extensive use of (6) and uses (5) when it comes both to scene-framing and the narration of consequences of failed checks.
> 
> This elaborates my explanation of why I don't think that @AnotherGuy's suggested labels are very helpful. It also relates to what @Aldarc and (I think) @Fenris-77 have posted upthread about "living world" describing a goal or a result rather than a process. (5) and (6) are eminently viable contributors to the generation of a living world in which (for instance) NPCs are not just "sitting about" in room A as pre-conceived by the GM waiting for a PC to turn up. But at least as @Bedrockgames and @Maxperson present their play, (5) and (6) do not seem to be important techniques in it.




It is possible I am misunderstanding here, but I don't think authorship is a good word for what is occurring (definitely do not see this as writing fiction or creating fiction----there is still a very interactive element and conversational element and that plays out over the model of the living world people have been talking about. But the above doesn't seem to account for the role of dice, the role of the synergy discussed earlier (point 5 might fit the bill here, but not sure---depends on what the constraints in question are). The issue this raises is it is pretty hard to distinguish based on asserting in our style only 1-4 are important between what we do, what an adventure path does, and what a GM as storyteller does (you can reject our description of what we do, but I don't think anyone can honestly assert those three things are the same thing). If I had to pin the essence of living world to one idea or statement (and I don't think you can do that, it would be along the lines of t'he most important part of living world is the GM determining what NPCs do, in response to what players do and the ensuing interaction that produces + dice'. It fundamentally boils down to deciding how things arise in the world through the characters, groups, and other forces in that world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> I think using writing fiction as a comparison is kinda fraught, as appropriate as it may be. Writing camapaign materials uses some of the same skills, but really doesn't (or shouldn't) use others. The kind of evocative detail you want is similar to fiction, and you want structure, but the structure is the opposite of fiction. You want what you're writing to be as flexible as possible and to support as many possible outcomes (endings?) as you can. You want the moving pieces, but you don't want them strung on a necklace in order. It takes some discipline to avoid some of the writerly things you might do that are pretty counter to useful prep (outside something closer to railroad, or some kind of very linear action).




I think this gets much closer to the mark. When I make notes for my campaign, if I am running  a living world sandbox, what I am essentially doing is making the 'pieces' that populate that campaign world. And an important part of using those pieces well is treating them as alive, and what alive means is 1) not in stasis or rooted to one spot, 2) possessing a clear will and motivation, and ability to move and interact with the PCs and other elements of the setting, 3) no pre-determined plots, events, scenes, conflicts----imbedded in the pieces (any of that should arise naturally through their interactions with PCs and other elements). That is a very rigid definition. But if you need one, that is the language I would use.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So make a counter point beyond “That term is pejorative”. Do you have any actual play example you can share which displays how a GM’s notes or a GM’s prepped material somehow enhances play? Or where it supports protagonism?



"enhances play" is purely subjective.  I have no objective example to share.  And as for supporting protagonism, one style of play has stolen the term and used to describe only their style play, excluding the playstyles of others, so no, I have no example of their definition of protagonism, because I don't play their style.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think it would really help if we moved beyond the dislike of the term and just started talking about how GM notes/prep/world can facilitate play and how it can restrict play.



And a good start to that would be using different terms.  It's not productive to use a term that you know people don't like and are resisting, and then tell them to suck it up(with nicer language) and just discuss things.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> So am I being pejorative of my own game when I describe episodes of it that have this character?



You can talk about yourself however you like.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> All the mathematicians in the world agree that 2+2 = 4. That's part of what reveals mathematics to be a scientific discipline.
> 
> All the philologists in the world could ponder the possibility of a mythology for England, but only one would come up with LotR: JRRT.
> 
> When we read LotR and its appendices, we are learning what JRRT invented. When we read critical treatments of it (I am familiar with Christopher Tolkien's commentaries in Unfinished Tales, plus Thomas Shippey's book; some posters here might be familiar also with The History of Middle Earth series) we see how JRRT made decisions, and changed his mind.
> 
> When I play D&D with a GM, and that GM reveals to me his/her conception of the fiction, it is not _more_ maths-like than JRRT!



This isn't a response to what I said that makes any sense.  It doesn't at all address what I said about discovery.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> There is emerging in this thread, and I have seen it emerge in many previous threads, an implicit assumption that there are four basic ways to produce the fiction of RPGing:
> 
> (1) GM authorship in advance;​​(2) GM unilateral (or close to unilateral) authorship in the moment of play, which is like an ad-libbed version of (1);​​(3) Player authorship in advance;​​(4) Player authorship in the moment of play _which requires stepping out of the character _because it is very similar to (2) and hence to (1).​
> The great insight which RPGs like Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel try to systematise is that this list is in fact not exhaustive. There are at least two other possibilities:
> 
> (5) GM authorship in the moment of play based on constraints that emerge (significantly, probably not exclusively) from the player's play of his/her PC;​​(6) Player authorship in the moment of play that does not require stepping out of character because it is part and parcel of action declaration for the player's PC.​
> AW, DW and (to the best of my knowledge) many other PbtA games make extensive use of (5).
> 
> BW makes extensive use of (6) and uses (5) when it comes both to scene-framing and the narration of consequences of failed checks.



#5 is what those on my side of things have been describing for dozens and dozens of pages.  38 years of playing and I've never even seen #2 in action.  I wouldn't know what that's like.  You've altered our argument(#5) into #2 and then added back in our argument as if you thought of it.


pemerton said:


> This elaborates my explanation of why I don't think that @AnotherGuy's suggested labels are very helpful. It also relates to what @Aldarc and (I think) @Fenris-77 have posted upthread about "living world" describing a goal or a result rather than a process. (5) and (6) are eminently viable contributors to the generation of a living world in which (for instance) NPCs are not just "sitting about" in room A as pre-conceived by the GM waiting for a PC to turn up. But at least as @Bedrockgames and @Maxperson present their play, (5) and (6) do not seem to be important techniques in it.



 Except that I told you personally, no less than three times, that I am very constrained by what the players do and their input is critical to what I narrate in response.  You just keep ignoring that and minimizing what it is that I am doing, as evidenced by attempting to reduce it to #2 above.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> "enhances play" is purely subjective.  I have no objective example to share.  And as for supporting protagonism, one style of play has stolen the term and used to describe only their style play, excluding the playstyles of others, so no, I have no example of their definition of protagonism, because I don't play their style.
> 
> And a good start to that would be using different terms.  It's not productive to use a term that you know people don't like and are resisting, and then tell them to suck it up(with nicer language) and just discuss things.



You don't have an example of how you use notes in your game to enhance play? I find that hard to believe.

Protagonism is a term that should be treated much like living world, or sandbox, or even immersion, in that they are goals for play that can be accomplished many ways in many different systems. No one has stolen anything as far as I can tell. This is why I'd say that both OSR play and Blades are sandbox games, for example, even though they go about managing and accomplishing that playstyle very differently. 

As for the GM notes thing, I'm going to fall on the side of lets just talk about the actual sausage, not what brand name it is. Enough people on what you probably feel is the 'other side' of this conversation make copious use of GM notes in many games they run (me, @pemerton, @Ovinomancer ) that I don't think your accusation of pejorative term use really carries all that much water here.  I often have bloody books worth of GM notes for OSR games I run, and I enjoy making them, so I'm obviously not against them. What is interesting is discussing what kind of notes different people make, what kind of content they generate, and how they feel that impacts the gaming experience at their tables.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> All the mathematicians in the world agree that 2+2 = 4. That's part of what reveals mathematics to be a scientific discipline.
> 
> All the philologists in the world could ponder the possibility of a mythology for England, but only one would come up with LotR: JRRT.
> 
> When we read LotR and its appendices, we are learning what JRRT invented. When we read critical treatments of it (I am familiar with Christopher Tolkien's commentaries in Unfinished Tales, plus Thomas Shippey's book; some posters here might be familiar also with The History of Middle Earth series) we see how JRRT made decisions, and changed his mind.
> 
> When I play D&D with a GM, and that GM reveals to me his/her conception of the fiction, it is not _more_ maths-like than JRRT!




But you could create a working model of Middle Earth and explore that, based on all the information JRR Tolkien has given us. These set parameters. Places exist on the map in particular locations. Towns are described with characteristics. etc. To say all you are discovering if you run an emulation of that world in an RPG, is what JRR Tolkien invented, I think misses something essential that is going on. There is a big difference between reading a passage in Lord of the Rings, looking at a map of Middle Earth, and traveling in a game with a GM and system emulating that world to explore those places. You are not simply discovering what JRR Tolkien invented, because things will be encountered that he never thought of (they may be extrapolations but they are new). You aren't just learning what the GM has prepped, because the players will make decisions that result in things emerging the GM never thought of, and the dice too will cause unexpected things to emerge.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> You don't have an example of how you use notes in your game to enhance play? I find that hard to believe.



I can describe the process in general terms.  I have ADD and my memory just doesn't work like that.  I've always had a lot of trouble coming up with specific examples of things when put on the spot.  

How do notes facilitate game play?  In part by providing a framework of the world that the players can then easily use to build their story on.  They can pick and choose which parts to use in the pursuit of their goals and desires, rather than have to come up with all or nearly all of it themselves.  


Fenris-77 said:


> Protagonism is a term that should be treated much like living world, or sandbox, or even immersion, in that they are goals for play that can be accomplished many ways in many different systems. No one has stolen anything as far as I can tell. This is why I'd say that both OSR play and Blades are sandbox games, for example, even though they go about managing and accomplishing that playstyle very differently.



A protagonist is the central person in a story.  In an RPG it would be the group.  There's no real requirement for such play to focus on dramatic needs to make play protagonistic.  They just need to be the primary characters of the story.  Yet there are those here who say that for play to be protagonistic, it has to focus on the dramatic needs of the players.


Fenris-77 said:


> As for the GM notes thing, I'm going to fall on the side of lets just talk about the actual sausage, not what brand name it is. Enough people on what you probably feel is the 'other side' of this conversation make copious use of GM notes in many games they run (me, @pemerton, @Ovinomancer ) that I don't think your accusation of pejorative term use really carries all that much water here.  I often have bloody books worth of GM notes for OSR games I run, and I enjoy making them, so I'm obviously not against them. What is interesting is discussing what kind of notes different people make, what kind of content they generate, and how they feel that impacts the gaming experience at their tables.



There are a lot of terms which are only really offensive to minorities.  Yet those are still insulting and racist.  That you guys use these things and don't feel the insult, doesn't cause it to cease to exist.  Enough people on this side feel it's pejorative to make it so.


----------



## Fenris-77

Would you prefer GM scribbles? GM planning? GM back of an Applebee's napkin? GM drippings of genius? IDK, throw out some variants. I thought _GM notes_ was pretty vanilla, as is _playing to find out what's in the GM notes. _I have notes, and the players, during play, often find out what's in them, and to some extent are even playing to find out what's in them because what's in them is at least the seed(s) of the solution to whatever action is at hand. The pejorative part is all in the treatment and deployment of those notes.

You can have multiple protagonists, I don't know why you're hung up on that. I don't know that protagonist play needs to_ focus_ on dramatic need either. That's one reading, but not one I'm completely happy with. I think a stable definition there would cast a wider net in terms of what a GM can do do implement and foster the idea. (Same with dramatic needs, frankly, lots of ways to get there to, and lots of degrees to which it can be used or thought to be important).

I have pretty significant ADD too, so I feel ya there. I wasn't capable of summoning detail from a game session afterwards until I started taking copious notes. It's a pain sometimes in play, but the value to me has been high. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Would you prefer GM scribbles? GM planning? GM back of an Applebee's napkin? GM drippings of genius? IDK, throw out some variants. I thought _GM notes_ was pretty vanilla, as is _playing to find out what's in the GM notes. _I have notes, and the players, during play, often find out what's in them, and to some extent are even playing to find out what's in them because what's in them is at least the seed(s) of the solution to whatever action is at hand. The pejorative part is all in the treatment and deployment of those notes.



If it's not the purpose of their game play, then they are not playing to find out what's in them.  Their purpose determines why they are playing.  For instance, I don't care what is specifically in your notes.  When I play D&D, I'm "playing to achieve the goals I set forth for my PC."  Your notes are there for me to use in the pursuit of why I am playing the game or to ignore if I'm not interested in them.


Fenris-77 said:


> You can have multiple protagonists,



I agree.


Fenris-77 said:


> I don't know that protagonist play needs to_ focus_ on dramatic need either. That's one reading, but not one I'm completely happy with.



I agree with that as well.


Fenris-77 said:


> I think a stable definition there would cast a wider net in terms of what a GM can do do implement and foster the idea. (Same with dramatic needs, frankly, lots of ways to get there to, and lots of degrees to which it can be used or thought to be important).



A stable definition would be nice, but I don't think it's going to happen. 


Fenris-77 said:


> I have pretty significant ADD too, so I feel ya there. I wasn't capable of summoning detail from a game session afterwards until I started taking copious notes. It's a pain sometimes in play, but the value to me has been high. YMMV, of course.



I don't detail out my games to the same degree as many on "my side" of things here.  I don't have time.  As a result I have to do a lot of improv play, which fortunately I'm very good at.  By the end of the session I will have forgotten most of the small details and I'm not going to hold up the game so that I can write detailed notes.


----------



## cmad1977

Most of my notes are written post game as a response to the characters actions.


----------



## Maxperson

cmad1977 said:


> Most of my notes are written post game as a response to the characters actions.



My future notes will be for sure.  If they're going to the mountains of Chukem Downapit to delve into the pits looking for ancient magic, I need to know what's in them and do a little prep.  Again, it will just be an outline that we fill in during game play, but I'll have at least some idea of what's there before they arrive.


----------



## Fenris-77

Yup, post game notes are the notes I write that actually look like notes. That's where I take the action of the session and apply it to whatever wider consequences might be appropriate and start thinking about how that could drive the next session, depending of course on player response.

My pregame notes are very siloed, and have become more so over time. I have monsters, and tables about encounters, and NPCs, and factions (both with motivations and goals, all sorts of charts and tables for evocative detail, and that sort of thing. I usually have no real idea how those parts will fit together until the players start doing stuff, at which point things usually start to crystallize. 

There are games where the players are literally playing to find out what's in the notes, and even that doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'd describe most published adventure paths as that, to some extent. It's also how a lot of people begin to learn to GM.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> It is possible I am misunderstanding here, but I don't think authorship is a good word for what is occurring (definitely do not see this as writing fiction or creating fiction----there is still a very interactive element and conversational element and that plays out over the model of the living world people have been talking about. But the above doesn't seem to account for the role of dice, the role of the synergy discussed earlier (point 5 might fit the bill here, but not sure---depends on what the constraints in question are). The issue this raises is it is pretty hard to distinguish based on asserting in our style only 1-4 are important between what we do, what an adventure path does, and what a GM as storyteller does (you can reject our description of what we do, but I don't think anyone can honestly assert those three things are the same thing). If I had to pin the essence of living world to one idea or statement (and I don't think you can do that, it would be along the lines of t'he most important part of living world is the GM determining what NPCs do, in response to what players do and the ensuing interaction that produces + dice'. It fundamentally boils down to deciding how things arise in the world through the characters, groups, and other forces in that world.




I think the best way to try to examine what @pemerton just put forward is to zoom in tightly to a discrete moment of play; of new content being introduced/the gamestate changing.

It appears that what happens sometimes is we’re all talking about different levels of zoom (and we’re assuming our zoom is similar). If the zoom goes way too far out and tries to capture the breadth of the collective moments of all of play, that is different than a discrete moment of content introduction/gamestate change.

So, to that end, in maybe 2-3 sentences, what other types of content introduction/gamestate change are you envisioning beyond the (1) - (6) pemerton has proposed above? If you could label then as 7, 8 (and so forth), that would be helpful.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> There are games where the players are literally playing to find out what's in the notes, and even that doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'd describe most published adventure paths as that, to some extent. It's also how a lot of people begin to learn to GM.



I agree and I don't run adventure paths for just that reason.  I have Candle Keep Mysteries, because they are little adventures I can insert into one of my games if I want.  I'll get Yawning Portal for the same reason.  I did buy the new Undermountain, but I'm not going to use as a huge dungeon delve campaign.  I'll probably just isolate the levels and use them as separate dungeons in my game if I need one and don't have time to prep my own.  The only real adventure path that I own is one of the dragon ones, and that's because one of my players bought it for me as a gift. One of these days I'll have to dig though it and see what I can steal for use.

As for new players using them to learn to DM, I absolutely agree.  I'm the primary DM for my group, but two of the others periodically give me a break for a while.  One of them was a novice DM who wanted to dip his toes into the DM waters and see how it went.  He came to use before he began and said that he was using an adventure path and asked us if we would agree not to deviate, since he was new and wasn't sure he could run the game well if we did.  Of course we all said yes and hopped on that train.  Now if we decide to deviate, he goes with it since he has experience running the game.  He's still rough around the edges, but he's getting there.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I think the best way to try to examine what @pemerton just put forward is to zoom in tightly to a discrete moment of play; of new content being introduced/the gamestate changing.
> 
> It appears that what happens sometimes is we’re all talking about different levels of zoom (and we’re assuming our zoom is similar). If the zoom goes way too far out and tries to capture the breadth of the collective moments of all of play, that is different than a discrete moment of content introduction/gamestate change.
> 
> So, to that end, in maybe 2-3 sentences, what other types of content introduction/gamestate change are you envisioning beyond the (1) - (6) pemerton has proposed above? If you could label then as 7, 8 (and so forth), that would be helpful.




I don't think this level of zoom is going to be very fruitful because in my view it is distorting what is going on. I am fairly skeptical of this approach helping to shed light on the importance of GMs notes, the role of GMs notes in a living sandbox, or helping to explain what a living world is. For example, I can zoom in on a melody and see an interval, and say "it is just one note going to another" but that misses the point of patterning scales and harmonizing chords. You could say it is just the guitar player for example deciding which note to play. But it isn't just that because I am beholden to the context, and if you carry that into an RPG, the context is the living world in this case. The GM isn't simply deciding what happens: the GM is deciding what a given NPC does, or how an aspect of the setting responds to player choices. And it is often mediated by dice rolls. The context (all the choices the PCs, NPCs, factions have made, etc.....this is a bit like the surrounding harmonies, rhythm, etc guiding the guitar player's choices. The GM is not 'the decider': in a good living world sandbox, the GM is constrained in many ways. The one way they are not generally constrained though is by out of character, PC choices or contributions (though there is flexibility there). It is a lot like Fenris was saying: the GM is prepping pieces but doesn't really know how things will pan out until play beings and those pieces and the players begin doing things.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> "enhances play" is purely subjective.  I have no objective example to share.  And as for supporting protagonism, one style of play has stolen the term and used to describe only their style play, excluding the playstyles of others, so no, I have no example of their definition of protagonism, because I don't play their style.
> 
> And a good start to that would be using different terms.  It's not productive to use a term that you know people don't like and are resisting, and then tell them to suck it up(with nicer language) and just discuss things.




So no examples? Just more discussion about the discussion?

Come on Max. Provide an example from one of your games that shows something that you like about “your style”. Is it that hard?

And just to be clear....I’m not setting a trap here. I don’t expect your response to be objective. I’m asking you specifically for an example from your game. 

Play examples would be more helpful than complaining for more pages about a term. And although I am indeed saying to suck it up, I am asking because I’d genuinely like to hear it.



Maxperson said:


> When I play D&D, I'm "playing to achieve the goals I set forth for my PC."




Okay....who was your most recent PC? What were his/her goals? How did the GM facilitate these goals? How were you as a player able to pursue them? What about the other players; did they help or hinder the process?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Would you prefer GM scribbles? GM planning? GM back of an Applebee's napkin? GM drippings of genius? IDK, throw out some variants. I thought _GM notes_ was pretty vanilla, as is _playing to find out what's in the GM notes. _I have notes, and the players, during play, often find out what's in them, and to some extent are even playing to find out what's in them because what's in them is at least the seed(s) of the solution to whatever action is at hand. The pejorative part is all in the treatment and deployment of those notes.
> 
> You can have multiple protagonists, I don't know why you're hung up on that. I don't know that protagonist play needs to_ focus_ on dramatic need either. That's one reading, but not one I'm completely happy with. I think a stable definition there would cast a wider net in terms of what a GM can do do implement and foster the idea. (Same with dramatic needs, frankly, lots of ways to get there to, and lots of degrees to which it can be used or thought to be important).
> 
> I have pretty significant ADD too, so I feel ya there. I wasn't capable of summoning detail from a game session afterwards until I started taking copious notes. It's a pain sometimes in play, but the value to me has been high. YMMV, of course.



To zoom in here, because this is a point of disagreement between us, I'm not sure what value would be gained by expanding the definition of protagonist play to something other than focusing on the dramatic needs of the character.  There's a distinct difference in focus outlined by this definition, and it's one that's useful because it goes a good way to exploring what a game is about.  If we expand this to other things, like, say, just a PC goal, then we've made this distinction useless, and will just need a different term to discuss it.  If the goal is to make the term protagonism useless because people don't like the way the term is used, that's a different thing.

So, why do I think the distinction between a character dramatic need and a character goal is important?  Because it isolates the focus of play.  If play is about my character's dramatic need, then it's focused on the character -- things are framed in terms of these needs and outcomes revolve around them.  This makes the character the focus of the game, but doesn't, at all, mean they get a break.  If anything, this focus is far more punishing on the character, and more exhausting to the player, than a game where such focus isn't held.  I think this makes for a distinct difference in play that's not aided by expanding the definition.  And it's not an absolute term -- a game doesn't have protagonism or not, there can be a mix, but I also think that this mix is a difficult thing to pull off, because it requires switching focus between a character dramatic need and an NPC dramatic need.  That's a good challenge, but it also muddies the focus of the game, and I'm not sure if there's a great deal of use to mixing it up.  Perhaps a mostly non-protagonism game can do so with short side-treks of protagonism, but I think the vice-versa would be a bit more jarring to a player.  Maybe not, willing to listen to other opinions.

But, and this is key, it's very important to differentiate between a character dramatic need and a character goal.  Character goals don't have to have anything at all to do with the character.  For example, stop the evil overlord from summoning the demon apocalypse is a great character goal, but it's not a dramatic need.  The difference is that this goal doesn't speak to anything at all fundamental about the character, it's just something the character is going to do.  I can swap in a different character and have the same goal with no change.  Dramatic needs should be special to the character.  If I have a dramatic need of "will I be able to resist my alcoholism and support my friends," then this is special to the character -- you can't just swap in a different character and have this remain the same (if you do, I'd question just how invested in playing to dramatics needs are to you).  This is a key difference.  Likewise, a character goal to research a new spell is fine, but not a dramatic need.  It may server a dramatic need, but it isn't one itself.  This is a critical difference I think has been glossed a number of times in this thread (general, not specific, you here).

And, of course, you can have multiple dramatic needs from multiple characters.  Speaking to the singular is for clarity and simplicity of the post, so I don't have lots of "or that of other characters" floating about.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> To zoom in here, because this is a point of disagreement between us, I'm not sure what value would be gained by expanding the definition of protagonist play to something other than focusing on the dramatic needs of the character.  There's a distinct difference in focus outlined by this definition, and it's one that's useful because it goes a good way to exploring what a game is about.  If we expand this to other things, like, say, just a PC goal, then we've made this distinction useless, and will just need a different term to discuss it.  If the goal is to make the term protagonism useless because people don't like the way the term is used, that's a different thing.
> 
> So, why do I think the distinction between a character dramatic need and a character goal is important?  Because it isolates the focus of play.  If play is about my character's dramatic need, then it's focused on the character -- things are framed in terms of these needs and outcomes revolve around them.  This makes the character the focus of the game, but doesn't, at all, mean they get a break.  If anything, this focus is far more punishing on the character, and more exhausting to the player, than a game where such focus isn't held.  I think this makes for a distinct difference in play that's not aided by expanding the definition.  And it's not an absolute term -- a game doesn't have protagonism or not, there can be a mix, but I also think that this mix is a difficult thing to pull off, because it requires switching focus between a character dramatic need and an NPC dramatic need.  That's a good challenge, but it also muddies the focus of the game, and I'm not sure if there's a great deal of use to mixing it up.  Perhaps a mostly non-protagonism game can do so with short side-treks of protagonism, but I think the vice-versa would be a bit more jarring to a player.  Maybe not, willing to listen to other opinions.
> 
> But, and this is key, it's very important to differentiate between a character dramatic need and a character goal.  Character goals don't have to have anything at all to do with the character.  For example, stop the evil overlord from summoning the demon apocalypse is a great character goal, but it's not a dramatic need.  The difference is that this goal doesn't speak to anything at all fundamental about the character, it's just something the character is going to do.  I can swap in a different character and have the same goal with no change.  Dramatic needs should be special to the character.  If I have a dramatic need of "will I be able to resist my alcoholism and support my friends," then this is special to the character -- you can't just swap in a different character and have this remain the same (if you do, I'd question just how invested in playing to dramatics needs are to you).  This is a key difference.  Likewise, a character goal to research a new spell is fine, but not a dramatic need.  It may server a dramatic need, but it isn't one itself.  This is a critical difference I think has been glossed a number of times in this thread (general, not specific, you here).
> 
> And, of course, you can have multiple dramatic needs from multiple characters.  Speaking to the singular is for clarity and simplicity of the post, so I don't have lots of "or that of other characters" floating about.



Just call it dramatic need.  Why do you need to take a word that applies to everyone and redefine it so that only your playstyle gets to use it?


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> I think using writing fiction as a comparison is kinda fraught, as appropriate as it may be.





prabe said:


> I agree. I don't treat GMing as though I'm writing stories



I think there are some places where a comparison to other sorts of composition of fiction is apt: _vibrant characters who have a clear place in the situation_ are helpful. And so are _compelling situations_.
Of course "compelling" is pretty expansive - that might be everything from a conception of a place (a mountain pass, an ancient temple) to a challenge to a PC (a rejection from a friend, being taken prisoner) to a vibrant NPC in action.

My models for this tend to be comics and cinema. But not always. The last time I as GM authored a wizard's tower it was because I was inspired by REH's Tower of the Elephant.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:


> This seems to be a sticking point. As far as I can tell, you seem unwilling to discuss play from the starting point that someone has to make up the imaginary stuff.





Bedrockgames said:


> It is possible I am misunderstanding here, but I don't think authorship is a good word for what is occurring (definitely do not see this as writing fiction or creating fiction----there is still a very interactive element and conversational element and that plays out over the model of the living world people have been talking about.



I personally find it impossible to talk about _where the fiction comes from_ without talking about _who creates it_. And the most straightforward word in English to describe the creation of fiction is _authorship_.

I frequently co-author work. This involves a lot of interaction and conversation. That doesn't mean that the work is spontaneously generating itself, though. It is being authored.



Bedrockgames said:


> But the above doesn't seem to account for the role of dice, the role of the synergy discussed earlier (point 5 might fit the bill here, but not sure---depends on what the constraints in question are). The issue this raises is it is pretty hard to distinguish based on asserting in our style only 1-4 are important



I didn't say anything about what is important in "your style".

I talked about an assumption that I see emerging in the thread. That's all.

The dice can be very important in some RPGing, less so in others. In Burning Wheel, the result of a dice roll associated with an action declaration and resolution process may be very important in determining whether or not a secret door is found. In @Emerikol's game, not so much - the most important consideration is whether or not the GM has decided a secret door is present in the location in question.

If you want to post something about the role of action resolution via dice rolls in establishing the fiction in your play, that would be a very welcome post.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I told you personally, no less than three times, that I am very constrained by what the players do and their input is critical to what I narrate in response.



All you said about their input is that they declare actions for their PCs. When I asked if you consider _player intent_ as a factor in narration of consequences you didn't answer. Do you consider player intent as a factor in the narration of consequences?



Maxperson said:


> #5 is what those on my side of things have been describing for dozens and dozens of pages.



The only constraints you have pointed to is the player's action declaration.

@Bedrockgames in another thread earlier this year expressly said that he would _not_ establish fiction having regard to a player's desire that his/her PC find their long lost brother, and thus would allow for the possibility that a significant amount of play time might be spent on this only for the player to discover what was already predetermined from the start by Bedrockgames, ie that the brother has been dead all along.

Other than the actual action declaration (eg _I ask the barkeep if they've seen my brother_) in what way to you narrate fiction constrained by the players's play of their PCs?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> But you could create a working model of Middle Earth and explore that, based on all the information JRR Tolkien has given us. These set parameters. Places exist on the map in particular locations. Towns are described with characteristics. etc. To say all you are discovering if you run an emulation of that world in an RPG, is what JRR Tolkien invented, I think misses something essential that is going on. There is a big difference between reading a passage in Lord of the Rings, looking at a map of Middle Earth, and traveling in a game with a GM and system emulating that world to explore those places. You are not simply discovering what JRR Tolkien invented, because things will be encountered that he never thought of (they may be extrapolations but they are new).



The extrapolation is not an output of a model. It is someone engaging in a creative act.

Mathematics, like other sciences, is characterised by non-collusive convergence.

Literary creation is not. That's part of what is important about artistic endeavour!



Bedrockgames said:


> You aren't just learning what the GM has prepped, because the players will make decisions that result in things emerging the GM never thought of, and the dice too will cause unexpected things to emerge.



So who thinks of the new things? If the GM doesn't think of them, and the players don't get to just make them up, where do they come from?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The extrapolation is not an output of a model. It is someone engaging in a creative act.
> 
> Mathematics, like other sciences, is characterised by *non-collusive convergence*.
> 
> Literary creation is not. That's part of what is important about artistic endeavour!




I never said it was mathematics. It is a model in the sense that I have an image of the place in my head. Ideas can be models. We use models all the time to simplify and understand processes going on in the world, or to explain them (sometimes with math and science, sometimes without math and science). The extrapolation is the living world part and the necessary expansion of that model as unexpected things come up (but those expansions contribute to the model). The point is one can set objective parameters for the model and these can be explored. It doesn't matter if the model literally exists, it functionally does exist. When the players explore the house, if I have laid it out in my head in advance, what choices the players make at each step of exploration matters. If I haven't, their choices are meaningless because I am just deciding what shows up at every turn. It isn't literary creation. It is mental modeling. The problem with your end of this is you keep bending this toward literary descriptions (which I think tilts everything towards stuff like being 'the fiction' and thinking in terms not as much about 'the world'). Again no one is saying the model literally exists, they are saying it is a model, that the GM can imagine, and this can be significantly aided by notes, maps, etc. And when you add the concept of a living world onto that model, it becomes something quite interesting. 

If you are going to use terms like the bolded, you will need to define them simply and clearly. I feel like I am speaking very plain english when I use a term like modeling and you are bringing in very precise, specialized language, and using that to undermine what I am saying. I think most people understand what I mean by mental model. I don't care if you have an advanced degree and work at a university Pemerton.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> So who thinks of the new things? If the GM doesn't think of them, and the players don't get to just make them up, where do they come from?




The interaction of the players and the GM. This is why I say you are greatly oversimplifying and being reductive. The GM isn't just coming up with stuff in a vacuum. If the players go into a city and say they want to find a mutton stew restaurant, the GM didn't think of that, until the players suggested that's where their characters were trying to go. Now the GM has final say over whether such a place would exist in the city, but the players are having some kind of input. The only limitation on my side, is they don't have GM power to call it into existence and there isn't a mechanical process for the GM making his or her decision. But the GM can always choose to fall back on a mechanical process if desired


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> @Bedrockgames in another thread earlier this year expressly said that he would _not_ establish fiction having regard to a player's desire that his/her PC find their long lost brother, and thus would allow for the possibility that a significant amount of play time might be spent on this only for the player to discover what was already predetermined from the start by Bedrockgames, ie that the brother has been dead all along.




This is just how I would do it. Different GMs can do this differently and it is pretty clear to me that @Maxperson and I have slightly different styles. But that doesn't mean there aren't constraints on me as a GM. I spoke about some of the constraints I have and some of the ways that player choices (and even expectations) can and do feed in the decisions I make. Also this is one type of instance (i.e. what is going on with a PCs brother). Not all decisions are going to be like that. Many will  be a lot more constrained by mechanics, and by the physical limitations of the setting: i.e. if the brother is alive and in a distant city, I can't have him suddenly show up to save the day if he would need to travel 8 days just to get there).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I personally find it impossible to talk about _where the fiction comes from_ without talking about _who creates it_. And the most straightforward word in English to describe the creation of fiction is _authorship_.
> 
> I frequently co-author work. This involves a lot of interaction and conversation. That doesn't mean that the work is spontaneously generating itself, though. It is being authored.



But this just shows how you control the conversation by controlling the language. I've long rejected the term 'the fiction' here and I think with good reason. Authoring only makes sense because you are choosing to use 'the fiction' as the product. If we used something that didn't suggest books or literature, authoring suddenly makes less sense. I don't typically describe someone as the author of a song, or the author a painting or map. You can use the term author, but we usually draw distinctions. And I think GMing is distinct enough that authoring sounds really strange as a description of what they are doing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I frequently co-author work. This involves a lot of interaction and conversation. That doesn't mean that the work is spontaneously generating itself, though. It is being authored.




Yes, but these are very different mediums. In some senses it is spontaneous (the way the outcome of a jam session is spontaneous). Part of the problem here is RPGs are their own medium, and the analysis often gets shaped by the other mediums we bring in as examples to understand what is going on. 

Like I said before, the issue here is this isn't simply an author staring at a blank page and filling it, and it isn't being delivered to a passive audience. The players are reacting in real time to anything the GM says or decides. There is a system that constrains the GM (some systems place fewer constraints, but most have constraints of some kind---in lots of games I can't just decide your sword swing hits the orc and kills it for example, and in many I am expected to allow you to use skills or other abilities, or call on some kind of roll to interpret the physics of something like climbing up a wall in dangerous conditions). So there are the mechanics. Often the mechanics have dice, which throw in a whole random element. And then the GM has the audience reacting in real time. That does constrain what you can do. You can't just announce in the middle of a Forgotten Realms game that a starship descends from the clouds and ET walks out of its hatch. I mean you can try that, but you will be met by blank stares and you might even prompt cries of of WTF. When an author writes a book, they can anticipate that kind of reaction but they don't have the readers there in the room with them when the decision is made. Even today writers of television shows don't have real time reactions from audiences, there is still a delay. But you can see the change and constraints it places on them, the more that distance between creating something and the audience responding is shortened. Further the players actual choices constrain the GM. If you are just zooming in on individual instances of the GM making decisions, this will be lost. But if the players walked to the town of Donyra, that confines what the GM can say is going on. If Donyrya is a landlocked, desert oasis, he can't just announce that the dread Pirate Zabaea and her fleet arrive on the shores and ransack the town. If the players killed Zabaea earlier in the campaign, the GM can't just say "Zabaea approaches you along the road from the distance" (unless she was resurrected or returning as some form of undead: and both of those things are going to be constrained by the setting, the system, etc).


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> But this just shows how you control the conversation by controlling the language. I've long rejected the term 'the fiction' here and I think with good reason. Authoring only makes sense because you are choosing to use 'the fiction' as the product. If we used something that didn't suggest books or literature, authoring suddenly makes less sense. I don't typically describe someone as the author of a song, or the author a painting or map. You can use the term author, but we usually draw distinctions. And I think GMing is distinct enough that authoring sounds really strange as a description of what they are doing.




If you subbed “content” for “fiction”, you have “the content.”

Now you sub “content generator” for “author.”  You lose economy of word as you have to chew on 3 more syllables every time you voice/write it, but it works well enough for generically capturing “writer of song” and/or “painter of portrait” (which, for the record, I don’t understand why “author” - or “fiction” are problems especially given that Oxford English is good with it;  “be the originator of-create” and “imagined events/invention”).

As above, I don’t understand the language issue, but, for a moment putting on the “this language is a problem” hat, would “content generator” and “the content” put this to bed?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> But this just shows how you control the conversation by controlling the language. I've long rejected the term 'the fiction' here and I think with good reason. Authoring only makes sense because you are choosing to use 'the fiction' as the product. If we used something that didn't suggest books or literature, authoring suddenly makes less sense. I don't typically describe someone as the author of a song, or the author a painting or map. You can use the term author, but we usually draw distinctions. And I think GMing is distinct enough that authoring sounds really strange as a description of what they are doing.



Why's it matter? What's at stake? Call them the _composer _instead! The point is that there is imagined stuff (what I call _fiction)_, and it's in the GM's head (at least that's how you've described a sandbox). Who put it there? And then it gets into the players' heads. How does that transmission take place?

The terminology is not very important. What matters, in playing a RPG, is the actual process.

How did the players in my Classic Traveller game learn that, in the complex their PCs were exploring, there was a nearly 100 metre deep shaft with a great pendulum swinging in it? Because I told them. How did I know? Because I read it in the module.

How do the players in _your game _learn about the setting that _you as GM have created?_


----------



## TheSword

@pemerton at the end of 1698 posts, do you have a hypothesis or is it just lots of questions and quibbling over details and language? You asked lots of questions about the purpose of GM notes at the start but do you actually have a conclusion?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> If you subbed “content” for “fiction”, you have “the content.”
> 
> Now you sub “content generator” for “author.”  You lose economy of word as you have to chew on 3 more syllables every time you voice/write it, but it works well enough for generically capturing “writer of song” and/or “painter of portrait” (which, for the record, I don’t understand why “author” - or “fiction” are problems especially given that Oxford English is good with it;  “be the originator of-create” and “imagined events/invention”).
> 
> As above, I don’t understand the language issue, but, for a moment putting on the “this language is a problem” hat, would “content generator” and “the content” put this to bed?




I don't think it is as simple as putting it to bed by using different words. I think my problem is the fold here: the language, the level of zoom and the issue of the world versus what occurs in it. We are zooming in so much, that the process is being reduced to a binary and it isn't one. I suppose you could talk about content generators for almost anything, and it would mean something. But then you are moving beyond the idea of an author. A content generator doesn't have to be one individual, it doesn't need to be human. Everything in this world is generated by something, correct? 

But I think the reason I am really pushing this point is the fundamental disagreement really seems to be centered on whether you can draw a distinction between the stuff going on in the game and the world in which that game is set. Pemerton's language, to me at least, seems to steer us towards the conclusion that there is only the stuff (what he calls the fiction). That the world is just part of that fiction. I think what we are saying is no, the world is a separate concept and the stuff is occurring in that world or being overlaid on it (at least in something like a living sandbox----there are certainly approaches where the world and the fiction become one). 

This is why I fight so much over the language, because so much of the language is already loading the conclusion IMO.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> How did the players in my Classic Traveller game learn that, in the complex their PCs were exploring, there was a nearly 100 metre deep shaft with a great pendulum swinging in it? Because I told them. How did I know? Because I read it in the module.
> 
> How do the players in _your game _learn about the setting that _you as GM have created?_




No, because they decided to go into the complex in the first place, and then they decided to examine the complex enough, to make choices that eventually led them to that deep meter shaft. And there are two approaches here: one in which you have a model in your mind of the complex and the players are genuinely exploring a space (however fictional) with clear parameters that matter, versus you just decide there is a shaft. Most games and campaigns are going to lean toward one or the other of these (and there will certainly be blending-----as I pointed out, sometimes the GM never even thinks if there ought to be a shaft, and the players asking about it will cause him or her to conclude 'yes, there ought to be one here'. Again, what you are doing here is zooming in so much we only see the binary of players ask what they see, the GM tells them....but anyone  who has played an RPG knows the process is so much more organic and involved than that, and what drives the GMs 'decision' is going to be predicated on things like choices the players have made, what details the GM has established about the world, what ways the system constrains the GM's choices, etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> How do the players in _your game _learn about the setting that _you as GM have created?_



By exploring it


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Now you sub “content generator” for “author.”  You lose economy of word as you have to chew on 3 more syllables every time you voice/write it, but it works well enough for generically capturing “writer of song” and/or “painter of portrait” (which, for the record, I don’t understand why “author” - or “fiction” are problems especially given that Oxford English is good with it;  “be the originator of-create” and “imagined events/invention”).




The reason I think author is a problem is it puts us in a literary frame of mind, and results in literary analogies. This is why I keep pointing to music as an analogy because when you hop mediums you see the logic doesn't pan out the same. An author of a book is not making the same kinds of choices that a composer is, and a composer is not making the same kinds of choices a musician is improvising, and a painted is making very different choices from both. The constraints, the process, these are all quite different. The RPG medium, even more so. We are not generating fiction. We are experiencing some kind of shared imaginary event, but that is all built on stuff like setting, what leads up to the event, what choices the players make, what choices the NPCs make, etc. The problem I have is by forcing this literary analogy as an explanation (and particularly when that is paired with zooming in on one decision point in play), we are being reductive not just in what is going on, but we are reducing the scope of what RPGs are capable of.

The argument all just feels a bit like Zeno's paradox to me


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Why's it matter? What's at stake? Call them the _composer _instead! The point is that there is imagined stuff (what I call _fiction)_, and it's in the GM's head (at least that's how you've described a sandbox). Who put it there? And then it gets into the players' heads. How does that transmission take place?




I am not disputing that the model in the head of the GM must be conveyed to the players by words. The point is this is a very reductive description of what is going on (you are just focusing on the point of the GM transmitting a detail about the setting to the players, ignoring everything else that goes into that----which makes it much more of an organic, open process filled with exchange and with things that constrain the GM's choices: sometimes the GM is constrained by things the players choose to do, sometimes the GMs constrained by choices he or she made previously---like setting detail choices---sometimes the GM is constrained by system or die rolls). You are reducing it to a binary and it isn't. I will definitely concede, when you focus on that binary it is hard to refute. But like I mentioned in my previous post, I believe this is a lot like Zeno's paradox, where I know that I can walk to the end of a path, but by focusing in on the increments, the individual moments, Zeno makes it sound like getting anywhere is actually impossible.


----------



## Campbell

Fundamentally what we disagree on is the concept that play is an act of active creation. I do not believe that anyone is really experiencing what their character experiences or that fantasy worlds have an independent existence in anyone's minds. Actually I know that they do not and it is always something I am mindful of. We may want to feel like we are experiencing that imaginary situation, but it is a shared illusion maintained through a dramatic amount of effort on everyone's parts. Perception is not reality no matter how we might wish it to be so.

I contend that even the simple act of playing a character is an actively creative act throughout every moment of play. That there is no real version of the character that I am channeling or portraying. I am not making decisions as Ariel Matan when I play him. I am making decision for him. I want to feel like I am literally experiencing what he does, but I am not. I am sitting around a table or on a Zoom call with a group of friends and we are having a conversation where we construct a shared illusion of an imaginary place and time. Our perception, our shared illusion, and the reality are all very different things.

What I am interested in talking about when it comes to RPGs is how we really construct that shared illusion, what the conversation looks like at the table, and how that impacts our experience of the shared illusion. There are a significant number of people who want to only speak to the experience of that shared illusion and want to maintain their experience of it. I see that as a fundamentally limited conversation because it will never teach us how to do this thing or even acknowledge that how we actually do this thing matters a great deal.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> All you said about their input is that they declare actions for their PCs. When I asked if you consider _player intent_ as a factor in narration of consequences you didn't answer. Do you consider player intent as a factor in the narration of consequences?



So player intent wasn't a part of either #2 or #5.  This is what you said.

"(2) GM unilateral (or close to unilateral) authorship in the moment of play, which is like an ad-libbed version of (1);"

When I DM, I have nothing like unilateral authorship.  The players and I are both authoring the moment.  The player through his actions and roleplay(which you seem to constantly ignore when responding about this), authors a significant portion of the moment.  I through the NPCs and world author a significant portion of the moment.  Often, the player side will be greater than mine, and often the reverse.  Never is it anything close to unilateral unless no PCs are involved.  The narration of results of the two sides' authorship is mine, though. Unilateral(or close to it) authorship would require me to not on DM, but also play the PCs.

You also said this.

"(5) GM authorship in the moment of play based on constraints that emerge *(significantly, probably not exclusively) from the player's play of his/her PC;*"

That sounds exactly like what I described above.  Huge constraints are placed upon me by the player's play of his PC.  

As to your moved goalpost question, sometimes.  Sometimes the player's intent is a factor.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Fundamentally what we disagree on is the concept that play is an act of active creation. I do not believe that anyone is really experiencing what their character experiences or that fantasy worlds have an independent existence in anyone's minds. Actually I know that they do not and it is always something I am mindful of. We may want to feel like we are experiencing that imaginary situation, but it is a shared illusion maintained through a dramatic amount of effort on everyone's parts. Perception is not reality no matter how we might wish it to be so.
> 
> I contend that even the simple act of playing a character is an actively creative act throughout every moment of play. That there is no real version of the character that I am channeling or portraying. I am not making decisions as Ariel Matan when I play him. I am making decision for him. I want to feel like I am literally experiencing what he does, but I am not. I am sitting around a table or on a Zoom call with a group of friends and we are having a conversation where we construct a shared illusion of an imaginary place and time. Our perception, our shared illusion, and the reality are all very different things.
> 
> What I am interested in talking about when it comes to RPGs is how we really construct that shared illusion, what the conversation looks like at the table, and how that impacts our experience of the shared illusion. There are a significant number of people who want to only speak to the experience of that shared illusion and want to maintain their experience of it. I see that as a fundamentally limited conversation because it will never teach us how to do this thing or even acknowledge that how we actually do this thing matters a great deal.




you are putting words in our mouths. Obviously these things are created. I think what we are saying is there is an imaginary playing field and there is more going on than just the GM making things up (and there is more than simply what is happening in that moment of play: setting is established, history is established, etc. You are not 100% free to have your character behave and do whatever. The character may be fictional but they exist in the sense that you have established things about them that shape future behavior. For example the hulk doesn’t exist, but we have an agreed upon sense of what the hulk looks like, what happens when he gets angry, and what his personality is. further it isn’t simple creative choices about ‘the fiction’. Often we are acting through life’s in play (even the GM is doing so). And there are rules mediating the process


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You also said this.
> 
> "(5) GM authorship in the moment of play based on constraints that emerge *(significantly, probably not exclusively) from the player's play of his/her PC;*"
> 
> That sounds exactly like what I described above.  Huge constraints are placed upon me by the player's play of his PC.
> 
> As to your moved goalpost question, sometimes.  Sometimes the player's intent is a factor.



pemerton may have meant something else by it but looking at this quote and your post, this is also very important in my sessions


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> What I am interested in talking about when it comes to RPGs is how we really construct that shared illusion, what the conversation looks like at the table, and how that impacts our experience of the shared illusion. There are a significant number of people who want to only speak to the experience of that shared illusion and want to maintain their experience of it. I see that as a fundamentally limited conversation because it will never teach us how to do this thing or even acknowledge that how we actually do this thing matters a great deal.




But if that is the case, we have talked about that. I've posted plenty of examples of what I do, how characters are run, etc. I broke down what it involves. Maybe the tools we talk about, the open methods for handling the exchanges at the table, don't work for you: that is totally fine. But I have pointed to how the GM in a living sandbox needs to see things in the setting as pieces that can move and can even have a volition (imaginary volition but volition you can give clear parameters to: i.e. "Jake wants to become an immortal at all costs but also wants to protect his mother in her old age: he believes the Stray Arrow Society is thwarting his efforts to achieve immortality"). What we are saying is when you lay out the pieces right, when you honor their volition, when you honor the setting parameters you have established, when you honor the things players do and try to do, and don't view yourself as 'the author', it makes play very different. The living part of living sandbox is stuff like the volition of NPCs. It is that this is a world with responsive and active things in it, and the GM is largely expected to act through those things (not act through wanting a  particular encounter or scene)


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> you are putting words in our mouths. Obviously these things are created. I think what we are saying is there is an imaginary playing field and there is more going on than just the GM making things up (and there is more than simply what is happening in that moment of play: setting is established, history is established, etc. You are not 100% free to have your character behave and do whatever. The character may be fictional but they exist in the sense that you have established things about them that shape future behavior. For example the hulk doesn’t exist, but we have an agreed upon sense of what the hulk looks like, what happens when he gets angry, and what his personality is. further it isn’t simple creative choices about ‘the fiction’. Often we are acting through life’s in play (even the GM is doing so). And there are rules mediating the process




I am not trying to our words in anyone's mouth. I am saying who I genuinely see things. I have seen you and others in this thread use language that seems to erase the creative act. I have also seen what I view as a resistance to move past just the experience of play.

Of course the creative act is constrained, but there is not any point in which the setting/world or characters are fully formed things we do not have to make any creative decisions about. The creative work is never complete. The animus for all of it is done by humans living in meat space. In the course of running RPGs (including sandbox games) I find that no matter how well prepared I am constantly making creative decisions. There are obvious constraints and principles of play to consider, but that does not erase the creative work that is a constant feature of play even if we do not think about it or it comes naturally. Part of our analysis should involve the things we are subconsciously doing as part of the process of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I am not trying to our words in anyone's mouth. I am saying who I genuinely see things. I have seen you and others in this thread use language that seems to erase the creative act. I have also seen what I view as a resistance to move past just the experience of play.




And you guys use language that tries to erase the role of the setting, the existing of the living world concept. I mean I don't think any of us deny there are creative acts here. We are saying, at least when it comes to living worlds, your descriptions are just not an accurate account of what is going on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Of course the creative act is constrained, but there is not any point in which the setting/world or characters are fully formed things we do not have to make any creative decisions about. The creative work is never complete. The animus for all of it is done by humans living in meat space. In the course of running RPGs (including sandbox games) I find that no matter how well prepared I am constantly making creative decisions. There are obvious constraints and principles of play to consider, but that does not erase the creative work that is a constant feature of play even if we do not think about it or it comes naturally. Part of our analysis should involve the things we are subconsciously doing as part of the process of play.




But that creative work also doesn't erase the setting. That you are adding to it, and elaborating, doesn't change the fact that if you run Ravenloft, you are working with a setting that has parameters, an internal logic, a history etc (albeit more malleable than Forgotten Realms or HARN). No one here would suggest Ravenloft truly exists, but you are operating on the model of Ravenloft when you run the setting (and that matters: you can't just say 'its all active creation-its all 'the fiction'). The characters are imaginary pieces moving in the imaginary model of ravenloft. That conceit is very important for running certain kinds of RPGs. You take away that conceit (as you and pemerton's argument seem to) and you effectively deny this stye of play even exists (or at the least you say it is built on an illusion). I am sorry but to me this is just like when sandbox people do things like argue narrative RPGS are not RPGs. It is an argument couched as analysis that is really a playstyle argument.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> And you guys use language that tries to erase the role of the setting, the existing of the living world concept. I mean I don't think any of us deny there are creative acts here. We are saying, at least when it comes to living worlds, your descriptions are just not an accurate account of what is going on.



Alternatively, one could say that you're just trying to deify your living world concept and pretend that it has some sort of substantial non-fictive ontological reality that halts any further attempts at deconstructive analysis. You say that these descriptions are not accurate, but you're barely able to accurately describe what you do in your living world concept without appealing to vague and generic assertions about a living world and/or marketing-speak evocative language. If you're tired of others not getting it, then you're gonna need to actually put far more effort into explaining the play process than you put into complaining about how others are describing it.


----------



## Campbell

When I spoke of RPG play as a shared illusion we all maintain that was not pointed at any given way to play them. I mean all RPGs played in all ways. That in many ways we are all magicians trying to fool each other so that imaginary things feel real. This is pretty much how I view all media. If you feel I'm wrong about that please convince me otherwise.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> Fundamentally what we disagree on is the concept that play is an act of active creation. I do not believe that anyone is really experiencing what their character experiences or that fantasy worlds have an independent existence in anyone's minds. Actually I know that they do not and it is always something I am mindful of. We may want to feel like we are experiencing that imaginary situation, but it is a shared illusion maintained through a dramatic amount of effort on everyone's parts. Perception is not reality no matter how we might wish it to be so.
> 
> I contend that even the simple act of playing a character is an actively creative act throughout every moment of play. That there is no real version of the character that I am channeling or portraying. I am not making decisions as Ariel Matan when I play him. I am making decision for him. I want to feel like I am literally experiencing what he does, but I am not. I am sitting around a table or on a Zoom call with a group of friends and we are having a conversation where we construct a shared illusion of an imaginary place and time. Our perception, our shared illusion, and the reality are all very different things.



Yes, very much this.

I'm pretty sure the fact that I run games very much with a GM-authored setting, but still consider the players as co-creators (or co-authors) of the story that emerges in-game, and consider that story very much to be about the PCs, and to be very much about the PCs' goals and needs, is why I have in the past gotten very bristly when other posters have seemed to me to imply that the play in the games I run boiled down to the players finding out what I already knew. It seems reasonable that some posters who seem to run similarly to me might be feeling similarly provoked by similar language, here.


Campbell said:


> What I am interested in talking about when it comes to RPGs is how we really construct that shared illusion, what the conversation looks like at the table, and how that impacts our experience of the shared illusion. There are a significant number of people who want to only speak to the experience of that shared illusion and want to maintain their experience of it. I see that as a fundamentally limited conversation because it will never teach us how to do this thing or even acknowledge that how we actually do this thing matters a great deal.



That's a fair desire, and I suspect it's one that isn't met much in these threads.

At the tables I DM, I construct the setting, because I find it easier for me to sustain the illusion in play that way. The players (best I can tell) engage: They ask questions, some of which I haven't previously considered, and I answer them. Their characters do stuff like cast _legend lore_ on a thing that directly connects to a Great Old One, and I take a few minutes to write this:



Spoiler



gabbagabbahey
gabbagabbahey
gabbagabba we accept you one of us
gabbagabba you accept us into yourself
gabbagabbahey
gabbagabbahey

gabbagabbahey
gabbagabbahey
gabbagabba coming soon to a world near you
gabbagabba ending soon on a world with you
gabbagabbahey
gabbagabbahey

gabbagabbahey
gabbagabbahey
gabbagabba mountains won't stay green for long
gabbagabba talking all of your words at the same time
gabbagabbahey
gabbagabbahey



And the players decide what their characters do with that information.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Yes, very much this.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the fact that I run games very much with a GM-authored setting, but still consider the players as co-creators (or co-authors) of the story that emerges in-game, and consider that story very much to be about the PCs, and to be very much about the PCs' goals and needs, is why I have in the past gotten very bristly when other posters have seemed to me to imply that the play in the games I run boiled down to the players finding out what I already knew. It seems reasonable that some posters who seem to run similarly to me might be feeling similarly provoked by similar language, here.



This.  Yep.


prabe said:


> That's a fair desire, and I suspect it's one that isn't met much in these threads.
> 
> At the tables I DM, I construct the setting, because I find it easier for me to sustain the illusion in play that way. The players (best I can tell) engage: They ask questions, some of which I haven't previously considered, and I answer them. Their characters do stuff like cast _legend lore_ on a thing that directly connects to a Great Old One, and I take a few minutes to write this:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabba we accept you one of us
> gabbagabba you accept us into yourself
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> 
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabba coming soon to a world near you
> gabbagabba ending soon on a world with you
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> 
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabba mountains won't stay green for long
> gabbagabba talking all of your words at the same time
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> 
> 
> 
> And the players decide what their characters do with that information.



Love that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Alternatively, one could say that you're just trying to deify your living world concept and pretend that it has some sort of substantial non-fictive ontological reality that halts any further attempts at deconstructive analysis. You say that these descriptions are not accurate, but you're barely able to accurately describe what you do in your living world concept without appealing to vague and generic assertions about a living world and/or marketing-speak evocative language. If you're tired of others not getting it, then you're gonna need to actually put far more effort into explaining the play process than you put into complaining about how others are describing it.




Except 95% of people I talk to 'get it'. This is a small group of posters on a thread who say they don't (and I am not sure that is even the case, I am sure some here get it but reject our claims). And we have gone into detail, without being vague. We have taken it step by step, we've highlighted how you manage things like NPCs and groups in play, the kind of logic and thinking that goes into the GM making decisions about things, the kind of fidelity that is maintained with the background setting, explained how the GM needs to be open to things that the players propose that he or she hadn't planned in advance. I think perhaps what you want is something like the binary Pemerton keeps pointing to, but as I have explained, that is not a good place to put our focus because you miss out on the organic and open process of exchange.  There is an ongoing exchange of the players saying what they try, the GM saying what happens or what they see. But that doesn't capture the fullness of the process and it is a process governed by all the things we've been trying to tell you about. Look, I defined what a living world was (I think pretty clearly) and I think in a way that doesn't obfuscate or 'deify'. You keep getting hung up on that. I don't know why you do. No one is saying we are inhabiting real worlds, we are saying there is an imagined place, and that place can be modeled by the GM, and it can be run as a living world (as I defined it) where the players actions and choices not only matter a great deal, but ultimately become the engine of the sandbox.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> Love that.



Apparently the Ramones are a Great Old One on my world. That ... wasn't something I anticipated when I started writing it up.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Part of our analysis should involve the things we are subconsciously doing as part of the process of play.




I think what we are saying is make it conscious. If you are going to add something in as a GM tether it to the pieces in the living world, constrain it by the history of the campaign to this point, by the details of the setting you've established (or as extensions of that---obviously this last point could vary depending on the style of living world one is running). If you are not actively modeling the setting in your head and your notes, modeling the pieces moving on the board (and maintaining fidelity to them) then your living world will slip away. A lot of it is about restraining what kind of choices you make as a GM, cultivating a sense of openness and fairness, while also trying to imagine these things in your head and in your notes moving around the setting as described


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> You say that these descriptions are not accurate, but you're barely able to accurately describe what you do in your living world concept without appealing to vague and generic assertions about a living world and/or marketing-speak evocative language.




I have said many times I am not the best mouthpiece for this style, there are people better at conveying these concepts than myself. But I don't think I am 'barely able to accurately describe" what I do, nor do I think I am speaking in marketing speak. You keep saying that. It isn't what I am doing. I maintain the language "living world" is very important to understanding the concept. But I am happy to explain what living means in this case and have done so


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> When I spoke of RPG play as a shared illusion we all maintain that was not pointed at any given way to play them. I mean all RPGs played in all ways. That in many ways we are all magicians trying to fool each other so that imaginary things feel real. This is pretty much how I view all media. If you feel I'm wrong about that please convince me otherwise.



I'm not going to argue, because I don't believe you're exactly wrong, but I think you're missing the extent to which the audience conspires with the author. Willing suspension of disbelief is a thing, I think, regardless of medium. I think it's particularly important in TRPGs, and I think it's as important for GMing as for playing.

I don't think we're disagreeing so much as looking from different angles.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> I'm not going to argue, because I don't believe you're exactly wrong, but I think you're missing the extent to which the audience conspires with the author. Willing suspension of disbelief is a thing, I think, regardless of medium. I think it's particularly important in TRPGs, and I think it's as important for GMing as for playing.
> 
> I don't think we're disagreeing so much as looking from different angles.




I largely agree here. I think I would break it into two points for myself: 

1) The players matter (there is a conspiracy of the audience as you say)
2) While I wouldn't use the language illusion myself (because I do think you are often setting down concrete details and such), the difference in what I am talking about is the illusion being maintained is one of two layers: the stuff that happens in the world---including what the players do---and the world. Keeping that world from being ephemeral or amorphous is incredibly important in the kind of living world I am talking about. And while notes are part of how you keep it from being amorphous they are not the only way.


----------



## Aldarc

@Bedrockgames, could you please learn to compile/consolidate your quotes when responding to people? It's not fun getting/reading multiple posts from the same person quoting the same post? It often feels like a gish-gallop.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> @Bedrockgames, could you please learn to compile/consolidate your quotes when responding to people? It's not fun getting/reading multiple posts from the same person quoting the same post? It often feels like a gish-gallop.




I prefer not to do that it (to me it just becomes a giant wall of text when there are multi-quotes in threads: and I am not especially skilled at the formatting of it). It isn't done as a gish gallop, it is done so I can take points individually, focus on them and talk about them. I find when I multi-quote I am just rapidly working my way through all the points, not giving each the focus it warrants


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I have said many times I am not the best mouthpiece for this style, there are people better at conveying these concepts than myself. But I don't think I am 'barely able to accurately describe" what I do, nor do I think I am speaking in marketing speak. You keep saying that. It isn't what I am doing. I maintain the language "living world" is very important to understanding the concept. But I am happy to explain what living means in this case and have done so




So what do you think it is that you as a GM of “your style” do that @pemerton doesn’t do? 

Portray NPCs as dynamic individuals? Try to think about them based on their goals? Try to think of the world independently of the PCs? 

The Living World/Sandbox approach you’ve described is so broad from what i’ve been able to glean, that it’s hard to think of it as its own method or style. I don’t think you’ve described anything that I wouldn’t expect to see in many games of differing styles.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> So what do you think it is that you as a GM of “your style” do that @pemerton doesn’t do?
> 
> Portray NPCs as dynamic individuals? Try to think about them based on their goals? Try to think of the world independently of the PCs?
> 
> The Living World/Sandbox approach you’ve described is so broad from what i’ve been able to glean, that it’s hard to think of it as its own method or style. I don’t think you’ve described anything that I wouldn’t expect to see in many games of differing styles.




i don’t know. I am cautious to even attempt that. It seems to me I am frequently told everything from the living sandbox doesn’t exist to its so broad it encapsulate every other style. Now it is apparently the same as pemerton. if it’s the same, clearly there would be no disagreement. But I am not going to pretend to know what his style is. What I can say is, if what I am saying isn’t any different, then what are the objections to? 

My feeling is defining your style in contrast to a poster online is a bad way to figure out what works at your table. Again I think I have laid out my style clearly, I think I haven’t been been overly broad. Other posters here appear to pick up on what I am saying (and away from this thread I have zero problem communicating my approach)


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Portray NPCs as dynamic individuals? Try to think about them based on their goals? Try to think of the world independently of the PCs?
> 
> The Living World/Sandbox approach you’ve described is so broad from what i’ve been able to glean, that it’s hard to think of it as its own method or style. I don’t think you’ve described anything that I wouldn’t expect to see in many games of differing styles.




I think this is a little bit silly to say. Clearly folks know what we mean by sandbox, they know what we mean by living world. To suggest a sandbox living world is the same as adventure path for example doesn't make sense. To say it is the same as an investigative adventure doesn't really make sense either. To say it is the same as one based on scenes or based on characters having dramatic arcs doesn't quite make sense either. The point of this kind of campaign is it is meant to be something players can freely explore and move around in as their characters, and in order for that to work, having the living world where NPCs are also pieces in play is important. Lots of adventures can feature living NPCs. This is why I mentioned the Feast of Goblyns quote earlier (that wasn't a sandbox adventure). But if you extend that principle to the world, and you do so in a sandbox style campaign, you clearly have something different from what a lot of people here are talking about.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also on the living world concept, if people want a better explanation that is perhaps more palatable to the sensibilities of this thread: read Stars without Number. Kevin Crawford explains what a living world is there (posters in this thread who don't take my position have praised him: and it is praise he surely deserves). Or check out the Alexandrian Video I posted a link to.  At a certain point it doesn't really feel like people want to understand what I am trying to convey (I think a lot of it is people really just reject it or reject some of its assumptions)

Again here is the relevant text from Crawford:






This is the short video on the subject from Justin Alexander: 
EDIT: Will try to put some more resources in here (Matt Colville has a video on sandboxes and made one recently that gets at some of the things Hawkeye touched on)


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Apparently the Ramones are a Great Old One on my world. That ... wasn't something I anticipated when I started writing it up.



I'll counter with R.E.M.  I feel fine.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> I'll counter with R.E.M.  I feel fine.



I almost tried to do something with "It's the End of the World" but there are really a lot of words there.

I have to admit I was disappointed that none of the players seemed to get the reference. I know I'm old, but they're not that much younger than I am.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Also on the living world concept, if people want a better explanation that is perhaps more palatable to the sensibilities of this thread: read Stars without Number. Kevin Crawford explains what a living world is there (posters in this thread who don't take my position have praised him: and it is praise he surely deserves).



A number of us (e.g., @Campbell, @TwoSix, me, etc.) have read the Crawford text, but he's not talking play process. He's mainly talking goals, ideals, and tools to support such play. I'm not sure why you think we're ignorant of it and still disagree with you.



Bedrockgames said:


> EDIT: Will try to put some more resources in here (Matt Colville has a video on sandboxes and made one recently that gets at some of the things Hawkeye touched on)



I've watched both. In the most recent one, he argues that D&D is a sandbox game, that railroad is overused as a term, and that most players will go along with the prepared "choice" just so that they can play D&D. But I'm not sure that I or others here would agree with his video. So I'm not sure what that appeal is hoping to accomplish.

I really do get the feeling that you still think that this conversation is about (or maybe you are trying to turn into a conversation about) ends and not means. So maybe the reason why 95 percent of people who get you is because you are having a completely separate conversation than the one that we are trying to have here with you. You came here to talk up your living world. We came here to deconstruct it and other game models.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> A number of us (e.g., @Campbell, @TwoSix, me, etc.) have read the Crawford text, but he's not talking play process. He's mainly talking goals, ideals, and tools to support such play. I'm not sure why you think we're ignorant of it and still disagree with you.
> 
> 
> I've watched both. In the most recent one, he argues that D&D is a sandbox game, that railroad is overused as a term, and that most players will go along with the prepared "choice" just so that they can play D&D. But I'm not sure that I or others here would agree with his video. So I'm not sure what that appeal is hoping to accomplish.
> 
> I really do get the feeling that you still think that this conversation is about (or maybe you are trying to turn into a conversation about) ends and not means. So maybe the reason why 95 percent of people who get you is because you are having a completely separate conversation than the one that we are trying to have here with you. You came here to talk up your living world. We came here to deconstruct it and other game models.




I don't know what to tell you Aldarc. I am trying to respond to peoples posts, and tell you how I play. I am also trying to give examples from text that might be relevant. I would argue that something like treating an NPC as a piece on the board, with independent goals that can bring them into contact with the PCs (acting when they choose as Crawford puts it) is a part of the sandbox living world's process). I didn't realize this discussion was suddenly limited to process alone though (since I am still fielding comments calling into question the ability to model a living world: comments I have attempted to answer). All I can say is if you find me off point or dislike my posts, maybe don't respond or keep responding in a hostile manner if it makes you happy. What I don't think is fair though is for you to insist I have to post a particular way or that I need to focus on some really focused aspect of the discussion (by all means talk about that stuff if you want, but I am here just like any other poster trying to engage the discussion).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I've watched both. In the most recent one, he argues that D&D is a sandbox game, that railroad is overused as a term, and that most players will go along with the prepared "choice" just so that they can play D&D. But I'm not sure that I or others here would agree with his video. So I'm not sure what that appeal is hoping to accomplish.




It wasn't an appeal. I was originally intending to just put as many links to relevant videos and such as possible (hoping to give a broad overview of sandbox and living world---since my descriptions seem to be falling flat for some folks). I thought Colville's opinions might interest people as they are largely different from my own, and get somewhat in the direction of things you and others have stated. But it would just one thought. At this point though, I don't really think it serves much purpose for me to post further links there.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> You came here to talk up your living world. We came here to deconstruct it and other game models.




And I am trying to help you do this, but you can only deconstruct something if you understand what it is. Some posters here seem to understand what it is. Some seem to deny its existence or have hostility towards it and I think that clouds the analysis. My hope was to provide insight as someone who regularly engages in this style of play (which I would describe not as an end, but as an adventure structure with some underlying principles). As far as processes go, at this stage, I don't think I even know what you and pemerton even mean by that anymore. Any attempt I've made to connect to that has been rebuffed. I get the feeling I will only be listened to when I align my views with yours about 'the fiction' (but I could be wrong)


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> I almost tried to do something with "It's the End of the World" but there are really a lot of words there.
> 
> I have to admit I was disappointed that none of the players seemed to get the reference. I know I'm old, but they're not that much younger than I am.




It has been odd for me needing to explain cultural references that used to be assumed. It is easy to forget how many decades have passed since a song, movie, etc was a thing.


----------



## AnotherGuy

hawkeyefan said:


> So what do you think it is that you as a GM of “your style” do that @pemerton doesn’t do?
> 
> Portray NPCs as dynamic individuals? Try to think about them based on their goals? Try to think of the world independently of the PCs?
> 
> The Living World/Sandbox approach you’ve described is so broad from what i’ve been able to glean, that it’s hard to think of it as its own method or style. I don’t think you’ve described anything that I wouldn’t expect to see in many games of differing styles.




As I understand it, the _Living Word_ in the traditional form of play, doesn't require a bad roll for the GM to introduce consequences.
In many indie games, it appears that the _Living_ part of the world sometimes requires a mechanic to drive such consequences. i.e. for the GM to author stuff in.

EDIT: Therefore, sometimes the mechanic (the results of the dice) may not allow for consequences, which you normally would expect in a _Living World. _Ofcourse, in defense of the mechanic, one could always create reasons/explanations why consequence did not come to exist.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> As I understand it, the _Living Word_ in the traditional form of play, doesn't require a bad roll for the GM to introduce consequences.
> In many indie games, it appears that the _Living_ part of the world sometimes requires a mechanic to drive such consequences. i.e. for the GM to author stuff in.
> 
> EDIT: Therefore, sometimes the mechanic (the results of the dice) may not allow for consequences, which you normally would expect in a _Living World. _Ofcourse, in defense of the mechanic, one could always create reasons/explanations why consequence did not come to exist.



What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called "living world" -- the GM decides that it is so.  This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games.  

1) Characters do action A.  
2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence.
3) GM narrates the consequence.

When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar.  The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea.  Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players.  Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out.  Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis.  I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called "living world" -- the GM decides that it is so.  This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games.
> 
> 1) Characters do action A.
> 2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence.
> 3) GM narrates the consequence.
> 
> When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar.  The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea.  Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players.  Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out.  Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis.  I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing.




The mechanic is going to vary from game to game, which is why I haven't addressed the core mechanic. But I think most sandboxes and living worlds tend to be run using something like this or like I described (players say they try to do X, GM says what happens or what they see, etc). But the problem is this break down misses all the nuances me and others have been trying to draw your attention to (the questions and answers part of the game, the stuff that constrains what a GM can say, the fact that there is supposed to be this model of a world that the GM is expected to be cleaving to, etc). The problem is you are focusing in on a very narrow slice of play and that is going to miss the essence of a style like living world (it will be a flawed analysis if this is where you put all your focus). 

But I do think you hit on things lots of living world GMs discuss and debate (and there is no one answer here). The idea of how to give players the information they need to make decisions, of how much to reveal from behind the curtain so they know illusionism isn't occurring etc, is stuff people talk about and have arrived at general advice for. I think this is complicated by the fact that skilled play is often strongly valued in these games, so there is a reluctance to just hand players information (there is an idea of players needing to work to get results, but also an idea of good work should be rewarded). I think when the style breaks down it is often because people at the table are not communicating with one another well, have differing expectations and this can result in the sense  that they are just guessing. Actually Matt Colville talked about his in his recent video and I feel he made several good points about it. A lot of it is the players need to be able to both take initiative and ask questions. They should also be letting the GM know when things are not clear. In terms of foreshadowing, I think some things will be, some things won't be. But what shouldn't happen is a 'no matter what' situation. It is somewhat artificial for example to have every trap have a clue or warning before hand, for example. But if players do something to test for the trap, and that would set it off, the GM shouldn't ignore their efforts. This also comes up with monsters and threats. What I tell my party very clearly is: some monsters and enemies will be way more powerful than you, some way less, some in your range of power, characters can die (because of bad dice rolls, choices you make, and choices monsters and threats make), so caution is advised. 

Now if we are talking about consequences that stem from something like an interaction with an NPC that goes south. I think that is the sort of thing where a good sandbox GM does not just make the negative consequence happen because that is what he or she wants, it should be a logical outcome of what the players say or do (against the personality and motives of the NPC) and/or a product of the dice (if dice are used for the type of situation in question). The player responsibility in this kind of situation is to play smart and try to learn or glean what they can about NPCs before getting into a situation like that. But sometimes situations arise unexpectedly, and players just happen to say the wrong thing. I don't think the GM has a duty to telegraph that if such a situation arises (just like in life I may find myself in a situation where I meet someone and say the one thing that sets them off without realizing it).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I think this is a little bit silly to say. Clearly folks know what we mean by sandbox, they know what we mean by living world. To suggest a sandbox living world is the same as adventure path for example doesn't make sense. To say it is the same as an investigative adventure doesn't really make sense either. To say it is the same as one based on scenes or based on characters having dramatic arcs doesn't quite make sense either. The point of this kind of campaign is it is meant to be something players can freely explore and move around in as their characters, and in order for that to work, having the living world where NPCs are also pieces in play is important. Lots of adventures can feature living NPCs. This is why I mentioned the Feast of Goblyns quote earlier (that wasn't a sandbox adventure). But if you extend that principle to the world, and you do so in a sandbox style campaign, you clearly have something different from what a lot of people here are talking about.




You've said in this thread that you like to run a lot of investigative adventures. Do they not take place in a sandbox? Or a living world? 

Here's the thing.....Sandbox and Living Worlds are Nouns. I know many folks have taken Sandbox as an Adjective to describe a type of game. 

I'm looking for your Verbs. How do you do what you do? You shoot down any actual verbs suggested in favor of describing your technique with Nouns and then tell others they're equivocating. As if you can't grasp the idea that making believe can be described as "authoring". And now I'm silly? Okay.



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know what to tell you Aldarc. I am trying to respond to peoples posts, and tell you how I play. I am also trying to give examples from text that might be relevant. I would argue that something like treating an NPC as a piece on the board, with independent goals that can bring them into contact with the PCs (acting when they choose as Crawford puts it) is a part of the sandbox living world's process). I didn't realize this discussion was suddenly limited to process alone though (since I am still fielding comments calling into question the ability to model a living world: comments I have attempted to answer). All I can say is if you find me off point or dislike my posts, maybe don't respond or keep responding in a hostile manner if it makes you happy. What I don't think is fair though is for you to insist I have to post a particular way or that I need to focus on some really focused aspect of the discussion (by all means talk about that stuff if you want, but I am here just like any other poster trying to engage the discussion).




Let's go with your last session. What happened in it? What kinds of GMing decisions did it require? What did the players do? I don't need a play by play, but a few examples would be great.


----------



## hawkeyefan

AnotherGuy said:


> As I understand it, the _Living Word_ in the traditional form of play, doesn't require a bad roll for the GM to introduce consequences.
> In many indie games, it appears that the _Living_ part of the world sometimes requires a mechanic to drive such consequences. i.e. for the GM to author stuff in.
> 
> EDIT: Therefore, sometimes the mechanic (the results of the dice) may not allow for consequences, which you normally would expect in a _Living World. _Ofcourse, in defense of the mechanic, one could always create reasons/explanations why consequence did not come to exist.




Well it depends on what you mean. A living world would be one in which I'd expect consequences for actions. And that things can take place without the PCs' direct involvement. 

Some games may have consequences on a roll, but I don't think that those games ONLY allow for consequences related to a roll. 

Did you have a specific game in mind?


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> You've said in this thread that you like to run a lot of investigative adventures. Do they not take place in a sandbox? Or a living world?




Usually they do not; sone investigations have a living adventure element but when I run these I do tend to either think of them as their own adventure structures or, sometimes, as a limited sandbox


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> To zoom in here, because this is a point of disagreement between us, I'm not sure what value would be gained by expanding the definition of protagonist play to something other than focusing on the dramatic needs of the character.



What about the dramatic needs of _the party as a whole_?  In my view those (should, always!) outweigh the dramatic needs of any one character; though at times there may be overlap between one and the other.

The party - singular - is the protagonist - singular.

Sure, individual characters have their own dramas going on underneath it all, and that's fine; but the primary dramatic focus is getting the Ring to Mordor, not Aragorn sorting out his love life.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> You've said in this thread that you like to run a lot of investigative adventures. Do they not take place in a sandbox? Or a living world?
> 
> Here's the thing.....Sandbox and Living Worlds are Nouns. I know many folks have taken Sandbox as an Adjective to describe a type of game.
> 
> I'm looking for your Verbs. How do you do what you do? You shoot down any actual verbs suggested in favor of describing your technique with Nouns and then tell others they're equivocating. As if you can't grasp the idea that making believe can be described as "authoring". And now I'm silly? Okay.



living world is a concept, an approach. Sandbox is an adventure structure and campaign structure. In terms of verbs, I am not sure I see what you hope to discover here. In terms of what the GM does? I probably wouldn’t reduce it to one verb. Again I find this kind of analysis very reductive. If I were to offer verbs they would be things like facilitate, referee, design, judge, etc. but it wouldn’t be just one thing


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Let's go with your last session. What happened in it? What kinds of GMing decisions did it require? What did the players do? I don't need a play by play, but a few examples would be great.




i posted that information on my previous session earlier in the thread (with notes, maps, etc). Though as I pointed out, that wasn’t a strict sandbox. I was taking something of a living adventure approach but they were trying to solve a mystery. Still it does get into procedures, techniques, how npcs are managed, etc

also, an FYI: I am happy to have a conversation. Not here to answer a set of demands or strong of questions. I have made an effort to provide information when asked. But posts like the one above (in its entirety) feels like you are asking me to dance for you: especially when these are questions I have answered


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> What about the dramatic needs of _the party as a whole_?  In my view those (should, always!) outweigh the dramatic needs of any one character; though at times there may be overlap between one and the other.
> 
> The party - singular - is the protagonist - singular.
> 
> Sure, individual characters have their own dramas going on underneath it all, and that's fine; but the primary dramatic focus is getting the Ring to Mordor, not Aragorn sorting out his love life.



This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It's possible to have multiple story-threads going at a time at a TRPG table. It's just a matter of not letting anything important get too far out of focus--and it's not just the GM's responsibility, IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called "living world" -- the GM decides that it is so.  This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games.
> 
> 1) Characters do action A.
> 2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence.
> 3) GM narrates the consequence.
> 
> When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar.  The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea.  Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players.  Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out.  Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis.  I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing.



Numbers 2 and 3 aren't entirely correct.  

With number 2, the consequence naturally evolves from the results of an action.  Success or failure are not really relevant other than to possibly help inform the DM on which way it should go.  

With number 3, the narration isn't usually immediate.  The whole point is to make the world feel alive(hence living world) via events happening outside of the PCs vision.  

The process as you describe it above can  happen, but it would have nothing to do with a living world.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> What about the dramatic needs of _the party as a whole_?  In my view those (should, always!) outweigh the dramatic needs of any one character; though at times there may be overlap between one and the other.
> 
> The party - singular - is the protagonist - singular.
> 
> Sure, individual characters have their own dramas going on underneath it all, and that's fine; but the primary dramatic focus is getting the Ring to Mordor, not Aragorn sorting out his love life.



Can you describe a party dramaric need, as opposed to a party goal?


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Alternatively, one could say that you're just trying to deify your living world concept and pretend that it has some sort of substantial non-fictive ontological reality that halts any further attempts at deconstructive analysis.



The problem with deconstructive analysis, be it here or of any other art form, is that when boiled down it's an attempt to explain art using science; and while doing this might produce some interesting discussion along the way, in the end any such analysis is doomed to fail under the weight of all the non-quantifyable intangibles involved.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Apparently the Ramones are a Great Old One on my world. That ... wasn't something I anticipated when I started writing it up.



They do want the airwaves...


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It's possible to have multiple story-threads going at a time at a TRPG table.



Agreed that multiple simultaneous story-threads are not only possible, they're almost a given.


prabe said:


> It's just a matter of not letting anything important get too far out of focus--and it's not just the GM's responsibility, IMO.



Not entirely agreed here.  I think it is the GM's responsibility to make sure the most important thing - the party - remains the focus most of the time; and it's the players' dual (and sometimes conflicting) responsibility to both help with this and to advocate for their own character and-or its own storylines.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Can you describe a party dramaric need, as opposed to a party goal?



Often they're one and the same.  The goal is the goal, the dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or die trying).

Party Goal: Get the Ring to Mordor.  Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal.

Same for an individual character.  Its goal is its goal, its dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or fail).

Aragorn's Goal: prove myself worthy in the eyes of Elrond.  Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal, which in this case might include helping get the ring to Mordor...or not.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Usually they do not; sone investigations have a living adventure element but when I run these I do tend to either think of them as their own adventure structures or, sometimes, as a limited sandbox




Okay, cool. So then what role would you say your Prep plays in an investigative scenario as opposed to a more sandbox style that you've mostly been discussing? Is there the same "back and forth" between GM and Players as you've described in a Sandbox? Is it more one way? Something else?



Bedrockgames said:


> living world is a concept, an approach. Sandbox is an adventure structure and campaign structure. In terms of verbs, I am not sure I see what you hope to discover here. In terms of what the GM does? I probably wouldn’t reduce it to one verb. Again I find this kind of analysis very reductive. If I were to offer verbs they would be things like facilitate, referee, design, judge, etc. but it wouldn’t be just one thing




I'm honestly just trying to talk about actual techniques. It is a bit reductive in the sense that we're trying to break things down into individual parts. I disagree that living world is an approach in and of itself. It is a goal, I would say. You want to "portray a living world in your game", you don't "living world a game". 

Let's just say that some of us in this thread look at that term the same way you do GM's Notes, for the purposes of this conversation. Let's just say you were to describe your game without being able to use that term. What kind of description would you offer?

For instance, I can say that one of the ways I portray a living world when I play Blades in the Dark (and which I would expect most others do since it's a component of the game) is to use Clocks. Any Faction has a Clock or two, or maybe more, based on their goals. These are simply little circles cut into wedges. During the downtime phase, I make rolls for each Faction to see how much progress they make toward a goal, filling up the wedges of the Clock based on the result of the roll.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay, cool. So then what role would you say your Prep plays in an investigative scenario as opposed to a more sandbox style that you've mostly been discussing? Is there the same "back and forth" between GM and Players as you've described in a Sandbox? Is it more one way? Something else?




Prep plays a very different role in investigation. In an investigation adventure I know the players are going to have sites of investigation, that there will likely be a hook presented to them in a very clear form, etc. There is a clear scenario: investigate the disappearance of so and so, follow a trail of clues, etc. I am  going to be prepping the trail of clues, the events that led up to the mystery, etc. I may add in some living elements (i.e. maybe The Red Parrot has a lot of flexibility to move around and thwart the pcs efforts if he catches on to them for example), but it isn't quite like a sandbox where I am leaving the 'what will the players be doing tonight' blank. In a sandbox, I am building them an environment, with pieces that are 'alive', with active 'living' organizations, in a world with ongoing conflicts, with lore and locations that can be explored, and allowing the players to do what they want (and I will happily build on where they choose to go or focus on during play). The difference is pretty significant in my mind. So much so that I definitely prep in very different ways. In some respects an investigation is more labor intensive because I have to flesh out the clues, etc. But it is also more focused, because I don't have to worry about prepping the next town over. In a sandbox I need to prep enough that the players will have stuff to do no matter where they go, but also so that those places will be responsive and be able to take on a life of their own once the players start steering in clear directions. A sandbox may include things like dungeon delves (which I think people here don't need any explanation of how to prep), but overlaid on top of that is the living setting. It makes it more likely to have situations arise where rivals show up during their delves to beat to them to the manual. I think sandboxes, ultimately, become about the characters. 

In terms of mystery investigations and sandboxes, neither is back and forth between players and GM in terms of prep. You prep the mystery, you prep the sandbox. Some GMs I am sure take input from players before hand. I usually don't. When I have that has been the exception (and it made for a very different kind of game). The back and forth I was talking about was during play (and as an edge case during things like character creation when players are establishing stuff like family details: though there are sandbox approaches that don't allow for that). 

During play though, the back and forth is very important. Ultimately what I want is to have to do as little as possible to keep this thing running. I want the players coming up with stuff they want to do, finding things in the setting that interest them and taking those in wild directions. Some of the examples Justin Alexander gave towards the end of his video are the sorts of thing I have in mind here. The classic example for me is the players deciding they want to form their own sect, or deciding they want to seek out particular masters and become their students, then go forth and make a mark for themselves. When players are trying to establish themselves in the martial world, something they may start doing is looking for opponents to defeat so they can grow their reputation. This will often be knowledge dependent and players may ask me (often by using their skills, or just asking me if they know about something---sometimes going through NPCs to get the info) "Is there a guy around here who is known for strong leg techniques, I want to challenge someone like that with my own kicking style to prove mine is better". Maybe I have a person like that in the setting I've established. But if I don't, I might simply decide 'yes there is' or 'no there isn't' based on what I think is likely (and if I am not sure I may just leave it to chance and roll a die). Then I would rapidly create that character on the fly, and establish concrete details in my notes (personality, name, techniques, etc). I have developed a very quick shorthand for this and shortcuts for devising new techniques on the fly. So then maybe the player goes and fights this guy. How that goes is going to be down to tactics, styles and dice....and the outcome could really make a big difference: the player winning might mean they grow their reputation, if they really trounce the person he may even want to become their pupil. Or maybe the player gets destroyed and the reverse happens, or this is the start of a lifelong grudge (possibly a friendship). It is all going to depend on the back and forth details between the player and the NPC.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm honestly just trying to talk about actual techniques. It is a bit reductive in the sense that we're trying to break things down into individual parts. I disagree that living world is an approach in and of itself. It is a goal, I would say. You want to "portray a living world in your game", you don't "living world a game".



This is where I am saying you are wrong. I don't have a good word for it, but I do view the way I run the game as playing the living world. It isn't just a goal. The goal is to make it come alive. But the way you make it come alive is by treating the NPCs as living characters (as pieces in the setting with volition who act when they decide). Again, maybe I am not conveying this well. For me that wandering major encounter section I quoted really crystalized this concept for me. And it is the same for all other living elements of the setting (its sects, its rulers, etc).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> The problem with deconstructive analysis, be it here or of any other art form, is that when boiled down it's an attempt to explain art using science; and while doing this might produce some interesting discussion along the way, in the end any such analysis is doomed to fail under the weight of all the non-quantifyable intangibles involved.



Not true at all.  There's a difference in looking at how a piece is made, how it works to do what it does, and saying that you can now scientifically reproduce art.  I know artists, in school, that are there to learn how to improve their craft by studying methods, and they often can deconstruct a piece of art while maintaining a wonder of it.  I know that I have gained appreciation for a number of things after learning more about what goes into making them.

Art is not unknowable and unlearnable, and neither are RPGs.  This kind of argument is an example of one that helps make it difficult to encourage new players to become new GMs -- it makes it sound like you have to have a great talent to GM.  You don't.


Lanefan said:


> Often they're one and the same.  The goal is the goal, the dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or die trying).



If you're going to change definitions so that your argument is right, can you do so when you ask the question in response to the post you're disagreeing with?  A lot of time would have been saved if you'd just said, "I'm going to use a different definition of dramatic need, one very far from the post I'm quoting, and stake an argument on my new definition."  Because this?  This isn't any definition of dramatic need I've seen in this thread, and certainly isn't what I spent a generous paragraph defining in the post you quoted.  This definition of dramatic need really dispenses with anything dramatic at all, as it covers opening that locked door over there as well as buying potions of fire resistance or many other mundane affairs.  It isn't speaking to the essential character of the party at all; it doesn't define anything interesting about the party.  And, if that's where you'd like to go, then I'm afraid I shan't follow, as it's a dull and uninteresting place with regards to discussing real differences in play.


Lanefan said:


> Party Goal: Get the Ring to Mordor.  Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal.
> 
> Same for an individual character.  Its goal is its goal, its dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or fail).
> 
> Aragorn's Goal: prove myself worthy in the eyes of Elrond.  Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal, which in this case might include helping get the ring to Mordor...or not.



ETA:  in a twist, what you call Aragorn's Goal I'd easily name a dramatic need.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> For instance, I can say that one of the ways I portray a living world when I play Blades in the Dark (and which I would expect most others do since it's a component of the game) is to use Clocks. Any Faction has a Clock or two, or maybe more, based on their goals. These are simply little circles cut into wedges. During the downtime phase, I make rolls for each Faction to see how much progress they make toward a goal, filling up the wedges of the Clock based on the result of the roll.



There is nothing wrong with clocks. There are similar tools one can use. But I think this misses what I mean by living world. You really have to focus on the NPCs and their goals, not the procedures you are using from time to time to simplify and abstract complicated elements of the living world. I may need from time to time, to resort to rolls or system to resolve things. But the important part of running a living world is being able to know how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs (for example if the players intercept opium shipments that a rival gang was going to buy and sell, the living part of the setting is seriously thinking what that gang and its leaders are going when they learn about the shipment being intercepted: what information do they gain access too, if and when they discover the players involvement what plans do they start formulating, what resources do they have to expend on this, etc). It isn't any extremely special, it is just taking these groups and the characters who make them up as seriously as the players take their characters (i.e. Lady 87 is now extremely pissed at the party and devotes her energy to destroying them: first thing she is going to to is send a squad of 7 elite fighters to kill them where they sleep). It is about being responsive. Tools and widgets are not as important as the mindset and as the guiding principles. A living world in this case begins with taking the character of Lady 87 as a real piece on the board and moving the piece under the real constraints she would face). Widgets, tools, etc these are all important, but they are going to vary from system to system, from GM to GM, etc. I for example use a lot of d10 dice pool rolls on the fly (assigning a dice pool rating to groups or people and rolling to see if they succeed at various tasks). Stuff like territory and completing missions or crimes, you can devise abstractions for. But for me personally I have found the specifics just come up too frequently and undermine my efforts at abstraction (so I have shifted to more of a book keeping approach: charting the shift of gang territory, charting revenue from various places they control, various rackets, etc basically dealing with things in real world terms)


----------



## darkbard

Bedrockgames said:


> [...] You really have to focus on the NPCs and their goals, not the procedures you are using from time to time to simplify and abstract complicated elements of the living world. I may need from time to time, to resort to rolls or system to resolve things. But the important part of running a living world is being able to know how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs [...] seriously thinking what that gang and its leaders are going when they learn about the shipment being intercepted: what information do they gain access too, if and when they discover the players involvement what plans do they start formulating, what resources do they have to expend on this, etc[...]  It is about being responsive. Tools and widgets are not as important as the mindset and as the guiding principles.[...] But for me personally I have found the specifics just come up too frequently and undermine my efforts at abstraction (so I have shifted to more of a book keeping approach: charting the shift of gang territory, charting revenue from various places they control, various rackets, etc basically dealing with things in real world terms)




I think you've communicated this pretty clearly throughout this thread (and others): you prefer GM decides as a system for crafting a "living world." Yet the pushback you are receiving is against the idea that this is a viable way of achieving an objective entity (what some here are terming "the fiction," which you resist) outside of the GM's beliefs of what that would be.


----------



## Bedrockgames

darkbard said:


> I think you've communicated this pretty clearly throughout this thread (and others): you prefer GM decides as a system for crafting a "living world." Yet the pushback you are receiving is against the idea that this is a viable way of achieving an objective entity (what some here are terming "the fiction," which you resist) outside of the GM's beliefs of what that would be.




I agree we are at an impasse here: I don't agree that 'GM decides' is the system though. Again, I think your side keeps trying to reduce it to 'gm decides', 'gm says', but there is a lot more interplay going on, as described, there is a lot more organically unfolding. If you reduce it to that one thing, you wouldn't be able to discern the difference between a railroad or a sandbox. However I don't think there is much point in beating this disagreement into the ground further. 

But I would agree we disagree on whether the living world is something that can be achieved. I get that you guys are pushing back. You pushing back doesn't mean you are right. In fact I think you are very wrong on this account. And I think what it really boils down to is a playstyle divide Again I think the position that 'living world isn't viable' is about as sensical as 'BitD isn't an RPG': it is an argument that is really intended to dismiss a style of play one dislikes, one sees as a threat, etc. I say not only are living worlds viable, but that BitD living worlds should also be a thing. I am sure it might be different if the system complicates any of the living world principles I've discussed (and I will leave it to BitD fans to decide if the system does or not. But I see no reason why we can't have trad system living world sandboxes, BitD living world sandboxes, PbtA living world sandboxes, etc. I do think in some systems it will be trickier. One reason I made the distinction between the world and 'the fiction/the scene/the stuff' is when I ran Drama System, that game doesn't distinguish as much between setting and scene and you would need to account for that (whereas in a traditional living world sandbox the setting is treated as a very concrete and separate thing). So distinctions do matter so peoples expectations can be met and the system can function properly in the sandbox, but I am more excited by the possibility of sandboxes flourishing in a variety of systems and styles than being locked into one. 

However I did come away from this with one good thing, which is the description of a living sandbox as playing in a setting where NPCs and factions are imaginary pieces with volition that act at will. It is simplistic and only captures one part of it, but it was a way of depicting the style that had not occurred to me before.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> There is nothing wrong with clocks. There are similar tools one can use. But I think this misses what I mean by living world. You really have to focus on the NPCs and their goals, not the procedures you are using from time to time to simplify and abstract complicated elements of the living world. I may need from time to time, to resort to rolls or system to resolve things. But the important part of running a living world is being able to know how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs (for example if the players intercept opium shipments that a rival gang was going to buy and sell, the living part of the setting is seriously thinking what that gang and its leaders are going when they learn about the shipment being intercepted: what information do they gain access too, if and when they discover the players involvement what plans do they start formulating, what resources do they have to expend on this, etc). It isn't any extremely special, it is just taking these groups and the characters who make them up as seriously as the players take their characters (i.e. Lady 87 is now extremely pissed at the party and devotes her energy to destroying them: first thing she is going to to is send a squad of 7 elite fighters to kill them where they sleep). It is about being responsive. Tools and widgets are not as important as the mindset and as the guiding principles. A living world in this case begins with taking the character of Lady 87 as a real piece on the board and moving the piece under the real constraints she would face). Widgets, tools, etc these are all important, but they are going to vary from system to system, from GM to GM, etc. I for example use a lot of d10 dice pool rolls on the fly (assigning a dice pool rating to groups or people and rolling to see if they succeed at various tasks). Stuff like territory and completing missions or crimes, you can devise abstractions for. But for me personally I have found the specifics just come up too frequently and undermine my efforts at abstraction (so I have shifted to more of a book keeping approach: charting the shift of gang territory, charting revenue from various places they control, various rackets, etc basically dealing with things in real world terms)




I read something like this and my visceral response is just that it's impossible task. Like just from a project management standpoint I would have no idea how to even begin given your description here. There just does not seem to be any indication or awareness of like the cognitive limits we all have. How do you make it manageable? Like say you have 5 hours to prep for your next session - what does that look like? How do you break up the work? How do you keep it all organized? What guides the creative process when coming with new elements?


----------



## darkbard

Maxperson said:


> With number 2, the consequence naturally evolves from the results of an action.




Would you explain to me this _natural_ process you see at work outside of human decision making?


----------



## Manbearcat

Because there is some commentary/thoughts in this thread that “Protagonistic Play” is not a discreet play priority that requires specific design/play ethos features (of which I do not agree with and have put a lot of countervailing words out there), I figured I’d copy/paste the below to this thread because I feel it has a lot of explanatory power of both the upstream and downstream effects of  Protagonistic Play (as holistically designed into a game) on the adjacent/related parts of design.

*TLDR - Deeply Protagonist Play favors PC build on the x axis and relatively mutes y axis power.*



darkbard said:


> On the smaller scale and just as an observation about a specific mechanical subsystem within the game, I am surprised by how DW's spell system seems to disincentivize PCs regularly taking on higher level spells in preference for a range of lower level ones. Generally speaking, I just don't thing the power increase is worth the tradeoff. My wife's Wizard is level 6 (eligible for 5th level spells) but regularly prepares 2 third level and 1 first level spell; my Paladin (MC Cleric) is 7th level and also eligible for 5th level spells but regularly prepares 1 third level and 4 first level spells. My wife's Ranger-Psion (4th level, eligible for 3rd level spells) prepares 4 first level spells. Maybe this is entirely reflective of our own gaming preferences, but I think many of the higher level spells are too narrowly  focused to give up a range of effects. This had been mitigated, as you know, by homebrewing a few higher level spells that provide a similar power level to their canon counterparts but more diversity in application or effects.




I'll have more commentary later on the rest of what you've written above.  For now, just going to post on this.

As you and I have discussed personally, I agree that there are some specific "holes in Dungeon World's spellcasting game" when it comes to scaling.  I think there are two problems (and they're related to another conversation we had Friday night) that Adam/Sage accidentally introduced or didn't conceptually resolve with the spellcasting scaling:

1)  The x axis is more powerful than the y axis in Dungeon World.  Because players and player characters (most overlap on the Venn Diagram but the most potent are via discrete and indirect means that hook directly into the Protagonist nature of play; your evinced dramatic needs are the scaffolding for the trajectory of play and this is continuously addressed via "ask questions and use the answers") have so much y axis power already, there is steep diminishing returns on character build toward the y axis.  This is further amplified due to the fact that the game's engine creates so_many_pivotal_and_snowballing moments of action resolution.

This can be looked at in the same way that the classic D&D 5MWD can be looked at.  Take the 5e D&D Diviner at Epic Tier.  The pressure you can put on this character's resources is absolutely minimal because of (a) so many spell slots, (b) so much at-will x and y axis power (Cantrips and low level at-will and Rituals), (c) 3 * Portents, (d) multiple avenues of individual spell refresh, (e) x and y axis power to dictate workday refresh.  This isn't even touching magic items.  As a result, unless this character is facing something on the order of 30+ PIVOTAL decision-points a day, it is trivial for a _skilled _Diviner to manage their loadout in a way such that resource pressure never emerges.  They're just pressing big, beefy buttons all day long.

In a sort of inverted paradigm (due to all of the pivotal and snowballing decision-points as an outgrowth of action resolution), x-axis prowess (having a wide breadth of answers to questions) is considerably more powerful in DW.

Now I love this model...but it does have design implications and fallout for high level spellcasting (the kind we're talking about here).

2)  Reframing ability in Protagonist Play is less potent for a number of reasons.  Consider (again) our conversation from the other night.  The Elven Ranger move:



> Elf​When you undertake a perilous journey through wilderness whatever job you take you succeed as if you rolled a 10+.




Looks great on paper.  In play?  Here are the implications of this move:

a)  You can never get xp on your selected Role on Perilous Journeys.

b)  This scene reframing ability ensures that you'll never face a Danger in your role.  In Perilous Wilds, you'll always get 2 Boons for example.  That is awesome.  But that means that you'll never deal with any extended conflict and interesting decision-points as a downstream effect of that perma scene-reframing ability.  Go back to (1) above (there is always going to be more pressure points on the stuff you care about/your thematic shtick in this game to review some of the issues with this (as it relates to the scaling such that high level spells increase y axis power situationally but significantly reduces x axis prowess).

What is more interesting and better design in my opinion?  The kind of design that (a) lets the Elven Ranger player get xp on from their move made, (b) ensures their competency, (c) lets them roll dice, (d) keeps their thematic stuff onscreen at a dramtically higher rate (across the population of all moves/obstacles faced in the game), and (e) gives the player the opportunity for an interesting decision-point (tactical, strategic, thematic)?

RAISE THE FLOOR of the possible outcomes (rather than ensure the ceiling):



> Elf​When you undertake a perilous journey through wilderness, if you get a 6- on your role move, mark xp and treat the result as a 7-9.




Its now like the Paladin move Staunch Defender where you get 1 Hold on Defend even if you get a 6-.  Much, much better design (for all of the reasons above) in my opinion.


----------



## darkbard

Lanefan said:


> The problem with deconstructive analysis, be it here or of any other art form, is that when boiled down it's an attempt to explain art using science; and while doing this might produce some interesting discussion along the way, in the end any such analysis is doomed to fail under the weight of all the non-quantifyable intangibles involved.



I suspect that many humanities professionals, such as myself, take exception at your view of literary theory (here represented by deconstructive analysis (however inexpertly applied as a term in this thread)) as anything outside the humanistic tradition.


----------



## darkbard

Manbearcat said:


> Because there is some commentary/thoughts in this thread that “Protagonistic Play” is not a discreet play priority that requires specific design/play ethos features (of which I do not agree with and have put a lot of countervailing words out there), I figured I’d copy/paste the below to this thread because I feel it has a lot of explanatory power of both the upstream and downstream effects of  Protagonistic Play (as holistically designed into a game) on the adjacent/related parts of design.
> 
> *TLDR - Deeply Protagonist Play favors PC build on the x axis and relatively mutes y axis power.*
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have more commentary later on the rest of what you've written above.  For now, just going to post on this.
> 
> As you and I have discussed personally, I agree that there are some specific "holes in Dungeon World's spellcasting game" when it comes to scaling.  I think there are two problems (and they're related to another conversation we had Friday night) that Adam/Sage accidentally introduced or didn't conceptually resolve with the spellcasting scaling:
> 
> 1)  The x axis is more powerful than the y axis in Dungeon World.  Because players and player characters (most overlap on the Venn Diagram but the most potent are via discrete and indirect means that hook directly into the Protagonist nature of play; your evinced dramatic needs are the scaffolding for the trajectory of play and this is continuously addressed via "ask questions and use the answers") have so much y axis power already, there is steep diminishing returns on character build toward the y axis.  This is further amplified due to the fact that the game's engine creates so_many_pivotal_and_snowballing moments of action resolution.
> 
> This can be looked at in the same way that the classic D&D 5MWD can be looked at.  Take the 5e D&D Diviner at Epic Tier.  The pressure you can put on this character's resources is absolutely minimal because of (a) so many spell slots, (b) so much at-will x and y axis power (Cantrips and low level at-will and Rituals), (c) 3 * Portents, (d) multiple avenues of individual spell refresh, (e) x and y axis power to dictate workday refresh.  This isn't even touching magic items.  As a result, unless this character is facing something on the order of 30+ PIVOTAL decision-points a day, it is trivial for a _skilled _Diviner to manage their loadout in a way such that resource pressure never emerges.  They're just pressing big, beefy buttons all day long.
> 
> In a sort of inverted paradigm (due to all of the pivotal and snowballing decision-points as an outgrowth of action resolution), x-axis prowess (having a wide breadth of answers to questions) is considerably more powerful in DW.
> 
> Now I love this model...but it does have design implications and fallout for high level spellcasting (the kind we're talking about here).
> 
> 2)  Reframing ability in Protagonist Play is less potent for a number of reasons.  Consider (again) our conversation from the other night.  The Elven Ranger move:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks great on paper.  In play?  Here are the implications of this move:
> 
> a)  You can never get xp on your selected Role on Perilous Journeys.
> 
> b)  This scene reframing ability ensures that you'll never face a Danger in your role.  In Perilous Wilds, you'll always get 2 Boons for example.  That is awesome.  But that means that you'll never deal with any extended conflict and interesting decision-points as a downstream effect of that perma scene-reframing ability.  Go back to (1) above (there is always going to be more pressure points on the stuff you care about/your thematic shtick in this game to review some of the issues with this (as it relates to the scaling such that high level spells increase y axis power situationally but significantly reduces x axis prowess).
> 
> What is more interesting and better design in my opinion?  The kind of design that (a) lets the Elven Ranger player get xp on from their move made, (b) ensures their competency, (c) lets them roll dice, (d) keeps their thematic stuff onscreen at a dramtically higher rate (across the population of all moves/obstacles faced in the game), and (e) gives the player the opportunity for an interesting decision-point (tactical, strategic, thematic)?
> 
> RAISE THE FLOOR of the possible outcomes (rather than ensure the ceiling):
> 
> 
> 
> Its now like the Paladin move Staunch Defender where you get 1 Hold on Defend even if you get a 6-.  Much, much better design (for all of the reasons above) in my opinion.



Am I a bad man for liking your post twice?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I read something like this and my visceral response is just that it's impossible task. Like just from a project management standpoint I would have no idea how to even begin given your description here. There just does not seem to be any indication or awareness of like the cognitive limits we all have. How do you make it manageable? Like say you have 5 hours to prep for your next session - what does that look like? How do you break up the work? How do you keep it all organized? What guides the creative process when coming with new elements?




Well in terms of setting prep, there is usually a lot on the front end (at least for me). I thought I laid this out earlier but will quickly try to restate here (this may be fuzzy, simply because I lack time). I establish the setting in the manner I described before: often beginning with cosmology, then progressing to physical places (for instance the setting I made most recently was a flat world, square inside a kind of celestial dome). I take that map, put peoples on it and languages, and chart the development and movement of these things over centuries or millennia (this for me is really important because it leads to answers to questions like "what relics and ancient structures would be in this spot"). I chart he development of empires, etc. And then I move to mapping the present day of the setting: places, locations, institutions, groups, organizations (this is often a combination of mapping and notes). Then I flesh out my notes on groups and npcs, on specific locations, etc. For the living world concept, in my wuxia setting, the most important things to elaborate on and prepare were my sects, gangs, and religious institutions. When I get to the NPCs, I make a point of knowing their goals (something I also do for things like sects). This is a very quick sketch overview but that is just to get me to a starting point. Then I drop the players in the setting and see what they do. Things accrue as they take action. From session to session I am noting down all the important people they meet, what they do, who they form enemies with. I often rely on my Grudge tables when the players make enemies. When players explore and move around we rely on survival rolls (which I have spoken about in other posts and in a blog entry). 

But the important thing is, as the players come into contact with various NPCs, groups and organizations, I am treating them as volitional pieces on the board (my language for that is living adventure and the NPCs live). This creates a synergy as friendships, alliances, resentments and enemies are made. I don't know what will happen until the rubber hits the road. But I am guided by the goals and personalities of my living NPCs and institutions, by the logic of the world, by a sense of openness and fairness to what PCs try to do, by a sense of what the reality ought to be (i.e. 'yes I suppose they would have pearl farms here', 'No they don't practice any form of monotheism in this village'), by system, and dice. 

For me to explain how you do this, I would probably need to have a conversation with you. I can't really give you isight if I am not getting immediate responses to any points I raise (for all I know for example I lost you in the first paragraph and you have three or four questions that need answering before I can even get to paragraph two: or in my haste I am forgetting details or being cloudy). 

Also I do think this is the style of play you kind of have to experience as a player before you can really do it well as a GM (because you need to see what works and what doesn't work on the player end). Then you need to learn by doing. It took me a bit to get the hang of (and I often stared out in very limited ways just to make things manageable: i.e. just running a really small sandbox on a piece of graph paper for instance). And some GMs just have  a hard time with this style (just like I have a hard time with doing voices or getting deep into the performance of my NPCs like say Mercer does). If it is a style that doesn't click with how you see things (I tend to be very historically minded, very into genre, and very into impulse and intuition), it just might not be a good fit. I am not saying Living World is great, or better than other styles. My only contention is it exists and it is possible, and for those with my sensibilities it can be a lot of fun.


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> Am I a bad man for liking your post twice?



Your worth as a human being is directly proportional to the number of times I repost this and you like it.

Im going to repost it 47 more times. For the sake of your own humanity, have the Like button on speed dial.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I read something like this and my visceral response is just that it's impossible task.




My visceral response to Drama System was "That will ruin immersion". My experience of the game was the opposite. Maybe you are right, maybe for you, this isn't a style you can wrap your head around, or maybe it is not a style that is worth your time or effort. Those are fair reasons for not being interested in it. Or maybe you've run it, and felt it didn't work like people said, you didn't like. Fair enough. I've tried playing adventure structures friends of mine like and rave about, that I don't really care for, and my response is usually "I don't understand why people like this" or "it doesn't feel like they say it does". But I wouldn't doubt that for them it works and feels just like they say. My way of thinking and enjoying things is just different from theirs.


----------



## darkbard

Manbearcat said:


> Your worth as a human being is directly proportional to the number of times I repost this and you like it.
> 
> Im going to repost it 47 more times. For the sake of your own humanity, have the Like button on speed dial.



Gah! Now I'm torn between ROTFL and Like! What's a man to do?!?


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> Gah! Now I'm torn between ROTFL and Like! What's a man to do?!?




This is like a Protagonistic Play decision-point regarding a dramatic need.

Do you want it to be true that your character (you) is more likable/charming (ROTFL) or accurate on matters of import (Liking a devastatingly correct appraisal like the above)?

Its a key decision and your future hangs in the balance.


----------



## darkbard

Manbearcat said:


> This is like a Protagonistic Play decision-point regarding a dramatic need.
> 
> Do you want it to be true that your character (you) is more likable/charming (ROTFL) or accurate on matters of import (Liking a devastatingly correct appraisal like the above)?
> 
> Its a key decision and your future hangs in the balance.



Ohdearlord. This is like trying to stat oneself out as a D&D character. Do I assign my highest score to WIS or CHA? (I've always been "humble" enough to assign INT a close third.)


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> Would you explain to me this _natural_ process you see at work outside of human decision making?



Why did you cut out the part where I spoke about decision making?  Here, I'll quote the full thing below.

"With number 2, the consequence naturally evolves from the results of an action. *Success or failure are not really relevant other than to possibly help inform the DM on which way it should go.*"

Clearly I was talking about decision making.  Cutting that out and taking what I said out of context like that wasn't cool.  The DM's decision making, though, flows naturally from what happened.  It's not an arbitrary decision.

If your PC jumps into lava, the natural consequence is that you burn to death.  There's a mechanic for that, but if there wasn't, the DM's decision would flow naturally from that ill advised jump and result in the same thing.


----------



## darkbard

Maxperson said:


> Why did you cut out the part where I spoke about decision making?  Here, I'll quote the full thing below.
> 
> "With number 2, the consequence naturally evolves from the results of an action. *Success or failure are not really relevant other than to possibly help inform the DM on which way it should go.*"
> 
> Clearly I was talking about decision making.  Cutting that out and taking what I said out of context like that wasn't cool.  The DM's decision making, though, flows naturally from what happened.  It's not an arbitrary decision.
> 
> If your PC jumps into lava, the natural consequence is that you burn to death.  There's a mechanic for that, but if there wasn't, the DM's decision would flow naturally from that ill advised jump and result in the same thing.



I'm sorry you found my post "not cool," Max.

Let's consider another example. My PC is trying to negotiate with s courtier to gain audience with the Duke. What is the _natural_ consequence for such an interaction, outside of GM decision making? How do you decide what a failed or successful roll represents "naturally"?


----------



## Manbearcat

I'm going to try to succinctly unpack my TLDR above in a made up quantitative formula to demonstrate what I'm saying (the numbers aren't true...so don't get hung up on them...I REPEAT, DO NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN THE MATH...just work with the concept):

*Deeply Protagonist Play favors PC build on the x axis and relatively mutes y axis power.



GAME 1 (4 HOUR SESSION)*

* Player's character build choices and other system structures dictate that scenes framed/obstacles faced allow them to passively or actively dictate that the focus of decision-points and/or action resolution are on their Dramatic Needs at a 80 % rate.  This means that players have enormous facility in direct or indirect scene framing.  The overwhelming preponderance of scenes framed and obstacles faced are going to be deeply influenced (if not dictated by) player input.

* 30 beefy (impactful with considerable downstream consequences) decision-points or moments of action resolution.  Therefore 24 of them will be Dramatic Need-attendant.

* There is a continuous positive feedback loop/"snowballing effect" of action resolution, so each moment of action resolution has inherently higher stakes.

* Due to the above formulation, there will be a considerably higher payoff for higher floor, breadth of competency, capability and less payoff for higher ceiling, apex PC capabilities, particularly those that let you to outright obviate obstacles or outright reframe scenes.



*GAME 2 (4 HOUR SESSION)*

* Player's PC build choices and other system structures which influence scenes framed/obstacles are (a) comparatively muted (with respect to Game 1) and (b) are disproportionately rationed throughout the PC build choices (eg 3 classes have relatively significant facility in scene framing/obstacle obviation when compared to the other 7 classes).  Therefore, moments of play where decision-points and/or action resolution are deeply wedded to PC Dramatic Need (this includes being able to dictate terms of engagement, which includes obviation/reframing of scene) are 30 % rate on the low end (the 7 classes) and 40 % rate on the high end (the 3 classes).  This means that players have comparatively, significantly reduced facility in direct or indirect scene framing, with a small number of classes having much more (as a %).  The preponderance of scenes framed and obstacles faced are not going to be deeply influenced (nor dictated by) player input.

* Many micro-decision-points, but only 10 beefy (impactful with considerable downstream consequences) decision-points or moments of action resolution.  Therefore, less than a handful will be Dramatic Need-attendant (3 and 4 depending upon the class) on a per session basis.

* The overall population of decision-points skews heavily toward being lower stakes, but there is a "piling effect" or a "1000 snowflakes makes a heap" effect.  Further, decision-points/action declarations and resolution are significantly spikey in terms of stakes/beefiness.  For instance:

You could have 30 in a row (across all PCs) that are low stakes and suddenly there is this HUGE decision-point and action declaration > resolution moment that is profoundly beefier than the preceding 30.  However, due to the "piling effect" of play, the preceding 30 add up to a heap that matters.

* Due to the above formulation, there will be a considerably higher payoff for high ceiling, apex capability "moves" because when that "beefy decision-point spike" hits, it is paramount that "team PC" has an answer for it.  The other 30 decision-points/action declarations > resolution aren't "rote/auto-pilot" or inconsequential, but the stakes are just fundamentally and significantly reduced (due to design priorities and characteristics) and the "x-axised resources" that answer them don't afford "team PC" the "amplification effect" that comes with that key deployment of that high ceiling, apex capability "move" (eg it saves team PC n number of resources across that "heap" and reduces overall "heap threat level" by a factor of 3 or 4).


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> I'm sorry you found my post "not cool," Max.
> 
> Let's consider another example. My PC is trying to negotiate with s courtier to gain audience with the Duke. What is the _natural_ consequence for such an interaction, outside of GM decision making? How do you decide what a failed or successful roll represents "naturally"?



That's not the sort of action that involves invoking a living, breathing world.  Assassinating the Duke is that kind of action and would involve assessing the consequences of what happened and applying it throughout the world.  Simply asking to gain audience is just normal game play and wouldn't involve that sort of decision.

To answer your question, though, it would depend on your roleplay.  You might succeed without a roll, fail without a roll, or get a roll.  Depending on how you approached the courtier and what you said/did to negotiate, the outcome may or may not be in doubt.  That would be the natural consequence of attempting such a negotiation.  The specifics of a failed or successful roll would come from that detailed roleplay that is absent from your sparse scenario.


----------



## prabe

@Manbearcat It's not hard to guess that you're intending Game One to be something like Blades or DW or Dogs, and Game Two to be something like D&D.

That aside, I can see how some might prefer one over the other--and I think that a ruleset that doesn't tightly constrain the GM's hands might end up close to either, depending on the GM.

None of that is really an argument, I suppose.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not disputing that the model in the head of the GM must be conveyed to the players by words. The point is this is a very reductive description of what is going on



But it's not! The fundamental act of RPGing is conversation. I've watched some youtube vidoe of you RPGing, that you linked to in a thread earlier this year. You were talking over Zoom to people. I think in on you were GM, and you were saying stuff that told other people what their PCs could see. In another one I think you were a player, and you were being told stuff by the GM.

That's not reductive. It's accurate!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> But it's not! The fundamental act of RPGing is conversation. I've watched some youtube vidoe of you RPGing, that you linked to in a thread earlier this year. You were talking over Zoom to people. I think in on you were GM, and you were saying stuff that told other people what their PCs could see. In another one I think you were a player, and you were being told stuff by the GM.
> 
> That's not reductive. It's accurate!




Again Pemerton, no one is saying the process of players say what they do, GM says what they see what happens isn't part of it. And no one is denying that speech is largely how we communicate when we play these games. What I am saying is you are zooming in on one increment, in order to disprove the larger existence of something like the living world. You are too zoomed in, and not seeing all the other elements we have been pointing to. It is like describing an elephant based on just focusing on its feet. Yes I must admit elephants have feet. I won't accept an argument though that claims elephants are feet. That fundamental act involves a lot more than me simply telling players what they see. And again we have pointed to what those things are (people have brought up things like the fact that the GM can't simply say whatever he wants, there are constraints, that often dice were involved in determining what I say, that what I say is often a result of the players prodding, asking or trying to do something that I had no idea would arise before-----and that what I say is constantly referring back to this model of the setting, and tracking what is going on in that setting with the PCs, and NPCs).

but more than that, please explain to me what the point is of trying to get us to accept this is the fundamental act. I have a suspicion the reason is because you want to show us that the imagined living world isn't real, that all that matters is the fiction because all there is is this fundamental interaction. If so, please state it clearly so we can move to the actual debate. Or if not, please state why you think your conclusion is important. I am not saying I accept your conclusion but I think rather than continue to batter each other back and forth over  a point we just don't see eye to eye on, it would be better to delve into what the real issue is behind you advancing this premise.

EDIT: Just want to note that the video of me GMing, wasn't a living world sandbox session. It was a playtest of a straight forward dungeon crawl, with a bit of light 'living adventure' thrown in, but mostly it was just run as a standard crawl as I was trying to playtest something. The video in which I was a player, I believe was a sandbox with training wheels session that Rob Conley ran (I could be wrong on that, he would know, but it was a limited scenario: we weren't exploring the full map of the setting or anything in that).


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> @Manbearcat It's not hard to guess that you're intending Game One to be something like Blades or DW or Dogs, and Game Two to be something like D&D.
> 
> That aside, I can see how some might prefer one over the other--and I think that a ruleset that doesn't tightly constrain the GM's hands might end up close to either, depending on the GM.
> 
> None of that is really an argument, I suppose.




Yup.  D&D 4e follows this same regime however.  The decision-point > action declaration > action resolution and the resource scheduling and x/y axis relationship of PC prowess (broad competency and significantly bounded, by historical comparison, "Y capability") was considerably smoothed out and with parity.  This, along with the deep synergies and encoded amplification of Team PC with/by each party member, the potency and synergies of Team Monster, the stakes of the noncombat conflict resolution framework created a continuous "beefy decision-point" experience like Game 1 (a PC going down in a combat could trivially snowball and a resource misallocation/lack of Skilled Play with the fiction in Skill Challenges could lead to a "Story Loss Condition").  When you include the Quest System + the PC build Flags of Theme > Paragon Path > Epic Destiny and intent-based Fail Forward guiding play, it is why those of us who loved the game put it in the "Game 1" category above.  

The collection of the above is why the people who liked it for Protagonistic, Story Now play liked it.  

It is also why those who wanted their D&D to be of the "strategic management of the heap" + "Y-axis intensive" (spikey in terms of decision-point weight with big power plays leading to comparatively huge changes on the gamestate) variety of Skilled Play with a lot of "necessarily" thematically neutral/throttled back moments of play because (as they would put it) "if everything is cool/high stakes, then nothing is cool/high stakes" (which I fundamentally do not agree with that formulation in theory or in practice) hated it.

Its also why those GMs who needed to heavy deploy Force to ensure the trajectory of play (because they were running Adventure Paths with structured, node-based narratives) hated the game because the player/table-facing mechanics, the transparent machinery of play, and the deeply embedded thematics and player control (all the stuff mentioned above but also the Magic Item System) made it extraordinarily difficult for GMs to control the trajectory of play.

And a few other types (eg Sandbox GMs would have to rewire their brain around the Blades in the Dark "subjective, orbiting around the PCs Sandbox" regime...or they would have to do the kinds of things @LostSoul did with D&D 4e to create a more BECMI/RC Hexcrawl) didn't like it for different, but related reasons.



On your last point, there is an incredibly fraught tightrope that a GM has to walk when constraint is loosened, because when system doesn't structurally reify that Protagonism, there are dozens of ways, both real and perceived, that Protagonism can either outright _be _lost or _feel like_ its lost.

Here is one example of how loosened GM constraint + heavy requirement in action resolution mediation + lack of structural reification of Protagonism can lead to either _feeling _Deprotagonized or actually _being _Deprotagonized:

* I make move x against obstacle y because I feel that expresses my thematic interests and will put my dramatic need in sharp focus in this conflict or the ensuing conflict.  The GM is neither constrained to follow the rules nor to oblige this move.  They're also not constrained to forbid it.  Their action resolution mediation could be extrapolation based on naturalistic, causal logic...it could be genre logic...it could be some "rule of cool/storytelling impetus"...it could be some indecipherable alchemy of 2 or all 3 of the above.  

_GM says yes?

GM says no?

GM says roll the dice_ but due to their heavy mediation requirements, my _chances of realizing my intent could be 50 % likely or 150 % more likely at 75 %_ (because GM a might choose Hard DC while the next might feel its a Really Hard DC)?  And what if my PC _doesn't have the ability to martial resources to overwrite/influence/control that 25 % spread_ (like the aforementioned Diviner's Portent)?

My volitional capacity in this situation _may actually be lost_.  Or, simply because of the lack of certitude that comes with structural reification (and the fact that the lack of GM constraint + lack of table-facing machinery is the volitional force here), it _may actually be there, but it may just feel like it isn't there_.  

It is a tricky pickle which is made profoundly worse by the deep fallibility of human Perception Error and Perception Bias.  A player may feel like they were Deprotagonized in just such a situation before...maybe a few times.  When in reality, they were not...but now they're working off of tainted priors so their working model for what is happening is askew!


----------



## darkbard

Maxperson said:


> *That's not the sort of action that involves invoking a living, breathing world.*  Assassinating the Duke is that kind of action and would involve assessing the consequences of what happened and applying it throughout the world.  *Simply asking to gain audience is just normal game play and wouldn't involve that sort of decision.*
> 
> To answer your question, though, it would depend on your roleplay.  You might succeed without a roll, fail without a roll, or get a roll.  Depending on how you approached the courtier and what you said/did to negotiate, the outcome may or may not be in doubt.  That would be the natural consequence of attempting such a negotiation.  The specifics of a failed or successful roll would come from that detailed roleplay that is absent from your sparse scenario.




How do you decide which actions invoke a "living, breathing world" and thus produce "natural" consequences and which do not? Is this a function of the GM deciding? Is the GM more "natural" a force in the game than the other players?


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> How do you decide which actions invoke a "living, breathing world" and thus produce "natural" consequences and which do not? Is this a function of the GM deciding? Is the GM more "natural" a force in the game than the other players?



It's all natural.  As long as what comes makes sense(as may be expected), it's a natural consequence, even if 5 DMs would come up with 5 different things that make sense.  The DM is greatly constrained by gameplay(the players) and the social contract not to just act on whim, but with fairness and deliberation to come up with a natural progression for actions. 

nat·u·ral·ly

1. without special help or intervention; in a natural manner.

2. *as may be expected*; of course.


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> How do you decide which actions invoke a "living, breathing world" and thus produce "natural" consequences and which do not? Is this a function of the GM deciding? Is the GM more "natural" a force in the game than the other players?




The first paragraph ( (a) - (d) aspect) and the downstream consequences of my above post is relevant here:



Manbearcat said:


> <GM> action resolution mediation could be (a) extrapolation based on naturalistic, causal logic...it could be (b) genre logic...it could be (c) some "rule of cool/storytelling impetus"...it could be some (d) indecipherable alchemy of 2 or all 3 of the above.
> 
> _GM says yes?
> 
> GM says no?
> 
> GM says roll the dice_ but due to their heavy mediation requirements, my _chances of realizing my intent could be 50 % likely or 150 % more likely at 75 %_ (because GM a might choose Hard DC while the next might feel its a Really Hard DC)?  And what if my PC _doesn't have the ability to martial resources to overwrite/influence/control that 25 % spread_ (like the aforementioned Diviner's Portent)?
> 
> My volitional capacity in this situation _may actually be lost_.  Or, simply because of the lack of certitude that comes with structural reification (and the fact that the lack of GM constraint + lack of table-facing machinery is the volitional force here), it _may actually be there, but it may just feel like it isn't there_.
> 
> It is a tricky pickle which is made profoundly worse by the deep fallibility of human Perception Error and Perception Bias.  A player may feel like they were Deprotagonized in just such a situation before...maybe a few times.  When in reality, they were not...but now they're working off of tainted priors so their working model for what is happening is askew!




When 5e initially came out, I had a hugely prolific and revealing (as to the dizzying application of the (a) - (d) matrix above by GMs on a case by case basis...which led to the absolute absence of mediation consensus on pretty much every scenario we talked about...which tells you there wasn't a "inferable by first principles" or intuitive thing happening under the hood) post entitled DC 30 or DC 35?  I think a lot of people here engaged with that.  It was enormously instructive.  Unfortunately, the forum ate it.

And it wasn't just the all over the map collage of (a) - (d) matrix deployment above as the process to arrive at DCs...but it was the significant discrepancy in DC handling period (when you consider stepping up or stepping back a DC creates a 25 % spread on action resolution results!)!

The saving grace that people will rely upon is the accretion of data over the course of years of play under a GM.  This will help to normalize the process of DC adjudication and the output of that adjudication.  But it will never ensure it and outright remove the incidence of action resolution events that feel "Deprotagonizing."  Going from 5 times per session out of 50 moments of action resolution is only a 10 % incidence of feeling/being "Deprotagonized."  Reducing that to only 1 per session is a dramatic improvement.  But 1 is not nothing and due to the way human's catalogue "losses" vs "wins", even that 1 incidence will have a disproportionate impact cognitively and emotionally on the player involved.

Its a greater than Herculean effort to reduce those incidences to 0...I'm not sure its possible.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> It's all natural.  As long as what comes makes sense(as may be expected), it's a natural consequence, even if 5 DMs would come up with 5 different things that make sense.  The DM is greatly constrained by gameplay(the players) and the social contract not to just act on whim, but with fairness and deliberation to come up with a natural progression for actions.
> 
> nat·u·ral·ly
> 
> 1. without special help or intervention; in a natural manner.
> 
> 2. *as may be expected*; of course.




What do you think about what I've written above (and below).

What if a player is at your table and your process is opaque with them ("are you one part causal logic, one part genre logic, 2 parts "rule of cool/story" here?...or does causal logic hold considerably more weight...and why are you doing this formulation now vs this other time when you did this other formulation?") or it doesn't synchronize with them cognitively even if you articulate it to them ("I just don't understand why you aren't heavily weighting genre and 'rule of cool' story in this scenario...why are you weighting causal logic almost exclusively here?").

Now their mental model spits out "not as expected" rather than "as may be expected."  And the problem with spitting out "not as expected" is as I put above...even if its a vanishingly small number of incidences per play session, that incident will be disproportionately impactful due to the way our brains catalogue events (athletes deeply remember their losses with their wins rabbit holed, relationships fail because a mate forgets/undervalues the 500 times you were kind/thoughtful/caring/sacrificing and the singular stain of thoughtless/selfish burns so bright).


----------



## darkbard

Maxperson said:


> It's all natural.  As long as what comes makes sense(as may be expected), it's a natural consequence, even if 5 DMs would come up with 5 different things that make sense.  The DM is greatly constrained by gameplay(the players) and the social contract not to just act on whim, but with fairness and deliberation to come up with a natural progression for actions.
> 
> nat·u·ral·ly
> 
> 1. without special help or intervention; in a natural manner.
> 
> 2. *as may be expected*; of course.




That use of the word ("It's all natural") is so broad as to be meaningless. 

And why did you switch my adjective to your adverbial form?

Natural
adjective
1.
*existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind*
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

It was pretty clear in my posts that I was using the word in its bolded adjectival meaning above. But even assuming definition two above, who decides whether something is in agreement with circumstances, etc? How do the players and social contract constrain the GM, specifically?


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> What do you think about what I've written below.
> 
> What if a player is at your table and your process is opaque with them ("are you one part causal logic, one part genre logic, 2 parts "rule of cool/story" here?...or does causal logic hold considerably more weight...and why are you doing this formulation now vs this other time when you did this other formulation?") or it doesn't synchronize with them cognitively even if you articulate it to them ("I just don't understand why you aren't heavily weighting genre and 'rule of cool' story in this scenario...which are you weighting causal logic almost exclusively here?").
> 
> Now their mental model spits out "not as expected" rather than "as may be expected."  And the problem with spitting out "not as expected" is as I put above...even if its a vanishingly small number of incidences per play session, that incident will be disproportionately impactful due to the way our brains categorize events (athletes deeply remember their losses, relationships fail because a mate forgets/undervalues the 500 times you were kind/thoughtful/caring/sacrificing and the singular stain of thoughtless/selfish burns so bright).



I think @Maxperson at this point runs exclusively for long-time friends (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) so this might be distant from his recent experience. I would be willing to see his response, though.

Me? I started both of my 5E campaigns in local game stores (different ones, because reasons) because a) I kinda prefer larger parties and b) I wanted to stretch my comfort zone some/meet new people. One campaign has three of six players new to me, the other has two of five. That I can tell, there hasn't been any of the kind of reaction you describe in either campaign, from the new-to-me players or the ones who've known me for 15-20+ years. Two of the players in the first campaign were new to playing D&D, and both of them have moved on to do some DMing (something I'm really happy about).

If a decision disconcerted a player in the way you describe, as badly as you describe, I'd really want to talk to the player offline and figure out where the disconnect was. If I couldn't get them to grok the decision, maybe I could still convince them of my good faith and intentions. FWIW, the players I have seem to trust me on that ...

The only times I've felt deprotagonized at a player has been while playing published adventures, because they're not written to take into account any given players or their characters.


----------



## prabe

darkbard said:


> How do the players and social contract constrain the GM, specifically?



I can think of a number of ways:

I have less fun at the table if the players have less fun--even without the threat of players leaving. The dead silence of a table where no one is having fun is a nightmare.

The easiest way to keep the players engaged is to make their suspension of disbelief as easy as possible, to make it easy for them to conspire with me to keep the story believable. So, prior events absolutely serve as a constraint on me as the GM, both for narrative consistency and for ... judicial consistency, I guess (ruling the same way). While I don't think of GMing as being a perfect parallel to writing fiction, it's not unlike a writer of fiction wanting to maintain consistency and continuity over the course of a story.

The players who have given me information about their characters, have given me ways to tie their characters to the setting and to the campaign. If someone tells me, "My character's lover disappeared, and I want to find them," they've told me something about a kind of story they want to have emerge during play; if I want to keep that player engaged, I'd do well to have that at least as a repeating thread--and it seems like a good idea to have that resolve during play (in the instance I'm thinking of, the player has said he doesn't think the character would keep adventuring after finding her lover, so it either needs to be at the end of the campaign, or we need to work on a replacement character).

The players have signed up for a game where their characters are the protagonists. That is a constraint on the scenes and story-threads I frame in. The players have an expectation of fair play. That is absolutely a constraint on me. I think the fact some GMs act as though those aren't constraints is unfortunate--the horror stories are real, and they shouldn't happen ever.

As you might guess, I feel quite constrained as a GM, even in a system like D&D 5E that really doesn't mechanically restrict my options much.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> I can think of a number of ways:
> 
> I have less fun at the table if the players have less fun--even without the threat of players leaving. The dead silence of a table where no one is having fun is a nightmare.
> 
> The easiest way to keep the players engaged is to make their suspension of disbelief as easy as possible, to make it easy for them to conspire with me to keep the story believable. So, prior events absolutely serve as a constraint on me as the GM, both for narrative consistency and for ... judicial consistency, I guess (ruling the same way). While I don't think of GMing as being a perfect parallel to writing fiction, it's not unlike a writer of fiction wanting to maintain consistency and continuity over the course of a story.
> 
> The players who have given me information about their characters, have given me ways to tie their characters to the setting and to the campaign. If someone tells me, "My character's lover disappeared, and I want to find them," they've told me something about a kind of story they want to have emerge during play; if I want to keep that player engaged, I'd do well to have that at least as a repeating thread--and it seems like a good idea to have that resolve during play (in the instance I'm thinking of, the player has said he doesn't think the character would keep adventuring after finding her lover, so it either needs to be at the end of the campaign, or we need to work on a replacement character).
> 
> The players have signed up for a game where their characters are the protagonists. That is a constraint on the scenes and story-threads I frame in. The players have an expectation of fair play. That is absolutely a constraint on me. I think the fact some GMs act as though those aren't constraints is unfortunate--the horror stories are real, and they shouldn't happen ever.
> 
> As you might guess, I feel quite constrained as a GM, even in a system like D&D 5E that really doesn't mechanically restrict my options much.




This all looks good to me.  

Very good post and I agree with it.  You're talking about play moving toward the optimum possible for 5e (harken back to my 4 continuums of Protagonism upthread).

However, I think you're post directly above this more answers @darkbard 's question than this one because I think (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), his question was about constraint in action resolution mediation specifically (not protagonism broadly).

So your answer to his question would be "synchronicity at the social contract level" (which is what I was intimating prior).

Its a fine answer (its "the" answer really).  

I would say where the problem lies is the fact that "synchronicity at the social contract level" is an alchemy that is not reproducible on any mass level (otherwise we wouldn't have had the extraordinarily discordant output in the thread I mentioned and we wouldn't constantly be besieged by anecdote after anecdote of similar discordance on TTRPG boards...and in real life).  Because alchemy like this isn't reproducible and is inherently volatile (you can have it and "poof" its gone because of a series of action resolution issues), it cannot serve to mollify someone who is looking for an answer from first principles that is stable and reproducible.

So, for instance, if someone simply told me:

"We're going to give you a panel of 10 GMs who are going to observe and peer review your 5e, level 15 game action resolution mediation for 10 sessions, and give you a grade A - F."

The LAST thing I would say is (and you're talking about someone who is extremely confident in their ability to adjudicate games) "yeah, we can just go ahead and forgo this whole thing...its a 100 %."

I would probably say "if I get north of a B-, I'll be VERY surprised."

And to me...B- is a failing grade.  Because what that means is that I've had an enormous number of peer reviewers disagree with incidence of action resolution which would then aggregate into a hefty number.

So, the reality is, the alchemy of social contract at any given table relies upon several factors that go way beyond the competence and cognitive synchronicity of the participants at the table (eg - deference to perceived authority, respect for you, manners, no-effs really to give, conflict-averse personality, a hill one isn't willing to die on).  

So I look at 2 realities conjoined here and what the implications one must draw from it:

1)  There is a 0 % chance that any 5e GM in my theoretical peer review scenario above is going to achieve anything approaching 100 %...again, I'm way more competent than most and I put my median for any given set of reviewers at around a B-.

2)  Social contract alchemy is x degree (with x not being an insignificant value) reliant upon "extra-competency and extra-synchronicity" factors and sussing out even the qualitative (forget quantitative) signature for any given table would require a major research project and neuroimaging equipment (and likely significant uncertainty in the findings still).

The only implications from the marriage of those two above and your persistent action resolution harmony at your table is "prabe is a good 5e GM and his alchemy with his players works."

That is a statement that all GMs should hope for as a broad statement of their play.  But using it as a proxy for "a 5e GM self-constraining via extra-game principles smuggled in so that they can limbo well under their mandate + action resolution procedures can reliably achieve table-synchronous action resolution across any four 5e players (who are not inherently dysfunctional or combative)" is extremely fraught.

But honestly, that is intentful design.  That is a feature, not a bug.  The designers willfully designed in heterogeneity across the population of all 5e tables; "Rulings not rules, natural language, make the game your own, and find your own alchemy."  But it doesn't stand up that you can reverse engineer that design intent to say that your "found alchemy" is reproducible at scale because "competent GM + intentfully designed cross-table heterogeneity."  I'm not saying you're saying that, but if that is the implication, it can't stand up.  I'm sure there are stray anecdotes of relative "Edens of 5e Protagonistic Play" sprinkled about the "5e-osphere" (like yours).  But if its happening at scale, (a) its happening quietly and (b) all of the noise that says it isn't is somehow just a flukily robust noise masquerading as signal.  Further (and again), where the anecdotes do exist, there is a lot of "extra-synchronicity" stuff that are consequential aspects of that alchemy (when it comes to action resolution mediation specifically).

Man, that is a lot of crap I just wrote.  I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Manbearcat

One final bit.

I think the sell is particularly impossible to me because I've interacted with so many tenured GMs on here who (with all the respect in the world I can muster) aren't remotely sufficiently informed about the prospects of dozens and dozens of physical tasks in our own world, let alone a fantasy world where a Fighter is routinely somehow dealing with otherworldly kinetic energy deficits (some just beyond comprehension like wading into melee with an Ancient Red Wyrm) that our real life athletes couldn't even dream of dealing with.

I'm a totally average Lead Climber and Boulderer.  Average as hell.

But I would guarantee that a large cross-section of competent 5e GMs would look at a boulder problem and give me a DC that in no way reflects what it should be (either *subjectively for me ** or objectively against all of the world).  I'd look at a Tier 3 problem and, depending deeply on the dynamics of the climb, I could be anywhere from "no...I cannot climb this obstacle" to "this is a joke."  And they wouldn't know how to adjudicate that.

And again, I'm a nothingburger, 43 year old, extremely amateur climber with a legion of injuries from 30+ years in hard athletics.  Compared to some of the freakishly power: weight ratio, +8 Ape-Index, 20 year old climbers (and these are WELL within the normal distribution of just competent climbers), I may as well be strapped to a gurney and catatonic.  Most GMs would look at some of these climbs and they would just flat say "no...no chance" to the Fighter who wanted to climb it (with full marks for irony, the same badass Fighter that just whooped an Ancient Red Wyrm in melee!).  A few _may _say "DC 30."  Yet, I see a huge regime of kids routinely pull off these climbs!

I'm just enormously skeptical (and rightly so) of damn near every GM I've encountered on ENWorld being able to consistently synchronize with me on a DC in my head when I conceive of a physical obstacle/feat of athleticism.

Oh and that *** is a HUGE (e) which I forgot in my matrix above.  Is a GM *setting their DC based on the target attempting it (subjective DC)* or is it an objective DC based on the obstacle itself?  In that thread in 2016, it was not only all over the map on a per person basis...each individual GM would toggle subjective/objective depending on what the action declaration was?

The built-in volatility in action resolution is crazy.


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> That use of the word ("It's all natural") is so broad as to be meaningless.
> 
> And why did you switch my adjective to your adverbial form?
> 
> Natural
> adjective
> 1.
> *existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind*
> 2.
> of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
> 
> It was pretty clear in my posts that I was using the word in its bolded adjectival meaning above. But even assuming definition two above, who decides whether something is in agreement with circumstances, etc? How do the players and social contract constrain the GM, specifically?



Since you were responding to me and my use of it, MY use was the proper one for me to respond to you with.  You don't get to change how I use it.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> What do you think about what I've written above (and below).
> 
> What if a player is at your table and your process is opaque with them ("are you one part causal logic, one part genre logic, 2 parts "rule of cool/story" here?...or does causal logic hold considerably more weight...and why are you doing this formulation now vs this other time when you did this other formulation?") or it doesn't synchronize with them cognitively even if you articulate it to them ("I just don't understand why you aren't heavily weighting genre and 'rule of cool' story in this scenario...why are you weighting causal logic almost exclusively here?").
> 
> Now their mental model spits out "not as expected" rather than "as may be expected."  And the problem with spitting out "not as expected" is as I put above...even if its a vanishingly small number of incidences per play session, that incident will be disproportionately impactful due to the way our brains catalogue events (athletes deeply remember their losses with their wins rabbit holed, relationships fail because a mate forgets/undervalues the 500 times you were kind/thoughtful/caring/sacrificing and the singular stain of thoughtless/selfish burns so bright).



I'm not sure there's really a separation between causal logic and genre logic, since the genre alters the former.  I mean, what goes up must come down, unless magic.  The two are intertwined for me.  I would say that I'm probably 5 parts causal/genre logic and 3 parts rule of cool/story.  Rule of cool/story is great as long as it doesn't run afoul of causal/genre.

I've found that finding like minded players is the key to roleplaying and DMing happiness.  That's not to say that running for new people isn't fun and rewarding, but for long term play, the group should be on the same page.  I've been playing with one of the guys in my group since 1984.  His son plays with us and he's now 31(he started at 16 or 17 and is the newest player).  We rarely conflict on what's expected.


----------



## darkbard

Maxperson said:


> Since you were responding to me and my use of it, MY use was the proper one for me to respond to you with.  You don't get to change how I use it.



Well, you have my apology; I had no intention of switching your word's form.

I still think your statement is so vague as to be meaningless in revealing process of play, though, regardless of how you use "naturally." But that's fine as we never seem to agree on much.


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> Well, you have my apology; I had no intention of switching your word's form.
> 
> I still think your statement is so vague as to be meaningless in revealing process of play, though, regardless of how you use "naturally." But that's fine as we never seem to agree on much.




You SUCK!

You're doing this wrong!

Apologies are for the weak.  We do not train to be weak apologizers in this dojo!

This is where you come back and say "NO, MY WORDS!"


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> This is where you come back and say "NO, MY WORDS!"



It's much more effective if you come back with, "NO, MY SWORD!"


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> Well, you have my apology; I had no intention of switching your word's form.
> 
> I still think your statement is so vague as to be meaningless in revealing process of play, though, regardless of how you use "naturally." But that's fine as we never seem to agree on much.



I don't find it to be meaningless or useless in play, so... 

If a player tells me, "I get up and go outside the inn and see if I can see where the shifty fellow went," I am constrained by his action and the social contract not to say something like, "You go upstairs and go to sleep." or a million other non-responsive narrations.  I have to narrate what the player tells me that he wants to do or something that follows naturally from his declaration and the situation at hand.  It's very constraining.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> The first paragraph ( (a) - (d) aspect) and the downstream consequences of my above post is relevant here:
> 
> 
> 
> When 5e initially came out, I had a hugely prolific and revealing (as to the dizzying application of the (a) - (d) matrix above by GMs on a case by case basis...which led to the absolute absence of mediation consensus on pretty much every scenario we talked about...which tells you there wasn't a "inferable by first principles" or intuitive thing happening under the hood) post entitled DC 30 or DC 35?  I think a lot of people here engaged with that.  It was enormously instructive.  Unfortunately, the forum ate it.
> 
> And it wasn't just the all over the map collage of (a) - (d) matrix deployment above as the process to arrive at DCs...but it was the significant discrepancy in DC handling period (when you consider stepping up or stepping back a DC creates a 25 % spread on action resolution results!)!
> 
> The saving grace that people will rely upon is the accretion of data over the course of years of play under a GM.  This will help to normalize the process of DC adjudication and the output of that adjudication.  But it will never ensure it and outright remove the incidence of action resolution events that feel "Deprotagonizing."  Going from 5 times per session out of 50 moments of action resolution is only a 10 % incidence of feeling/being "Deprotagonized."  Reducing that to only 1 per session is a dramatic improvement.  But 1 is not nothing and due to the way human's catalogue "losses" vs "wins", even that 1 incidence will have a disproportionate impact cognitively and emotionally on the player involved.
> 
> Its a greater than Herculean effort to reduce those incidences to 0...I'm not sure its possible.




How does _deciding on the DC_ work differently within indie games?
Are players part of the process of deciding or is it GM decides/notes?


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> This is where I am saying you are wrong. I don't have a good word for it, but I do view the way I run the game as playing the living world. It isn't just a goal. *The goal is to make it come alive.*



...as a living world. I think that you prefer viewing how you run the game in terms of its aesthetical ends rather than its aromantic nitty gritty process. If you don't have a good word for it, then I would advise trying to come up with one, because "living world" isn't cutting the mustard.



Bedrockgames said:


> But the way you make it come alive is by treating the NPCs as living characters (as pieces in the setting with volition who act when they decide). Again, maybe I am not conveying this well. For me that wandering major encounter section I quoted really crystalized this concept for me. And it is the same for all other living elements of the setting (its sects, its rulers, etc).



I can't see how imagining the NPCs as characters with personal volitions and motives of their own is distinctly "living world." This falls fairly squarely in how one of the chief duties of GMing is commonly described - i.e., controlling and giving life to the NPCs - in more bog standard TTRPG play. Making the pieces move on the board is basically just "leveling-up" the pre-existing toolkit for GMs.

Listening to you describe your "living world process," I (and likely others) feel about like Ricky Gervais listening to Sir Ian McKellen in Extras describing how he can act so well.

But I get it. You want a world that fees vibrant, organic, and alive. You want a world that feels like it's in motion independent of the PCs. However, it is abundantly clear to me that the "living world" is an aesthetic goal of play rather than the actual process of how it unfolds. I think it's fine to say "the GM decides what's believable." They may be deciding based upon the constraints of their ideas in a given moment, their notes, their preconceptions of "realism" or the NPCs, or the actions of the PCs. The wholistic approach to describe what's fundamentally going on isn't "living world," but, rather, "the GM decides (based upon their desire to cultivate a particular aesthetic of play)." There is nothing wrong with this, as I and others who have also run sandbox games have told you numerous times before. Even if "living world" helps you understand what you do, I just don't think that mystifying "living world" helps anything for everyone, as evidenced by @Campbell's own experiences.


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> How does _deciding on the DC_ work differently within indie games?
> Are players part of the process of deciding or is it GM decides/notes?




Different games handle it differently.

*4e (basically "indie" D&D)*

* "Subjective" Core Action Resolution means the DCs are codified, player-facing, scale with the level of the PCs, and are mathematically encoded to achieve a particular spread of results in action resolution (eg - a 67 - 75 % hit rate in combat).  So if your PCs are level 5, your Easy/Medium/Hard DC will be x, y, z.  Skill Challenges are codified to tell the GM what DCs are involved (eg a level 5, Complexity 1 Skill Challenge will require 4 * Medium DC obstacles to be overcome).  Stunting/Hazards/Traps works the same.  Monster math (HP, AC, Fort/Ref/Will, Damage) scales with PC level the same way (with adjustments based on type/role).

*Powered By the Apocalypse*

* Just like 4e, PBtA DCs are a subjective spread of numbers (eg, there is no DC based on of-world obstacle) built to create a mathematical distribution of results (a bell curve).  However, due to the maths in PBtA games, they don't change at all (unlike 4e where the numbers aggressively move up, but the % chances are roughly the same, regardless of level).  Roll 2d6 + modifier and compare:

6 or less = Mark xp and GM makes a Move against you (typically Hard Move)
7-9 = Success w/ Cost/Complication/Hard Choice (eg you get what you want but GM makes a Soft Move against you)
10+ = You get what you want

*Forged in the Dark*

* Like PBta but this is a dice pool game that includes the same spread but also a critical success and there is Position and Effect.  Throw you pool and compare:

1-3 = Bad outcome. Things go poorly. You probably don’t achieve your goal and you suffer complications, too.
4-5 = Partial success.  You do what you were trying to do, but there are consequences: trouble, harm, reduced effect, etc
6 = Full success.  Things go well.  If you roll more than one 6, it’s a critical success—you gain a boon/advantage.

Then you have _Position_.  Position is how dangerous or troublesome an action might be.  If things go wrong, it tells you how wrong (and that scales).  Position is Desperate (mark xp if you make an Action Roll w/ Controlled Position), Risky (normal), Controlled (danger/complications reduced).  Position is determined by (a) the situational circumstance for the danger/trouble involved (look at it like Normal/Advantage/Disadvantage in 4e/5e), (b) a prior roll/complication (Position opens at Risky unless (i) you've got a complication due to a prior Action Roll and that complication is worse Position or (ii) some other aspect of system, eg Devil's Bargain, has been leveraged to increase the danger/threat

_Effect _is about Assessing the Factors involved in the situation of the Action Roll; Tier, Scale, Potency, Magnitude (for supernatural).  If it tilts away from you or in your favor, you go from the default Standard to Limited/Great.  Just like with Position, there are either ways this can be changed by player actions/resource expenditure or Costs/Boons in prior Action Rolls.

*Mouse Guard*

* Dice pool game like FitD.  Assemble your pool and throw.  Get a number off successes that equal or exceed the game's DC (Ob) and you succeed.

Two of the ways the GM sets Obstacle numbers similarly to how Effect is handled in FitD games;  (1) Assessing Factors for a Skill in the Skill list and (2) by Assessing Factors in the Seasons and Territories chapters.  Then there are versus/contests and that is determined by a roll of the dice from another player or the GM.  DCs in this game scale similar to 5e but are called Ob (Obstacle).  Roughly; Ob 1 = easy, Ob 2 = medium, Ob 3 = hard, Ob 4 = very hard, Ob 5 = nearly impossible.


There are plenty of other ways (*Torchbearer *is kindred to Mouse Guard with subtle difference), but that is all I have for now.

The key thing that all these games share is (a) follow the rules, (b) encoded procedure/maths for setting difficulty and determining success/complication/failure and fallout, (c) everything is player/table-facing.

They all have varying other tech/procedures (eg Blades gives players a ton of capability to manipulate Position and Effect and adjust their dice pool via resources to martial and moves to make).


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> _GM says yes?
> 
> GM says no?
> 
> GM says roll the dice_ but due to their heavy *mediation* requirements, my _chances of realizing my intent could be 50 % likely or 150 % more likely at 75 %_ (because GM a might choose Hard DC [...]



I misread the bolded word as "medication" on first pass...


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> The key thing that all these games share is (a) follow the rules, (b) encoded procedure/maths for setting difficulty and determining success/complication/failure and fallout, (c) everything is player/table-facing.




Thanks MBC
I just want to touch on 2 of these for now

(a) follow the rules - by including this here, I'd suspect that your thinking is that rules are not followed (or generally not followed) within D&D *OR* that there are no rules. Is this correct?
(c) player facing/table-facing - What do you mean by such a phrase? DC's are revealed to the player?


----------



## AnotherGuy

hawkeyefan said:


> Well it depends on what you mean. A living world would be one in which I'd expect consequences for actions. And that things can take place without the PCs' direct involvement.
> 
> Some games may have consequences on a roll, but I don't think that those games ONLY allow for consequences related to a roll.
> 
> Did you have a specific game in mind?




I do not have a specific game in mind, I was speaking in the broadest of sense to perhaps suss out a difference amongst the various participants here with regards to a _Living World._

My thinking was, that the party declares an action or a series of actions which may affect x faction directly or indirectly. X faction may be an _offline_ faction - using the @Manbearcat's terminology or _secret backstory_ using @pemerton's.
In the traditional game, the GM having understanding of x faction and the authorial authority, without a mechanic, narrates a hard move by x faction thus bringing consequence to the party's action/s, thus enforcing the idea of the _Living World._

In an indie game, from my limited understanding the GM can only bring about such force if the mechanic via the die rolls allowed for it OR the force is limited, whereas in the above example the GM is only limited in terms of the setting's internal consistency. For an indie game the _Living World_ lives so long as the die say so. Again, I'm speaking in the broadest sense with regards to an indie game, there are a multitude of indie games with various levers and mechanics which allow for various levels of GM authorial authority.


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> Thanks MBC
> I just want to touch on 2 of these for now
> 
> (a) follow the rules - by including this here, I'd suspect that your thinking is that rules are not followed (or generally not followed) within D&D *OR* that there are no rules. Is this correct?
> (c) player facing/table-facing - What do you mean by such a phrase? DC's are revealed to the player?




You bet!

*On D&D and rules:*

There are many, many ways to play D&D (as we all know and we've probably exhaustively gone over them all in this thread).  In D&D, the math works like this in terms of Follow the Rules (go back to my post and you can call this the Assessing Factors when it comes to Rules - like establishing Effect in Blades and setting Ob in MG).  Play Priorities with respect to rules:

a)  Skilled Play Priority (follow the rules)

b)  Play to Find Out (What Happens) Priority (follow the rules)

c)  GM Storyteller/AP Priority (don't follow/ignore the rules if they get in the way of "preferred/required story outcomes" or "fun")

*On player/table-facing:*

a)  If the DCs to use and/or process for determining them are codified _and _the discussion of them is transparent at the table such that they are revealed _and _dice are rolled out in the open, this is player/table-facing. 

b)  If the DCs to use and/or process for determining them are not codified _and/or_ the discussion of them at the table is either nonexistent or opaque _and/or_ the dice are rolled in secret, this is GM-facing.



So, for instance.  A game that features Skilled Play + Play to Find Out Priority + Table Facing will _play/feel very different_ from a game that features GM Storyteller/AP Priority + GM-Facing.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the players in my Classic Traveller game learn that, in the complex their PCs were exploring, there was a nearly 100 metre deep shaft with a great pendulum swinging in it? Because I told them. How did I know? Because I read it in the module.
> 
> How do the players in _your game _learn about the setting that _you as GM have created?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because they decided to go into the complex in the first place, and then they decided to examine the complex enough, to make choices that eventually led them to that deep meter shaft. And there are two approaches here: one in which you have a model in your mind of the complex and the players are genuinely exploring a space (however fictional) with clear parameters that matter, versus you just decide there is a shaft. Most games and campaigns are going to lean toward one or the other of these (and there will certainly be blending-----as I pointed out, sometimes the GM never even thinks if there ought to be a shaft, and the players asking about it will cause him or her to conclude 'yes, there ought to be one here'. Again, what you are doing here is zooming in so much we only see the binary of players ask what they see, the GM tells them....but anyone  who has played an RPG knows the process is so much more organic and involved than that, and what drives the GMs 'decision' is going to be predicated on things like choices the players have made, what details the GM has established about the world, what ways the system constrains the GM's choices, etc.
Click to expand...


I was there. I can tell you how the players learned about the shaft: I told them! And I can tell you how I learned about it: I read the module. (Double Adventure 1, Shadows)

The fact that the players decided to have their PCs enter the complex doesn't change anything about the truth of the above paragraph. The fact that they declared actions for their PCs that obliged me to tell them about the pendulum in the deep shaft doesn't change anything about the above paragraph, other than to explain _why I told them_.

There is no "model in my mind of a space": There's a map and some words. What do the shadows look like in the shaft? I have no idea, because the words don't tell me and I don't know how to work that out even if enough detail were provided to do so, which I don't think it is. And if that detail were provided, that's just more authorship.

The players are not genuinely exploring a place. They were sitting in a living room. They are genuinely learning what it is that Marc Miller made up 40 or so years ago.

The difference between me having a map and module text that describes the shaft, compared to just making it up on the spot, is part of the whole point of this thread ie _what is the point of the GM's notes?_ So I don't know why you think I'm not aware it makes a difference to play. But an obvious part of the difference is that I tell the players stuff that's in the notes. In this particular context, that's what they're for.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The player through his actions and roleplay(which you seem to constantly ignore when responding about this), authors a significant portion of the moment.



This is the action declaration. I've not ignored it. I've mentioned it in every reply to you on this particular point.


Maxperson said:


> As to your moved goalpost question, sometimes.  Sometimes the player's intent is a factor.



This is isn't a competition. There's no "moving of goalposts". I asked you a question about what constrains your narration as GM.

It may be that the play of your game is largely indistinguishable from a typical PbtA game or Burning Wheel game. I've always assumed it's not, though, because you seem to be quite uninterested or even hostile to approaches to play explicitly informed by those systems.

EDIT: I can't envisage RPGing in which the players' action declaration does not inform in some fashion the GM's narration of consequences. Hence when I suggested GM constraints vs GM unilateralism that wasn't what I had in mind, as it is a trivial because unavoidable example of such a constraint.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> if you run Ravenloft, you are working with a setting that has parameters, an internal logic, a history etc



This is the point of my comparison to mathematics.

Even real-world history isn't as constraining as mathematics. It is subject to contingency that makes future events unpredictable, especially in the sorts of granular detail that are typically the subject-matter of RPGing.

When I run Classic Traveller there is a setting with an internal logic (the Imperium), various historical details, etc. Those don't uniquely determine any actual decision about _what happens next_.

And even if they did, given that _it is the GM who is privy to that information_ (as best I understand your account of your RPGing), when the GM derives new information from that existing information s/he would still have to impart it to the players!



Bedrockgames said:


> The characters are imaginary pieces moving in the imaginary model of ravenloft. That conceit is very important for running certain kinds of RPGs.



I would have thought this is trivially true of all RPGing.

What is the difference between RPGing, boardgaming and wargaming?


Unlike boardgames, and like some wargames, in RPGing the shared fiction matters to resolution;
Unlike wargames, and like some boardgames, in RPGing the non-referee participants each engage the game primarily via the medium of a particular character within the shared fiction.

The point is that the model is _imaginary_. There are no algorithms and no causal processes that yield answers. No matter how hard I study the problem, I can't work out the details of Sherlock Holmes's living room until Conan Doyle tells me. Telling me it's a typical middle-to-upper-middle-class living room in Victorian London won't yield an answer on its own.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> At the tables I DM, I construct the setting, because I find it easier for me to sustain the illusion in play that way. The players (best I can tell) engage: They ask questions, some of which I haven't previously considered, and I answer them. Their characters do stuff like cast _legend lore_ on a thing that directly connects to a Great Old One, and I take a few minutes to write this:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabba we accept you one of us
> gabbagabba you accept us into yourself
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> 
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabba coming soon to a world near you
> gabbagabba ending soon on a world with you
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> 
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabba mountains won't stay green for long
> gabbagabba talking all of your words at the same time
> gabbagabbahey
> gabbagabbahey



I don't understand how this process of the players asking questions from you, or otherwise prompting you to share this sort of information with them, does not count as you communicating to them your conception of the fiction.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> I do think you hit on things lots of living world GMs discuss and debate (and there is no one answer here). The idea of how to give players the information they need to make decisions



In the second sentence of this quote, who is the subject of the verb _to give_? I think it is _the GM_. The object obviously is _the players_.

QED, surely!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I was there. I can tell you how the players learned about the shaft: I told them! And I can tell you how I learned about it: I read the module. (Double Adventure 1, Shadows)




But this brings us right back to the modeling I was talking about. It didn't exist simply because you said so, or simply because you told the players it did. It was there as part of the model, prior to that. So while obviously you talking to the players is part of how players explore that model, there is a model that exists outside you and the players (the shaft's existence isn't dependent on  the conversation between you and the players: it is dependent on the model). Sure that map existed on a page. But that map could just as easily exist in a GM's mind , and the same level of objective exploration could take place


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In the second sentence of this quote, who is the subject of the verb _to give_? I think it is _the GM_. The object obviously is _the players_.
> 
> QED, surely!




Lol. No. That is a silly argument


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I would have thought this is trivially true of all RPGing.



No, I don't think this the case. It isn't and it wasn't for me when I read the paragraph in question. Up to that point for me at least, things were either tied to locations on the map or they were tied to events the GM wanted to happen. Obviously it is an approach many GMs can take regardless. But I have said again and again it isn't unique to living worlds. As I mentioned before it can exist in any type of adventure (in which case I would call it a living adventure). Living world just takes that idea very, very seriously, expands it to the whole world, and really just makes it a key priority. But I have definitely been in games where NPCs are rooted more to a spot, are not acting like living pieces on the board (but maybe in service to some plot: a good example of this is simply having an NPC show up at a dramatically appropriate time, rather than when they would act: as Crawford said about them acting when they are ready to act).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Even real-world history isn't as constraining as mathematics. It is subject to contingency that makes future events unpredictable, especially in the sorts of granular detail that are typically the subject-matter of RPGing.




History isn't perfectly predictable like math, but events flow from one to another. You can see the logic and you can anticipate future possibilities. A game is similar. I would make an argument that history is more the model I look to when running a game (than say a story for example). And living worlds are like history at both the micro and macro level. 

Yes events might be unpredictable, but they do have a rhyme and reason. But even a granular exchange isn't total chaos. We can follow a conversation between two people and understand how it gets from point A to B to C. And when we run a game we simply doing our best to achieve that kind of fidelity to what is plausible


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The difference between me having a map and module text that describes the shaft, compared to just making it up on the spot, is part of the whole point of this thread ie _what is the point of the GM's notes?_ So I don't know why you think I'm not aware it makes a difference to play. But an obvious part of the difference is that I tell the players stuff that's in the notes. In this particular context, that's what they're for.




Which I find odd because if you accept the notes as a kind of model, then surely you can't reject my argument that there is a mental modeling going on. The only reason I reject 'playing to discover the GM's notes' is because it is reductive and insulting, not because parts of it aren't true.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The point is that the model is _imaginary_. There are no algorithms and no causal processes that yield answers. No matter how hard I study the problem, I can't work out the details of Sherlock Holmes's living room until Conan Doyle tells me. Telling me it's a typical middle-to-upper-middle-class living room in Victorian London won't yield an answer on its own.



No one is saying you can extract information about he model that the GM hasn't told you. But you could explore it room to room and get a sense of the overall structure based on what is emerging, provided he is accurately conveying the model details to you. And you could solve a mystery in that house, with evidence described,  through conversations of characters to arrive at an accurate account of a murder that occurred there (a murder the GM has modeled in his head but hasn't told you the details off: merely provided evidence that would logically have been present----which you would have acquired through a process of exploration).


----------



## Aldarc

AnotherGuy said:


> How does _deciding on the DC_ work differently within indie games?
> Are players part of the process of deciding or is it GM decides/notes?



@Manbearcat provided an excellent survey of many of the games that commonly get floated in these discussions. I can supply a few other indie games. 

*Fate (Core, Accelerated, Condensed) *

Fate is more traditional when it comes to DCs in that the GM often sets the difficulty, though this is done in one of two ways: rolling opposition or setting difficulty. If the PCs are facing opposition, particularly from NPCs, the GM may roll the attack or defense of the opposition. The success of the attack depends on the outcome of the defense roll (e.g., fail, tie, success, etc.). Moreover, in Fate opposition rolls can be used in combat or even social scenes (e.g., Provoke attack vs. Will defense). Or much like in 4e D&D, the GM may decide that a series of skill challenges are required. 

For setting the difficulty, there is a DC scale, with associated adjectives (e.g., poor, -1; mediocre, +0; average, +1; fair, +2; etc.). Fate provides GM advice for when to use low, medium, and high difficulties in terms of what it means for the PCs: e.g., use low to give them a chance to show off, _medium_ to provide tension but not overwhelm them, or _high_ to emphasize dire or unusual circumstances. There is also the general advice that if you can think of one reason why a task is tough, the GM should generally choose Fair (+2) and add +2 for every additional reason. 

This also does not include the possibility for the GM to invoke/compel aspects that are in play: e.g., PCs' aspects, NPCs' aspects, scene aspects, etc. This can affect the opposition or DC. 

The players may roll to beat this DC using their Approaches, Skills, Rated Aspects, relevant Stunts, etc. If they fail, players can spend fate points to invoke the relevant aspects from their character for a +2 per invoked aspect or to re-roll. 

*Cortex (Prime) *

In the basic version of Cortex Prime, the GM assembles an opposition pool. This is typically two dice of the same type, based on the perceived difficulty of the situation in the fiction - e.g., Very Easy (2d4); Easy (2d6); Challenging (2d8); Hard (2d10); Very Hard (2d12) - which is then added together to set the difficulty. So although the GM does determine the general rating of the dice, there is some randomness as a result of the die roll. All rolls are openly rolled, including the GM's. 

Players then assemble their own character's dice pool. Again, it's add (typically) the two highest from rolling the player's dice pool to exceed the difficulty rolled by the GM. 

Players assemble their pool through selecting one rated die from each of their traits (i.e., Prime Sets) plus any secondary traits that may be relevant. Cortex assumes, however, that players will have at least *three* prime sets: i.e., Distinctions (similar to Fate's character aspects) plus two to three more (e.g., Attributes, Skills, Roles, Affiliations, Relationships, Values, Resources, etc.). These have to be based on and relevant to the fiction. Because of the game's toolkit approach, these prime sets will vary between versions. 

Moreover, since Cortex is highly modular, there are a fair number of mods about how to change how difficulty is set: e.g., Doom Pool.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> OSR play significantly deempahsizes the 5 minute work day. There are _far_ less per day abilities and far less per day healing. A greater emphasis on resource management also makes the 5MWD less appealing because there are significantly more pressures on the party's time due to things like food and torch use, things that are laughably hand wave-y in 5E and newer editions. The newer the edition, generally speaking, the more you deal with 5 minute workday style play. Pointing to OSR play here is probably a mistake on your part.



This is patently laughable.  The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e.  You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e.   There were none of these cantrip attack spells.  You threw daggers a lot.   And resource management, at high levels only rarely came into play and only in some campaigns like mine where it is valued.  There were plenty of groups that just didn't use it and in many cases those same groups were complaining about the 5 minute workday.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> ...as a living world. I think that you prefer viewing how you run the game in terms of its aesthetical ends rather than its aromantic nitty gritty process. If don't have a good word for it, then I would advise trying to come up with one, because "living world" isn't cutting the mustard.
> 
> 
> I can't see how imagining the NPCs as characters with personal volitions and motives of their own is distinctly "living world." This falls fairly squarely in how one of the chief duties of GMing is commonly described - i.e., controlling and giving life to the NPCs - in more bog standard TTRPG play. Making the pieces move on the board is basically just "leveling-up" the pre-existing toolkit for GMs.
> 
> Listening to you describe how your "living world process," I (and likely others) feel about like Ricky Gervais listening to Sir Ian McKellen in Extras describing how he can act so well.
> 
> But I get it. You want a world that fees vibrant, organic, and alive. You want a world that feels like it's in motion independent of the PCs. However, it is abundantly clear to me that the "living world" is an aesthetic goal of play rather than the actual process of how it unfolds. I think it's fine to say "the GM decides what's believable." They may be deciding based upon the constraints of their ideas in a given moment, their notes, their preconceptions of "realism" or the NPCs, or the actions of the PCs. The wholistic approach to describe what's fundamentally going on isn't "living world," but, rather, "the GM decides (based upon their desire to cultivate a particular aesthetic of play)." There is nothing wrong with this, as I and others who have also run sandbox games have told you numerous times before. Even if "living world" helps you understand what you do, I just don't think that mystifying "living world" helps anything for everyone, as evidenced by @Campbell's own experiences.




It is not just an aesthetic and it isn't just choosing things in the moment. The whole point of a living NPC is to track them as a piece on the board in your head. You are not simply saying "Well Harkon Lukas will show up now because he is untethered to one spot and it is a good time to have him attack the party"; you choose moment to moment what he is doing and why, what he is planning, if he is sending a spy after the party (when that spy would reach them---maybe giving the players a roll to detect said spy; when that spy brings information to Harkon lukas), when and how Lukas can act against the party, or if he pursues another tactic. And true this isn't unique to living world. It can be done in other types of adventures as I said. It is simply more prioritized, taken more seriously and expanded in a living world. I am sorry but that isn't an aesthetic and it isn't me being Ian McKellen in that sketch. I get that is how you want to see me. I get that you dislike me. But your dislike is clouding your evaluation of what I am saying.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> High level play is the least common play tier, so why is that the yardstick? I'd also submit that played with strict attention to detail on the resource side, this isn't how B/X or BECMI actually play, and certainly not at low or mid tier. I was specifically addressing the 5 minute workday remember, which isn't just about healing, but also blowing nova abilities, a thing that those editions don't really have.



I handled the 5 minute workday very well but my own observation of most gamers is that they did not.  In those days it was rampant.  A sign of bad DMing in my opinion?  Yes.  It comes from living in a static world.  If the monsters hold still and wait on you then why not rest up and take another run at them.  When the monsters pack up and leave with the treasure then it's not such a good plan.   In my world, if the PCs are whipping up on the enemy the enemy has two choices.  Reinforce or run.  Either typically makes the extra rest not worth it.   

Part of handling the situation is that my wizards did not waste spells just to feel good about themselves.  The whole notion of spotlight was not present.  My groups acted like they were in it to win it and that death lurked around every corner.  That means you don't waste a spell when you can handle a situation without it.  So there were days when my wizards went to bed with most of their spells unused.  There were other days though were the group escaped only because the wizard had the right spell and the situation was desperate.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> This is patently laughable.  The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e.  You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e.   There were none of these cantrip attack spells.  You threw daggers a lot.   And resource management, at high levels only rarely came into play and only in some campaigns like mine where it is valued.  There were plenty of groups that just didn't use it and in many cases those same groups were complaining about the 5 minute workday.




I  may simply have not been aware, but this doesn't match my memory at all. I remember it being a reaction to 3E (possibly to 4E). Or really more of a criticism (there were plenty of counter arguments to five minute work day not being an issue at the table and being more a theoretical one raised on forums). Obviously the game was vancian in 1 and 2 E, but wandering encounter tables at that time made the idea of just camping out to heal kind of difficult. what I remember more frequently was the wizard needing to conserve their magic over the course of play (and at low levels basically having to suck it up when they ran out of spells: but at the time the balance of the wizard was you were weak and sucked initially, you took a long time to advance, but once you did advance you became incredibly powerful).


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> It is not just an aesthetic and it isn't just choosing things in the moment. The whole point of a living NPC is to track them as a piece on the board in your head. You are not simply saying "Well Harkon Lukas will show up now because he is untethered to one spot and it is a good time to have him attack the party"; you choose moment to moment what he is doing and why, what he is planning, if he is sending a spy after the party (when that spy would reach them---maybe giving the players a roll to detect said spy; when that spy brings information to Harkon lukas), when and how Lukas can act against the party, or if he pursues another tactic. And true this isn't unique to living world. It can be done in other types of adventures as I said. It is simply more prioritized, taken more seriously and expanded in a living world. I am sorry but that isn't an aesthetic and it isn't me being Ian McKellen in that sketch.



I hear what you are saying, but I still vehemently disagree, since you are just reinforcing my point here. You are doing all this tracking/moving/thinking of the NPC for a purpose: i.e., to create a living world aesthetic. That's clearly an aesthetic goal of play, an admirable one even, that drives your play processes forward, and others who aren't you have been able to clearly recognize that despite your insistence that it's not.

In regards to Sir Ian McKellan, I think that pemerton's reaction is pretty indicative of how your "living world" bit is coming across:


pemerton said:


> I would have thought this is trivially true of all RPGing.






Bedrockgames said:


> I get that is how you want to see me. I get that you dislike me. But your dislike is clouding your evaluation of what I am saying.



I would suggest that you should hold your statement here up to a mirror so you can see for yourself how you _commonly_ treat or respond to others you often disagree with, such as pemerton, Ovinomancer, or Manbearcat. You have no moral high ground to say this. None.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand how this process of the players asking questions from you, or otherwise prompting you to share this sort of information with them, does not count as you communicating to them your conception of the fiction.



That makes it sound as though the fiction is mostly-mine, and the experience feels like entirely-ours. It appears to miss the possibility that I don't know that I know the answer to a given question before asked (which is why I've talked about free-writing fiction as a comparison). It seems to ignore that the players can change the fiction, or that they can change my conception of the fiction (which might be two different things, or they might not). It also fails to include--because I omitted it--that sometimes I ask the players questions.

A possibly unrelated question: From where you are, how much difference do you see between the posters here who have advocated strongly for a "living world" and my self-description?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I would suggest that you should hold your statement here up to a mirror so you can see for yourself how you _commonly_ treat or respond to others you often disagree with, such as pemerton, Ovinomancer, or Manbearcat. You have no moral high ground to say this. None.



I have heated exchanges with Manbearcat but I respect him. I don’t dislike anyone in this thread (not you, not pemerton). There are behaviors that bother me. Pemerton and I have never seen eye to eye, but I treat people nice if they are nice to me. Not saying I am never at fault, I am sure some of the insults came my way because I said something and didn’t realize it’s impact. I am willing to apologize if I say something and it bothered someone. But if someone insults me, that is likely to get a reaction. And even then I think I am fairly polite and reasonable (I just stare clearly if I feel insulted). But look at our exchange, you have been extremely hostile to me this whole thread, yet I engage you and and try to genuinely answer your posts. But it is obvious you dislike me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I hear what you are saying, but I still vehemently disagree, since you are just reinforcing my point here. You are doing all this tracking/moving/thinking of the NPC for a purpose: i.e., to create a living world aesthetic. That's clearly an aesthetic goal of play, an admirable one even, that drives your play processes forward, and others who aren't you have been able to clearly recognize that despite your insistence that it's not.
> 
> In regards to Sir Ian McKellan, I think that pemerton's reaction is pretty indicative of how your "living world" bit is coming across:



Well I am not making the claim that living world is sone esoteric high level of play. It is an approach, a set of guiding principles and structure. I don’t think it is aesthetic though anymore than a dungeon structure is aesthetic or a Ley the dice fall where they may is an aesthetic one. It shapes outcomes significantly. If you keep an eye on it, make a point of maintaining the living world, it isn’t simply an illusion: you are providing a world to the players that changes, that follows logic and has internal consistency.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> The only implications from the marriage of those two above and your persistent action resolution harmony at your table is "prabe is a good 5e GM and his alchemy with his players works."
> 
> That is a statement that all GMs should hope for as a broad statement of their play. But using it as a proxy for "a 5e GM self-constraining via extra-game principles smuggled in so that they can limbo well under their mandate + action resolution procedures can reliably achieve table-synchronous action resolution across any four 5e players (who are not inherently dysfunctional or combative)" is extremely fraught.
> 
> But honestly, that is intentful design. That is a feature, not a bug. The designers willfully designed in heterogeneity across the population of all 5e tables; "Rulings not rules, natural language, make the game your own, and find your own alchemy." But it doesn't stand up that you can reverse engineer that design intent to say that your "found alchemy" is reproducible at scale because "competent GM + intentfully designed cross-table heterogeneity." I'm not saying you're saying that, but if that is the implication, it can't stand up. I'm sure there are stray anecdotes of relative "Edens of 5e Protagonistic Play" sprinkled about the "5e-osphere" (like yours). But if its happening at scale, (a) its happening quietly and (b) all of the noise that says it isn't is somehow just a flukily robust noise masquerading as signal. Further (and again), where the anecdotes do exist, there is a lot of "extra-synchronicity" stuff that are consequential aspects of that alchemy (when it comes to action resolution mediation specifically).
> 
> Man, that is a lot of crap I just wrote. I hope that makes sense.



First, the whole post makes sense to me.

Second, My point has been that the kind of 5E play that happens at the tables I'm DMing is possible, and I know it's possible because I see it happen. I agree that it's difficult-shading-to-impossible to reproduce what you aptly describe as "table alchemy" at anything like scale; I suspect part of the (intentional) design of 5E is to encourage that (cynical interpretation: so that two tables playing the same AP feel different).

Third, I think I'm a better 5E DM for having run other games. Most of the "extra-game principles" you mention probably have come from that, with some amount coming from both positive ("do that") and negative ("for the love of all that's holy don't do that") examples from the relatively small number of GMs I've played with.


----------



## Emerikol

You guys have been busy and I've tried to catch up best I can but there is a lot of text out there so forgive me if I missed something.

I wanted to address the term plot.  Whenever I use it, I use it in the way the phrase "Evil men will plot villainy" way.   I am not using it in the "plot of a novel" way.   Since the PCs in my games have complete agency (given the previously accepted limits like the sandbox), I have not plot agenda in the "plot of a novel" way of thinking.

I try to keep a bunch of well defined NPCs both good, bad, and middle of the road going with various agendas.  Perhaps agenda is a better word for what I'm talking about.  I don't change those agendas to suit the PCs though on occasion those agendas have to change because the PCs are interfering or influencing.

I definitely do not subscribe to DM guided games.  I think that is unfair.  I do create an interesting world with a lot going on so the group can easily find something to do.  I definitely think it's not good if the group is wandering about randomly without a seeming purpose.  I don't have that happen in my games for any significant length of time.  The group is experienced with sandboxes and knows how to find interesting things to do.

Also to address exploration as an agenda.  I think discovery in sandbox play is akin to people liking to read fantasy or science fiction or history.  They want to experience another world.  That adds to the experience.  For me to read about something in the present day, it has to be over the top good because it starts in the hole engagement wise.  But, that does not mean that exploration is a character goal in the game 24/7.   Most of the time they are engaging with the setting and pursuing their interests which often are defeating evil or finding treasure.

There are some accepted conventions about sandbox play in my game....
1.  We usually have several session 0's where we build each characters background.  They say what sort of character they envision and I provide them with a specific example.  Often after a bunch of questions back and forth.   I typically give them a high level regional map at minimum right off.  If they have a scholar with the right skills I might even give them a continent sized map.

2.  I kind of insist on group loyalty.  I am not big into games where the PCs are backstabbing each other.  My worlds have a very strong cultural taboo against killing a fellow adventurer.   So strong that people won't do it in general for fear of the Gods wrath.   So even evil groups tend to be loyal within their own ranks.

3.  The players know they have to set the agenda and can do what they want.  They know they have to drive the pace of the game.  They also know the places to look for adventure.  They know they will have choices.  

4.  The sandbox is a limited size portion of the world.  I am not absolute in forbidding they never leave the sandbox but if they do I reserve the right to end the session right there and tell them I will have to build a new sandbox.   This actually makes sense.   I am also growing the sandbox organically as the campaign progresses.  So at the beginning there may be a city that is known but outside the sandbox.  I might add it at some point.  By add, I mean provide sandbox level detail.   So in the same sense some of you have genre conventions, I have let's call them game style conventions.


----------



## Emerikol

As for the personality discussion, I find some of you pompous twits on occasion ;-).   That goes for all "sides" in the discussion.   I don't hate anyone.   I find a few annoying on occasion at different times.   In fact sometimes I wish there was an age indicator, so if I was arguing with a 14 year old I'd know it and perhaps cut him some more slack.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> This is patently laughable.  The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e.  You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e.   There were none of these cantrip attack spells.  You threw daggers a lot.   And resource management, at high levels only rarely came into play and only in some campaigns like mine where it is valued.  There were plenty of groups that just didn't use it and in many cases those same groups were complaining about the 5 minute workday.



Whatever. One, you obviously didn't read my posts (see your comment about high level play above). Two, you've somehow taken my argument that resource management mitigates against the 5MWD and somehow made it not only your idea but even managed to paste on a value judgement about it. Three, cantrips don't change the picture, if they did 5E wouldn't have issues with the 5MWD but it does, enormous problems. To sum up, yes resource management works against the 5MWD, congratulations, you've restated my point.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> As for the personality discussion, I find some of you pompous twits on occasion ;-).   That goes for all "sides" in the discussion.   I don't hate anyone.   I find a few annoying on occasion at different times.   In fact sometimes I wish there was an age indicator, so if I was arguing with a 14 year old I'd know it and perhaps cut him some more slack.




with me it’s a 44 year old man-child you are arguing with


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I have heated exchanges with Manbearcat but I respect him. I don’t dislike anyone in this thread (not you, not pemerton). There are behaviors that bother me. Pemerton and I have never seen eye to eye, but I treat people nice if they are nice to me. Not saying I am never at fault, I am sure some of the insults came my way because I said something and didn’t realize it’s impact. I am willing to apologize if I say something and it bothered someone. But if someone insults me, that is likely to get a reaction. And even then I think I am fairly polite and reasonable (I just stare clearly if I feel insulted). But look at our exchange, you have been extremely hostile to me this whole thread, yet I engage you and and try to genuinely answer your posts. But it is obvious you dislike me.



This really all goes back to my much earlier point: we are all virtuous heroes in the stories we tell about ourselves.



Bedrockgames said:


> Well I am not making the claim that living world is sone esoteric high level of play. It is an approach, a set of guiding principles and structure. I don’t think it is aesthetic though anymore than a dungeon structure is aesthetic or a Ley the dice fall where they may is an aesthetic one. It shapes outcomes significantly. If you keep an eye on it, make a point of maintaining the living world, it isn’t simply an illusion: *you are providing a world to the players that changes, that follows logic and has internal consistency.*



THAT'S AN AESTHETIC!

Let me just Maxperson you for a second and provide a basic dictionary definition of aesthetic: "a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement."


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> This really all goes back to my much earlier point: we are all virtuous heroes in the stories we tell about ourselves.




Obviously there is truth in that: no one thinks they are the bad guy. But there is also a truth of what happens (it isn't always two equally virtuous sides assailing each other). I am not saying anyone is bad. Nor am I saying I am always in the right here. I am saying when I sense I am being dismissed, ridiculed or that I or someone else is being mocked for not being as well educated as another poster, I have a stronger visceral reaction to that than if someone says something like "I get your point but I disagree". Generally when that happens I try to state clearly to the person that I can't engage them for a bit. Sometimes I act impulsively and respond with anger.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is the action declaration. I've not ignored it. I've mentioned it in every reply to you on this particular point.



Roleplay is not action declaration.  Often there is no action being declared at all and no rolls involved, yet it shapes how play progresses.


pemerton said:


> This is isn't a competition. There's no "moving of goalposts". I asked you a question about what constrains your narration as GM.



No competition is required for you to move the goalposts and add in something new after I've answered you.   Surely as a self-proclaimed expert in the field of language, you understand that that fallacy doesn't just apply to competition.  You added something new to the process we were discussing while we were discussing it.   You moved the goalposts.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> This really all goes back to my much earlier point: we are all virtuous heroes in the stories we tell about ourselves.
> 
> 
> THAT'S AN AESTHETIC!
> 
> Let me just Maxperson you for a second and provide a basic dictionary definition of aesthetic: "a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement."




I don't know: is a dungeon crawl an aesthetic. Is letting the dice fall where they may an aesthetic. To me your remark that it was just an aesthetic, seemed to be getting at it being pretty superficial. Whereas I think there are number of structures, techniques, etc. at work in a living world sandbox. If all you mean by aesthetic is a set of guiding principles, then I suppose pretty much anything we talk about here could be an aesthetic.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> ...as a living world. I think that you prefer viewing how you run the game in terms of its aesthetical ends rather than its aromantic nitty gritty process. If you don't have a good word for it, then I would advise trying to come up with one, because "living world" isn't cutting the mustard.
> 
> 
> I can't see how imagining the NPCs as characters with personal volitions and motives of their own is distinctly "living world." This falls fairly squarely in how one of the chief duties of GMing is commonly described - i.e., controlling and giving life to the NPCs - in more bog standard TTRPG play. Making the pieces move on the board is basically just "leveling-up" the pre-existing toolkit for GMs.
> 
> Listening to you describe your "living world process," I (and likely others) feel about like Ricky Gervais listening to Sir Ian McKellen in Extras describing how he can act so well.
> 
> But I get it. You want a world that fees vibrant, organic, and alive. You want a world that feels like it's in motion independent of the PCs. However, it is abundantly clear to me that the "living world" is an aesthetic goal of play rather than the actual process of how it unfolds. I think it's fine to say "the GM decides what's believable." They may be deciding based upon the constraints of their ideas in a given moment, their notes, their preconceptions of "realism" or the NPCs, or the actions of the PCs. The wholistic approach to describe what's fundamentally going on isn't "living world," but, rather, "the GM decides (based upon their desire to cultivate a particular aesthetic of play)." There is nothing wrong with this, as I and others who have also run sandbox games have told you numerous times before. Even if "living world" helps you understand what you do, I just don't think that mystifying "living world" helps anything for everyone, as evidenced by @Campbell's own experiences.



Of course "Living, breathing world" is a goal and not a process.  When someone says, "I want to create a living, breathing world" they are not saying, "I want to create a process."  It's the culmination of what we do to get there.

You acknowledge above that giving NPCs motivations and personal volitions(not living, breathing) is standard play and part of the DM toolkit.  Then you acknowledge that having them take actions on their own(part of what makes a world living, breathing) is just leveling up that tool.  Well, yeah.  By leveling it up, it changes into something done differently which alters the feel of the game.

In addition to having NPCs do things, though, there are also events.  Having a major earthquake planned to strike Cormyr 67 days after the campaign begins is also part of the process of reaching the living, breathing world goal.  If the party happens to be in Cormyr, they will experience the quake, which could be natural or part of some nefarious plot.  If they are not in Cormyr, then they will likely hear of it eventually.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> You bet!
> 
> *On D&D and rules:*
> 
> There are many, many ways to play D&D (as we all know and we've probably exhaustively gone over them all in this thread).  In D&D, the math works like this in terms of Follow the Rules (go back to my post and you can call this the Assessing Factors when it comes to Rules - like establishing Effect in Blades and setting Ob in MG).  Play Priorities with respect to rules:
> 
> a)  Skilled Play Priority (follow the rules)
> 
> b)  Play to Find Out (What Happens) Priority (follow the rules)
> 
> c)  GM Storyteller/AP Priority (don't follow/ignore the rules if they get in the way of "preferred/required story outcomes" or "fun")
> 
> *On player/table-facing:*
> 
> a)  If the DCs to use and/or process for determining them are codified _and _the discussion of them is transparent at the table such that they are revealed _and _dice are rolled out in the open, this is player/table-facing.
> 
> b)  If the DCs to use and/or process for determining them are not codified _and/or_ the discussion of them at the table is either nonexistent or opaque _and/or_ the dice are rolled in secret, this is GM-facing.
> 
> 
> 
> So, for instance.  A game that features Skilled Play + Play to Find Out Priority + Table Facing will _play/feel very different_ from a game that features GM Storyteller/AP Priority + GM-Facing.



I don't know if this is part of c) in the "On D&D and rules" above, but I will ignore/change the rules when I hit a situation where enacting the rule as written will result in something nonsensical.  Rules are great, but even if they work 99% of the time, there are those odd situations where sometimes they get in the way of what makes sense, rather than facilitate what makes sense.  I mean, that could technically still fall under "fun," because we don't enjoy nonsensical situations, but I still think that it's different enough to bring up as perhaps a d) in that section.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I was there. I can tell you how the players learned about the shaft: I told them! And I can tell you how I learned about it: I read the module. (Double Adventure 1, Shadows)
> 
> The fact that the players decided to have their PCs enter the complex doesn't change anything about the truth of the above paragraph. The fact that they declared actions for their PCs that obliged me to tell them about the pendulum in the deep shaft doesn't change anything about the above paragraph, other than to explain _why I told them_.



That fact does change the process of how they learned about it, though.  Unless you simply told them in session 1 before they ever got to a complex, "Hey, there's a complex with a shaft in it.  I read about it in the module," there are more steps in the process which you are ignoring here.  You are ignoring that they first had to make choices and explore to the point where the reached the shaft and trigger your statement to them


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Let me just Maxperson you for a second....




I am not sure what this is in reference to. Generally I am not a fan of definitional arguments because it is very easy to equivocate, argue from proscriptive definitions. i only usually factor in definitions of a person seems to be using a definition that doesn’t have a lot of currency


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Whatever. One, you obviously didn't read my posts (see your comment about high level play above). Two, you've somehow taken my argument that resource management mitigates against the 5MWD and somehow made it not only your idea but even managed to paste on a value judgement about it. Three, cantrips don't change the picture, if they did 5E wouldn't have issues with the 5MWD but it does, enormous problems. To sum up, yes resource management works against the 5MWD, congratulations, you've restated my point.



Resource management is the cause of the 5MWD.  It's the loss of once a day resources that makes people stop and rest.  Other resources like food, which is cheap and easily carried in fairly large amounts, rarely restricted things to the point where it would reverse the 5MWD and cause rush.  Instead, low food typically caused them to go back to town for another 5MWD and to buy more food.  

The most common way to avoid the 5MWD is to provide a time crunch that the PCs would have to overcome.  The two issues with that, though is that 1) you can't use it more than once in a while without it feeling really contrived and heavy handed in controlling the players, and 2) when the players got low enough on resources, they would often just quit and go back to report failure.  "Sorry my lord.  We couldn't rescue the princess before she was married off to the evil Duke."  Players rarely got their PCs killed due to their resources being too low to continue on.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> with me it’s a 44 year old man-child you are arguing with



With me it's a 51 year old who is quite simply never wrong.  Unless I'm arguing with my wife.  Or with my boss.  Or with a police officer. Or... Or... Or...  Dangit!


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Let me just Maxperson you for a second and provide a basic dictionary definition of aesthetic: "a set of principles underlying the work of *a particular artist or artistic movement."*



The bolded is the issue.  Living, breathing world isn't an artistic movement, nor is it limited to a particular DM(artist).


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know: is a dungeon crawl an aesthetic. Is letting the dice fall where they may an aesthetic. *To me your remark that it was just an aesthetic, seemed to be getting at it being pretty superficial. *Whereas I think there are number of structures, techniques, etc. at work in a living world sandbox. If all you mean by aesthetic is a set of guiding principles, then I suppose pretty much anything we talk about here could be an aesthetic.



You were likely reading insult where there was none, as when I have been saying that it's an "aesthetic," I am not implying anything superficial about it. Describing a "living world" as an aesthetic means that your principles, techniques, tools, and "art process" are all (or should be) working towards supporting/achieving that goal or vision. "Aesthetics" are good, particularly in TTRPGs wherein we are often trying to cultivate a particular aesthetic(s) in our games. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure what this is in reference to. Generally I am not a fan of definitional arguments because it is very easy to equivocate, argue from proscriptive definitions. i only usually factor in definitions of a person seems to be using a definition that doesn’t have a lot of currency



I'm normally not a fan of _dictionary_ definitional arguments either for very similar reasons. My purpose here, however, is not equivocation but elucidation to show you how your description of "living world" aligns almost text book perfect with what is often meant by "aesthetics" as I briefly explain above.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure what this is in reference to. Generally I am not a fan of definitional arguments because it is very easy to equivocate, argue from proscriptive definitions. i only usually factor in definitions of a person seems to be using a definition that doesn’t have a lot of currency



People who lack solid arguments really dislike when definitions are used, but sometimes I'm forced to provide a definition to people who clearly aren't understanding what a word means.  So he's "Maxpersoning"  you by providing a definition that doesn't apply.  LOL


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Resource management is the cause of the 5MWD.  It's the loss of once a day resources that makes people stop and rest.  Other resources like food, which is cheap and easily carried in fairly large amounts, rarely restricted things to the point where it would reverse the 5MWD and cause rush.  Instead, low food typically caused them to go back to town for another 5MWD and to buy more food.
> 
> The most common way to avoid the 5MWD is to provide a time crunch that the PCs would have to overcome.  The two issues with that, though is that 1) you can't use it more than once in a while without it feeling really contrived and heavy handed in controlling the players, and 2) when the players got low enough on resources, they would often just quit and go back to report failure.  "Sorry my lord.  We couldn't rescue the princess before she was married off to the evil Duke."  Players rarely got their PCs killed due to their resources being too low to continue on.



Ahh, I see where we're going wrong here. I'm specifically talking about limited physical resources like torches and food. not per day abilities. I should have been clearer about that. Physical resources very much establish time sensitivity, which is why they mitigate the 5MWD, most especially at low and mid tier. Obviously this doesn't help if there are abilities that obviate those resources, like the spell Goodberry example, which completely obviates the need to carry rations for most groups. A hand-wavey approach to Darkvision is also a killer here.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> The bolded is the issue.  Living, breathing world isn't an artistic movement, nor is it limited to a particular DM(artist).



This is the sort of equivocation that Bedrockgames was likely talking about, and you have definitely been repeatedly called out by many others in this forum for appealing to dictionary definitions (and mis-readings thereof) for making these sort of flimsy arguments, including much earlier in this thread.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Ahh, I see where we're going wrong here. I'm specifically talking about limited physical resources like torches and food. not per day abilities. I should have been clearer about that. Physical resources very much establish time sensitivity, which is why they mitigate the 5MWD, most especially at low and mid tier. Obviously this doesn't help if there are abilities that obviate those resources, like the spell Goodberry example, which completely obviates the need to carry rations for most groups. A hand-wavey approach to Darkvision is also a killer here.



I understood you and I don't entirely agree.  It CAN do that, but more often low physical resources just made the group go back to town to rest and restock, not push forward.  It didn't cure the problem and only happened after several 5 minute work days.  It also stopped once the party got continual light and create food and water.  Clerics were great for that.  I bet there are more permanently glowing copper pieces spread around the game worlds than any other single object.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> This is the sort of equivocation that Bedrockgames was likely talking about, and you have definitely been repeatedly called out by many others in this forum for appealing to dictionary definitions (and mis-readings thereof) for making these sort of flimsy arguments, including much earlier in this thread.



Words(and their definitions) matter.  I reject the arguments of people who want to invent new meanings for words and try to use those meanings to refute my arguments, when my arguments are based on the real meaning of said words. And it generally upsets those who want to use fictional definitions and they call me out for it, yes.  I also never equivocate with it.  The definitions are not ambiguous.  When I do bring one out, it is to show specifically, not ambiguously, what I am talking about.

This post of yours about me is pure bunk and quite frankly, insulting.  Don't insult me again.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I understood you and I don't entirely agree.  It CAN do that, but more often low physical resources just made the group go back to town to rest and restock, not push forward.  It didn't cure the problem and only happened after several 5 minute work days.  It also stopped once the party got continual light and create food and water.  Clerics were great for that.  I bet there are more permanently glowing copper pieces spread around the game worlds than any other single object.



Well, if the encounter area is completely static then sure, that could be an issue, then it just feels like a save point. But if the group knows they risk losing all their current progress in exploring the dungeon or whatever then they won't be so quick to leave. You also assume that getting back to town is a non-trivial exercise. The longer they journeyed to get there, the less trivial it is to leave and return.

I also think that a lot of GMs (not you specifically) are enormously forgiving about issues of light and things like surprise.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> *Well, if the encounter area is completely static then sure, that could be an issue, then it just feels like a save point. *But if the group knows they risk losing all their current progress in exploring the dungeon or whatever then they won't be so quick to leave. You also assume that getting back to town is a non-trivial exercise. The longer they journeyed to get there, the less trivial it is to leave and return.
> 
> I also think that a lot of GMs (not you specifically) are enormously forgiving about issues of light and things like surprise.



That's true, and it's a large part of what set me on the road to a living, breathing world.  I started having remaining monsters discover the bodied and start preparing defenses, etc.  From there it was an easy step to start applying logical consequences to all kinds of things.  

And of course even that much went away once the cleric hit 5th level.  They just spent a few days making sure everyone had light coins and then the cleric used 1 slot on making food and water.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Words(and their definitions) matter.  I reject the arguments of people who want to invent new meanings for words and try to use those meanings to refute my arguments, when my arguments are based on the real meaning of said words. And it generally upsets those who want to use fictional definitions and they call me out for it, yes.  I also never equivocate with it.  The definitions are not ambiguous.  When I do bring one out, it is to show specifically, not ambiguously, what I am talking about.
> 
> This post of yours about me is pure bunk and quite frankly, insulting.  Don't insult me again.



Words and their definitions matter, but making it a repeated habit to apply narrow readings of dictionary definitions and equivocating on those definitions as the basis for your arguments evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of words, definitions, and meanings. The idea that "definitions are not ambiguous" is laughably flat out wrong, which even the most cursory glance into linguistics would reveal. 

Furthermore, there is nothing bunk about the fact that you have been repeatedly called out on this exact misuse of dictionary definitions before in this forum. If you feel insulted by this, then try learning from your mistakes so you avoid repeating them.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Words and their definitions matter, but making it a repeated habit to apply narrow readings of dictionary definitions and equivocating on those definitions as the basis for your arguments evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of words, definitions, and meanings. The idea that "definitions are not ambiguous" is laughably flat out wrong, which even the most cursory glance into linguistics would reveal.
> 
> Furthermore, there is nothing bunk about the fact that you have been repeatedly called out on this exact misuse of dictionary definitions before in this forum. If you feel insulted by this, then try learning from your mistakes so you avoid repeating them.



I post a lot and rarely bring up definitions.  When I do, it's generally because someone is refusing to acknowledge a valid use of a definition.  When I get called out here, it's for a valid use of a word that someone doesn't like because his argument can't cope with it.  If his argument was so great, he wouldn't feel threatened by a valid use of a definition.

I brought up one here recently, because @darkbard was switching(inadvertently) the valid way I was using the word into a different meaning.  I quoted it to show him the way I was using it so that he would understand.  I don't use definitions to be ambiguous, so I don't equivocate with them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I'm normally not a fan of _dictionary_ definitional arguments either for very similar reasons. My purpose here, however, is not equivocation but elucidation to show you how your description of "living world" aligns almost text book perfect with what is often meant by "aesthetics" as I briefly explain above.



And I am not going to deny a book definition of aesthetic but I do think given how broad that is: wouldn’t you think it applies to all kinds of things we are talking about: and what distinguishes me talking about playing an npc  as an active piece on the board, the GM Weilding power over the world, emphasizing the importance of prep and modeling, tracking movement in the world of PCs and npcs, using tables for events, using dice as part of the resolution method from say a poster talking about mechanics that place limits on GM power, give players mechanisms for accessing GM like power, etc. how is what I am talking about mere aesthetic but what other people talk about process? There is process in what I am talking about as well (I just don’t base everything around the point In play when the GM says things to the players)


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> And I am not going to deny a book definition of aesthetic but I do think given how broad that is: wouldn’t you think it applies to all kinds of things we are talking about: and what distinguishes me talking about playing an npc  as an active piece on the board, the GM Weilding power over the world, emphasizing the importance of prep and modeling, tracking movement in the world of PCs and npcs, using tables for events, using dice as part of the resolution method from say a poster talking about mechanics that place limits on GM power, give players mechanisms for accessing GM like power, etc.



I think it's about understanding all these things as the set of guiding principles and techniques that you (as a creative) use to support your creative vision (i.e., the living world aesthetic of sandbox play). Many games do aim for similar aesthetics, but also have different processes, techniques, and principles to achieve that aesthetic goal.



Bedrockgames said:


> *how is what I am talking about mere aesthetic but what other people talk about process?* There is process in what I am talking about as well (I just don’t base everything around the point In play when the GM says things to the players)



You gotta learn to stop reading everything as some sort of accusation or insult. Please go look back through how @hawkeyefan also picked up and talked about this topic in terms of aesthetics. No one is saying anything about "mere aesthetic," which AGAIN sounds like you fighting hard to read superficiality into my words.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Whatever. One, you obviously didn't read my posts (see your comment about high level play above). Two, you've somehow taken my argument that resource management mitigates against the 5MWD and somehow made it not only your idea but even managed to paste on a value judgement about it. Three, cantrips don't change the picture, if they did 5E wouldn't have issues with the 5MWD but it does, enormous problems. To sum up, yes resource management works against the 5MWD, congratulations, you've restated my point.



The main point was a refutation of your claim that the 5MWD was not an issue in old school D&D.  It was not to debate whether it remains an issue in 5e.   Has it gotten worse?  No.  

And using resources to mitigate the 5MWD is hardly an original idea from either of us.  There is a style of game that works whatever the version of D&D that mitigates the 5MWD.  I had that style by default and I'm not sure I ever chose the style to specifically mitigate the 5MWD.   I think I just thought that is what would happen in those types of situations so I played the monsters fairly.   

I agree with whoever said that leaving a room is not like saving a game.  That is a fundamental difference between a living breathing world and one that is not.  Bad guys react.  Good guys react.  People engage events as they happen and people are making things happen to advance their personal agendas.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I think it's about understanding all these things as the set of guiding principles and techniques that you (as a creative) use to support your creative vision (i.e., the living world aesthetic of sandbox play). Many games do aim for similar aesthetics, but also have different processes, techniques, and principles to achieve that aesthetic goal.



Part of the issue is probably that I am talking about a style of play, adventure structure, philosophy and set of tools, but am not talking about specific games. I think sandbox and living world can work in many systems so I am trying to talk around that (though obviously some systems will run into walls more than others, and some will fight with the living world sandbox more than others if their rules go against any of the above mentioned things at any point). If the idea is, lets talk about systems for living world sandboxes, I think then you are getting more into topics like what kind of sandbox is this, how much room do you have to wiggle on the traditional GM Player relationship, etc. Which of the above principles and tools need to be discarded under certain systems, which ones need to be introduced. But that is a whole other conversation


----------



## Emerikol

I do think a style of play is a series of choices.  You can diverge into a different style by making a different choice.  That some choices tend to synergize is also not a surprise but that isn't absolute.  

1.  Deep Prep - Lots of detail about the world done in advance.
2.  Skilled Play - Players acting as characters need to make good strategic and tactical decisions for the group to succeed.
3.  Sandbox - High player agency with a variety of options and not just one in a limited area of the world.
4.  Living World - meaning the NPCs/Monsters change over time with and without PC stimuli.
5.  The dice fall where they fall.

I could see changing any one of those without the others being that affected.  I would say though that without prep, my concept of sandbox doesn't apply.  If you don't do prep you are needing to limit your players to a sandbox.   Plenty of DMs do everything static and get by without having a truly living world.  Many DMs fudge dice but still have other choices in this list.

I would even go so far as to say that the ability and extent that non-GM players can create the fiction is a knob that you can turn up or down.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> The main point was a refutation of your claim that the 5MWD was not an issue in old school D&D.  It was not to debate whether it remains an issue in 5e.   Has it gotten worse?  No.
> 
> And using resources to mitigate the 5MWD is hardly an original idea from either of us.  There is a style of game that works whatever the version of D&D that mitigates the 5MWD.  I had that style by default and I'm not sure I ever chose the style to specifically mitigate the 5MWD.   I think I just thought that is what would happen in those types of situations so I played the monsters fairly.
> 
> I agree with whoever said that leaving a room is not like saving a game.  That is a fundamental difference between a living breathing world and one that is not.  Bad guys react.  Good guys react.  People engage events as they happen and people are making things happen to advance their personal agendas.



I think it's tough to argue that it hasn't gotten worse. The mechanics of the game mitigate for it more than they used to because of the preponderance of per day abilities across classes, as well as the synergy of nova-type approaches to encounters. Both are far easier and more common in 5E.

As for style, that's certainly true. Some groups, and lets stick to 1E and earlier since that was my initial example pool, really hand wave rations and torches and darkvision and stuff like that. Nothing wrong with that, other than that it encourages the 5MWD approach barring other constraints and consequences. Or things like horses and ponies to carry food and water. Where are they while you're in the dungeon? Does anything ever happen to them while no one is watching? Do you have retainers minding the fort? Enforcing encumbrance and physical resource management is key factor in skilled play, which was the default style at the time, or at least the one that the actual game rules supported.  

@Maxperson - Create Food and Water is certainly a way around having to carry food, but the opportunity cost is high. It's a 3rd level spell and it only feeds three people. So you're using rations or your casting it twice. Either way it's not exactly an easy answer until much higher levels when that 3rd level slot is less important. As for continual light on coins, yeah, that was quite common. Even that isn't quite the cure all it sounds like if people are forced to hold them, possibly at the cost of a readied weapon, and/or are forced to drop them in order to cast or ready a weapon. It depends on how the DM was running it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

When the thread goes towards deep analysis of how play works, some posters decry this, saying you can't treat RPGs as a science.

When the thread talks about aethetics of play instead, this same group decries it, saying you can't treat RPGs as art!

Oh, and I see the dictionary has been broken out, yay.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> @Maxperson - Create Food and Water is certainly a way around having to carry food, but the opportunity cost is high. It's a 3rd level spell and it only feeds three people. So you're using rations or your casting it twice. Either way it's not exactly an easy answer until much higher levels when that 3rd level slot is less important. As for continual light on coins, yeah, that was quite common. Even that isn't quite the cure all it sounds like if people are forced to hold them, possibly at the cost of a readied weapon, and/or are forced to drop them in order to cast or ready a weapon. It depends on how the DM was running it.




"Explanation/Description: When this spell is cast, the cleric causes food and/or water to appear. The food thus created is highly nourishing, and
*each cubic foot of the material will sustain three human-sized creatures* or one horse-sized creature for a full day. *For each level of experience the cleric has attained, 1 cubic foot of food and/or water* is created by the spell, i.e. 2 cubic feet of food are created by a 2nd level cleric, 3 by a 3rd, 4 by a 4th, and so on; or the 2nd level cleric could create 1 cubic foot of food and 1 cubic foot of water, etc."

A 5th level cleric can provide food for 6 people and water for 9(2 cubic feet of food and 3 of water) or food for 9 and water for 6.  You can fully feed and provide water for a party of 6 or less from the moment you learn the spell.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> When the thread goes towards deep analysis of how play works, some posters decry this, saying you can't treat RPGs as a science.
> 
> When the thread talks about aethetics of play instead, this same group decries it, saying you can't treat RPGs as art!
> 
> Oh, and I see the dictionary has been broken out, yay.



It's a bit of both, really.  There are methods and processes, as well as creativity.  The problem is that one side(not mine) seem to be trying to make it all one or the other in their arguments.


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> When the thread goes towards deep analysis of how play works, some posters decry this, saying you can't treat RPGs as a science.
> 
> When the thread talks about aethetics of play instead, this same group decries it, saying you can't treat RPGs as art!



Not to mention the number of people who hate being reminded that their TTRPG is a game and dislike when it's discussed as a game designed for recreational purposes. 



Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, and I see the dictionary has been broken out, yay.



That was my own fault. I was hoping to show how the term "aesthetic" overlaps with Bedrockgames's own description of "living world" play.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> I think it's tough to argue that it hasn't gotten worse. The mechanics of the game mitigate for it more than they used to because of the preponderance of per day abilities across classes, as well as the synergy of nova-type approaches to encounters. Both are far easier and more common in 5E.



I would argue that the growth of at-will powers and the general nerfing of wizards over time would have lessened it not increased it.   



Fenris-77 said:


> As for style, that's certainly true. Some groups, and lets stick to 1E and earlier since that was my initial example pool, really hand wave rations and torches and darkvision and stuff like that. Nothing wrong with that, other than that it encourages the 5MWD approach barring other constraints and consequences. Or things like horses and ponies to carry food and water. Where are they while you're in the dungeon? Does anything ever happen to them while no one is watching? Do you have retainers minding the fort? Enforcing encumbrance and physical resource management is key factor in skilled play, which was the default style at the time, or at least the one that the actual game rules supported.



I would agree that some form of skilled play was the default but I'm not sure resource management was the fix most DMs chose for their games.   A lot of hand waving going on is what I'm saying.   There are a host of other differences.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's a bit of both, really.  There are methods and processes, as well as creativity.  The problem is that one side(not mine) seem to be trying to make it all one or the other in their arguments.




Where I am getting lost is on how some of these terms are being used. I feel like I have been responding to posts, but with each response its like I can't win because I am told now I need to talk about aesthetics, or now I need to talk about something else (even though I think I am talking about that). Again, maybe the issue is they are using terms here rather specifically and I don't share the vocabulary they bring to design. But I think that is part of the problem in these analysis threads. Honestly at this point I am not even sure what is being debated. At one stage I thought the viability of living world was being challenged, then it seems it isn't it is just being categorized differently. I don't know. My view this whole time has simply been, "playing to discover the GM's notes" fails to capture the range of what is going on in a living sandbox. And then I tried to provide explanations and example, and techniques and methods for running living world when asked. I think there was and remains some dispute over the nature of a living world (in terms of where the living world itself resides: if it can be likened to a model if is just this amorphous thing that only really takes shape when the GM describes things to players, etc). I think that is a longer discussion, there was probably a lot of talking past one another.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Emerikol said:


> 4.  Living World - meaning the NPCs/Monsters change over time with and without PC stimuli.



I would quibble and say this only captures the macro scale: in a living world you also have NPCs/monsters/groups who are responding directly to what the players do. I think one of the misconceptions created about a living world is it is a kind of terrarium where the players don't matter, but this is really the ground level of living world where players are likely to experience it first hand (at the scale of the individual NPC whose goals and interests intersect in some way with their own).


----------



## uzirath

Last night I ran a GURPS game and had a situation where my notes ended up being less useful than I had hoped. The group had just begun exploring the ancient vaults of a long-dead dragon. It's a relatively traditional dungeon crawl. I focused my "notes" on preparation for a few combat encounters and a trap. I underestimated the amount of time I needed to spend getting the maps set up for the VTT. The one thing I had left on my prep list was thinking through two role-playing encounters with undead spirits. But, time was up so we played the game. 

The combat prep material was very helpful. A big battle early on was fast-paced and rewarding, partly because I had reviewed the relevant rules in advance and anticipated some likely questions. When the first role-playing encounter came along, I found myself stumbling a bit. I felt like it would have gone better if I had curtailed the VTT prep and spent a bit more time considering who this person was and what she wanted. As it was, it was acceptable but clunky. 

In the terms of this discussion, which I have been attempting to loosely follow in my spare time, I think it is clear that the function of my notes is to contain material that the players will discover through play. Though I initially found the phrase "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" a bit reductive, I've mostly come to terms with it. I also think of the game world as a "living world" in the sense that I try to portray a sense that the world is larger than the bits that the PCs are engaged with and that PC action (or inaction) will cause ripples that have consequences.

I don't believe, however, that anything is "real" until it actually enters the played fiction. In other words, nothing in my notes is "fixed" until the players have experienced it. If I change it up during play (or, as sometimes happens, forget what was in my notes), I go with the logic of how things played out. The players add elements to the fiction that I hadn't anticipated. Also, they sometimes come up with connections and ideas that were better (more dramatic, more fun, more connected to the characters...) than what I had in my notes. In which case, I always toss my notes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

uzirath said:


> Last night I ran a GURPS game and had a situation where my notes ended up being less useful than I had hoped. The group had just begun exploring the ancient vaults of a long-dead dragon. It's a relatively traditional dungeon crawl. I focused my "notes" on preparation for a few combat encounters and a trap. I underestimated the amount of time I needed to spend getting the maps set up for the VTT. The one thing I had left on my prep list was thinking through two role-playing encounters with undead spirits. But, time was up so we played the game.
> 
> The combat prep material was very helpful. A big battle early on was fast-paced and rewarding, partly because I had reviewed the relevant rules in advance and anticipated some likely questions. When the first role-playing encounter came along, I found myself stumbling a bit. I felt like it would have gone better if I had curtailed the VTT prep and spent a bit more time considering who this person was and what she wanted. As it was, it was acceptable but clunky.
> 
> In the terms of this discussion, which I have been attempting to loosely follow in my spare time, I think it is clear that the function of my notes is to contain material that the players will discover through play. Though I initially found the phrase "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" a bit reductive, I've mostly come to terms with it. I also think of the game world as a "living world" in the sense that I try to portray a sense that the world is larger than the bits that the PCs are engaged with and that PC action (or inaction) will cause ripples that have consequences.
> 
> I don't believe, however, that anything is "real" until it actually enters the played fiction. In other words, nothing in my notes is "fixed" until the players have experienced it. If I change it up during play (or, as sometimes happens, forget what was in my notes), I go with the logic of how things played out. The players add elements to the fiction that I hadn't anticipated. Also, they sometimes come up with connections and ideas that were better (more dramatic, more fun, more connected to the characters...) than what I had in my notes. In which case, I always toss my notes.



Great post, you've laid out how your prep works for you in play and given some concrete examples.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> This is patently laughable.  The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e.  You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e.



Er...not quite.  Yes you had limited slots but you could memorize the same spell more than once to fill said slots if you wanted.

E.g. if you've got three 3rd-level slots you could memorize fireball-fireball-fireball one day and haste-fly-lightning bolt the next, assuming all those spells were in your book.

But yes, spells were a very limited resource.  In some ways it's annoying (I detest pre-memorization and have removed it in my game) but in other ways I kinda like it (that the limits force sometimes-difficult choices on players/PCs).


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> It also stopped once the party got continual light and create food and water.  Clerics were great for that.  I bet there are more permanently glowing copper pieces spread around the game worlds than any other single object.



In my game it's glowing pebbles, usually called "light rocks".  They're too cheapass to waste copper pieces on this.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> the important part of running a living world is being able to *know* how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs





darkbard said:


> the pushback you are receiving is against the idea that this is a viable way of achieving an objective entity (what some here are terming "the fiction," which you resist) *outside of* the GM's beliefs of what that would be.



I've bolded what I take to be the key word/phrase in each post.

There is no "knowledge" here other than _what the GM decides is the case_. The GM does not and cannot undertake an empirical enquiry into some matter of fact, because there isn't one.



Maxperson said:


> That's not the sort of action that involves invoking a living, breathing world.  Assassinating the Duke is that kind of action and would involve *assessing* the consequences of what happened and applying it throughout the world.



The bolded _assess_ here means _decide_. There is no independent phenomenon to be assessed.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> There is no "knowledge" here other than _what the GM decides is the case_. The GM does not and cannot undertake an empirical enquiry into some matter of fact, because there isn't one.




There is knowledge. Again, no one is saying he is going off somewhere to verify the facts at a library how the faction would act. But he is checking against his own canon for the setting (which is part of the model: and that is going to include fact he has established in his head, facts he has written down, principles he has laid out governing how things work in the setting, in the subculture the organizations in question belong to, etc). If I make a faction and give them a clear set of motivations, goals, conflicts, etc; it is very easy for me to know how they will respond to certain actions taken by the party, and it is very easy to think through their response to make sure it is logical outgrowth of things existent in the sect (even if one of those things is illogical, like the leader is incredibly impulsive and responds with aggression to acts of provocation). What is more, I have a working model of the world that I need to play out any of their plans and actions in. I don't just decide 'the rival sect wants you dead so an assassin shows up at the next inn' in a living world: I have play things out through the pieces (the living NPCs) and the imaginary board (the setting). No one is saying those things have the same reality as a real world or even a real world model. But they have consistent parameters. I can chart the movement of an NPC the same way I can chart PC movement. They are limited by the time and space of the setting. Why this is important is this approach is significantly different from one where I am not making an effort to model these things (and not all approaches need you to do that: if I am running a noir adventure, that kind of modeling might be excessive). When I am running a game like this, I am not simply at liberty to just 'decide'. I have to check it against my own canon and setting model, and I am limited by the stats, resources and abilities of the pieces in play.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> What I am saying is you are zooming in on one increment, in order to disprove the larger existence of something like the living world.



I don't know why you're saying that. I'm not proving or disproving anything about the existence of sandbox RPGing.

I'm denying that the "living world" authors itself. But that's self-evident. And I'm asserting that the players come to know of the "living world" because the GM tells them. I've even given examples of that from my own play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The bolded _assess_ here means _decide_. There is no independent phenomenon to be assessed.




Again, this isn't just a decision. Maxperson has to consult his model of the setting to weigh and judge what courses of action would result from the assassination. Maybe he doesn't have information on that, and will make things up. Maybe though he has the Duke's family tree laid out, the line of succession, the political and legal structures described enough that he knows what the standard procedures are going to be when a duke is assassinated. He has to assess his setting details and his NPCs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I'm denying that the "living world" authors itself. But that's self-evident. And I'm asserting that the players come to know of the "living world" because the GM tells them. I've even given examples of that from my own play.




No one is asserting that living worlds author themselves. We are saying they can be modeled. What we are saying is there is more to the process of running a living world is more complex than the players merely being passive recipients of what the GM tells them. What is more, it issn't just what the GM says. The GM is also providing things like maps, background information, etc. There are other tools for helping the players understand the setting they inhabit. And a lot of their understanding is going to come through interactions with NPCs. Again if you just focus on the binary of the GM side, with the GM giving them info, it think that distorts the process. But even more I am not sure what the end of this argument is. Like I said, if you have an ultimate point, state it clearly. Otherwise we are just wrestling over an academic point about the level of realness of a living world.


----------



## pemerton

AnotherGuy said:


> How does _deciding on the DC_ work differently within indie games?



In the post you quoted, @Manbearcat identified 4 ways (maybe 3 ways - objective/causal, genre, "rule of cool" - plus some blend thereof as a 4th).

In Burning Wheel, difficulties are to be identified the first way: objective/causal. The rulebook has lots of examples (dozens, probably 100s - I haven't counted them all - many more than any version of D&D I've read and more than Rolemaster). It is vulnerable to the problem Manbearcat identified (of GM ignorance) but there are player-side tools to mitigate obstacles ("fate points" - in 5e D&D the analogue might be a clerical Bless or Guidance or a bard's Inspiration, but under the action-declaring player's control) and there are also player-side reasons to _want _high difficulties (for advancement reasons). The rules that guide failure narration (failure of intent, not necessarily of task) also mean that failure is not the cost either to verisimilitude (as Manbearcat worries about) or to progress in play that it might be in some approaches to D&D.

In Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP, there are no difficulties. Every check is opposed; the appropriate dice pool is determined by the context of the attempted action in the fiction - if in doubt, the Doom Pool opposes. The Doom Pool thus becomes (among other things) a pacing device. It is comparable although less straightforward then the process for stepping up difficulties until someone fails then stepping them back found in HeroQuest Revised - which I would regard as the paradigm system for "subjective" difficulties.



AnotherGuy said:


> My thinking was, that the party declares an action or a series of actions which may affect x faction directly or indirectly. X faction may be an _offline_ faction - using the @Manbearcat's terminology or _secret backstory_ using @pemerton's.
> In the traditional game, the GM having understanding of x faction and the authorial authority, without a mechanic, *narrates a hard move by x faction thus bringing consequence to the party's action/s*, thus enforcing the idea of the _Living World._
> 
> In an indie game, from my limited understanding the GM can only bring about such force if the mechanic via the die rolls allowed for it OR the force is limited, whereas in the above example the GM is only limited in terms of the setting's internal consistency. For an indie game the _Living World_ lives so long as the die say so.



In the bit that I've bolded, my understanding is that this hard move might be narrated _so as to determine the outcome of the action declaration prior to any sort of check_.

So as opposed to "saying 'yes'" rather than calling for a roll of the dice, it would be _saying 'no'_ rather than calling for a roll of the dice.

In Burning Wheel the rule is "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and so this sort of _saying 'no'_ is prima facie out-of-bounds. It is taken for granted that we are talking about an action declaration that is already well-formed with respect to the fiction. In his Adventure Burner Luke Crane elaborates on this, and how _what is already well-formed_ (my phrase, not his) might be connected to the GM's "big picture". The emphasis is on GM transparency. The rulebooks have a lot to say about how to integrate/reconcile GM "big picture" with player-authored PC dramatic needs, with various examples. It's the closest BW gets, at least as its designer present it, to the PbtA idea of "ask question and build on the answers". So if/when this sort of "saying 'no'" occurs, _if it is a shock to the player then that means something has gone wrong in the play of the game_. Not necessarily fatally wrong or irrecoverably wrong, but wrong nevertheless. I think this is different from the "living world" sandbox, where the player being shocked in this way is fair game.

Soft moves are standard fare for scene-framing in BW (and for me, by extrapolation given how I approach it, Classic Traveller). _You drop out of jump space at Planet X. You detect many Imperial vessels about - X must be under attack or interdiction_ is fair game. _You drop out of jump space at Planet X - you're under fire from multiple Imperial vessels _is not. The former opens the door to the use of Admin, Bribery, Liaison, Leadership etc to manage interactions with the NPCs - a core part of the game system - whereas the latter is (in Traveller) an incredibly hard move. (In a Star Wars-type game of course maybe that could be a fair soft move, opening up the door to raisings of shields, evasive action, powering down the droids, etc.)

Is it fair, in Classic Traveller, for the GM to frame _You drop out of jump space at Planet X. You detect many Imperial vessels about - the same armada that you were previously fleeing from and that surely recognise your ship_? That would be highly, highly contextual. It's like the framing being _You wake to find the assassin standing over you, a knife at your throat_. In a lot of context that might be an unfair hosing of the player. But in some it might not be.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> No, I don't think this the case. It isn't and it wasn't for me when I read the paragraph in question. Up to that point for me at least, things were either tied to locations on the map or they were tied to events the GM wanted to happen. Obviously it is an approach many GMs can take regardless. But I have said again and again it isn't unique to living worlds.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But I have definitely been in games where NPCs are rooted more to a spot, are not acting like living pieces on the board (but maybe in service to some plot: a good example of this is simply having an NPC show up at a dramatically appropriate time, rather than when they would act: as Crawford said about them acting when they are ready to act).



When you referred to _characters_ in the post that I replied to I took you to mean _player characters_. If you mean _NPCs_ - "you are operating on the model of Ravenloft when you run the setting (and that matters: you can't just say 'its all active creation-its all 'the fiction'). The [NPCs] are imaginary pieces moving in the imaginary model of ravenloft" - then I agree that that is not trivially true of all RPGing. But we are now back in the realm of the GM making up imaginary things.



Bedrockgames said:


> But this brings us right back to the modeling I was talking about. It didn't exist simply because you said so, or simply because you told the players it did. It was there as part of the model, prior to that. So while obviously you talking to the players is part of how players explore that model, there is a model that exists outside you and the players (the shaft's existence isn't dependent on  the conversation between you and the players: it is dependent on the model). Sure that map existed on a page. But that map could just as easily exist in a GM's mind , and the same level of objective exploration could take place



When I refer to _the GM's notes_, you say - _no, it's not notes, it's the GM's mental model_. Then when I change my vocabulary, at your request, to refer to the GM's conception you say - _no, it's not something the GM just conceived of, it's the GM's notes_.

I don't really care which one you want to emphasise. My point is simply that _at some point the GM makes some stuff up_, and then _the GM during play communicates that stuff to the players_. I've never said that what is made up is arbitrary or pointless. I've never said that the communication is arbitrary or pointless. My point is that _it is taking place and is key to how this particular sort of RPGing works_.

There is no objective model of Ravenloft which answers the question _where should this character be right now, and what is she doing?_ That has to be decided.



Bedrockgames said:


> History isn't perfectly predictable like math, but events flow from one to another. You can see the logic and you can anticipate future possibilities.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> events might be unpredictable, but they do have a rhyme and reason. But even a granular exchange isn't total chaos. We can follow a conversation between two people and understand how it gets from point A to B to C. And when we run a game we simply doing our best to achieve that kind of fidelity to what is plausible



If you were GMing a game of subversives and insurrectionists in the early 20th century Balkans, would you extrapolate from the assassination of the Archduke to the death of many many millions of soldiers across Europe and its near neighbours, and the collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish and Russian governments?

I had conversations yesterday which ended up in places I didn't predict at the start.

_Plausibility _is not a constraint that yields unique answers. _Anticipation of possibilities _likewise does not yield unique answers. That's why the language of "model" is misleading, once we get beyond a map which might permit simple distance and timescale calculations- and even those are very limited (eg I don't know of any version of D&D that allows for sprained ankles causing a change in a PC's movement rate).



Bedrockgames said:


> if you accept the notes as a kind of model, then surely you can't reject my argument that there is a mental modeling going on.



There's no _model_. There's a description of an imagined place or situation. Which is then referred to to facilitate framing and, in some approaches to RPGing, resolution.



Bedrockgames said:


> No one is saying you can extract information about he model that the GM hasn't told you. But you could explore it room to room and get a sense of the overall structure based on what is emerging, provided he is accurately conveying the model details to you.



The phrase _what is emerging_ is just euphemism for _what the GM tells the players_. _Exploring room to room _just means _declaring actions that provoke the GM to do some of that telling_._ Getting a sense of the overall structure _is another way of saying _learn what the GM is imagining abot the house_.

And if the GM hasn't written down whether the dining table is oak or pine, there is no "model" that will answer that question. Someone will have to make a decision.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> There is no objective model of Ravenloft which answers the question _where should this character be right now, and what is she doing?_ That has to be decided.




Ravenloft is probably not serviceable here simply because its nature makes it amorphous (and one could argue that a character need not be in any one place at the whim of the mists), but if you take a typical setting, I would disagree somewhat here. Granted I can't look at a map of my world and say "Bronze Master must be here". However I can look at a map of my world once Bronze master is in play and say "he can only have reached these places". Further I can look at a map of the setting and narrow down locations he is likely to be based on the setting details, what is on the map, and what I know about Bronze master. These are all details I've created. I am not denying the act of creation. But I am saying it isn't as simple as "living world doesn't exist objectively" and "living world exists objectively" something is clearly being modeled that can place objective parameters on things and can be used as a kind of primitive (or not so primitive depending on your viewpoint) simulation of a setting. Will every GM look at that map and reach the same conclusions? No, but it also isn't arbitrary: there are places noted on the map where Bronze Master resides, where he is known to travel, and there are even tables for helping determine if he shows up in a particular place (but importantly those tables would not be allowed to violate things like distance if he were already established to have been somewhere else, and getting to the location in question is too far).


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how this process of the players asking questions from you, or otherwise prompting you to share this sort of information with them, does not count as you communicating to them your conception of the fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes it sound as though the fiction is mostly-mine, and the experience feels like entirely-ours. *It appears to miss the possibility that I don't know that I know the answer to a given question before asked *(which is why I've talked about free-writing fiction as a comparison).
Click to expand...


I don't understand why you assert the bolded bit.

I think it's very common in RPGing for the GM to not know an answer to a question before it is asked. The GM then makes up an answer, having regard to whatever constraints the system and the context require. For instance, in my most recent Traveller session the PCs travelled to a gas giant moon that they knew to have been of interest to psionically-inclined aliens 2 billion years ago. I therefore had to narrate something about the moon. Here's how I did that:



pemerton said:


> Looking at the information I had generated for this moon - an orbit barely more than 100,000 km above a small gas giant, with a rapid orbital period - suggested severe "tides" that would make it highly volcanic. I had also generated a population in the neighbourhood of 10,000 people. So I explained to the players that the moon is populated by miners engaged in mineral-extraction-from-magma operations, a bit like oil wells but using complex ceramic structures.



I didn't know this in advance. I made it up on the spot. And then told the players. There was probably some back-and-forth in that - one of the players is an engineer who sometimes winces at my "science" - but the quoted passage gives the gist.

In the same session, one of the PCs, Alissa, was put on trial by the NPC Toru von Taxiwan. The trial was being held inside a pinnace - a small spacefaring vessel with capacity for 8 passengers/crew. Here's how that unfolded:



pemerton said:


> I said that Toru stood at the bridge of the pinnace while the others (3 NPCs, Bobby and Alissa) sat on the couches. Alissa's player then asked (as Alissa) to be allowed to speak in her defence. So she went to the bridge while Toru went to the couches.



The description began with me. But it was Alissa's player who established that Alissa went to the bridge when she spoke in her defence, after having first established that she could speak in her defence. I went along with all of this as GM: I had no prior conception of how a Taxiwanian trial would proceed.

The bit about the moon I would count as an instance of _the players learning what is in the GM's notes_. The bit about the trial I would not.



prabe said:


> It seems to ignore that the players can change the fiction, or that they can change my conception of the fiction (which might be two different things, or they might not).



Obviously the players in my Traveller game might change the fiction, in the sense that (eg) they could use their starship beam lasers to destroy some or even all of the mining structures. (They probably can't change the orbit or volcanic character of the moon). In the case of the trial they did change the fiction - the player had his PC blow everyone else up with a concealed grenade. This was in fact why he wanted to establish that he went to the front of the pinnace.

But changing the established fiction (which I think is what you mean - as opposed to _adding _to it as happened in the play of the trial) requires the fiction to be established. And that has to come from someone.



prabe said:


> A possibly unrelated question: From where you are, how much difference do you see between the posters here who have advocated strongly for a "living world" and my self-description?



I find it hard to tell. I get the feeling that your play might be similar to @Maxperson's, though I think you are a bit more self-conscious about techniques. I think both of you are different from @Bedrockgames who is in turn, I think, different from @Emerikol. But those are just impressions formed on a very thin evidence base.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Roleplay is not action declaration.  Often there is no action being declared at all and no rolls involved, yet it shapes how play progresses.



I don't understand this. What do you mean by _action declaration_. I mean a player saying what his/her PC does - if what his/her PC does is speak some words, then often that just takes the form of _the player speaking those words as if s/he were the character_.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> If you were GMing a game of subversives and insurrectionists in the early 20th century Balkans, would you extrapolate from the assassination of the Archduke to the death of many many millions of soldiers across Europe and its near neighbours, and the collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish and Russian governments?




This is well outside my area of interest (I've read a few books on WWI, and taken a survey course, but this isn't something I've developed a lot of deep knowledge of). But that said, I think in cases like this, it is really hard to say because our knowledge of how things played out makes it pretty impossible to know how well one would predict perfectly what unfolded. And I can't therefore say what my extrapolation would be. I imagine someone with good knowledge of the various treaties and alliances, and the politics of the time, might be able to determine that this act would result in a more expansive conflict. But some events are obviously unique or firsts of their kind so it is going to be hard. It is like the saying, history doesn't repeat so much as rhyme. But this is the point of counterfactuals. Counterfactual was always looked down upon when I was a student (like biography). But I always enjoyed the thought exercise of counterfactual and the way biography personalizes history. I think with a game world it is more about using those kinds of historical patterns to figure out what you think is the likely course of events. On the macro scale I think this is sufficient. On the micro scale I think things are much easier because you are thinking about things like how NPCs you created would react to something like an assassination. With the macro level 'assassination of the duke', there are going to be a lot of unknowns as well so there is wiggle room for the GM saying okay these factors all point to this happening, but I think this X factor is going to shake things up. That is all fair. No one is saying the GM can't actively create in this process, the GM should be doing that, but if your goal is a living world, you are generally applying your best logic (and really since you are the source of the model, your best logic is all that is needed: the players will come to understand generally the rhythm and pattern of your choices I think---i.e. "in Brendan's world we can expect during farming offseason, especially one with a famine like this, that many of the local farmers will resort to banditry, now may be the ideal time for us to recruit men to build an army and attack the duke's forces". That sort of thinking is based on real world history, but it recurs enough in campaigns that it is a pattern the players can see (and it was a pattern that people living in history discerned in the real world). 

What you can do in a game setting is use an event like this as a model (I draw on historical analogues all the time when I am trying to reason through how something will pan out: i.e. well when the Romans experienced a devastating plague it eventually led to the decline of the western empire). And if you are dealing with something like a political assassination, you do know things about your setting that will help guide you into dealing with the outcome. For example if you understand the political structure and who has executive control in that region, what law enforcement mechanisms are in place (i.e. is this a matter the sheriff and his constables handle, or is this for the patrolling inspector, or is it for the local general and his army to handle), etc you can determine things fairly logical, perhaps with some rolls to reflect unknowns.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> That fact does change the process of how they learned about it, though.  Unless you simply told them in session 1 before they ever got to a complex, "Hey, there's a complex with a shaft in it.  I read about it in the module," there are more steps in the process which you are ignoring here.  You are ignoring that they first had to make choices and explore to the point where the reached the shaft and trigger your statement to them



What do you mean _I'm ignoring it_. I'm telling you what happened at the table! The PCs were in an alien complex. Their players said things to the effect of _Now we check out what's over there_. And I told them about the shaft with the giant pendulum.

That is a true description of what happened. I know. I was there!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> There's no _model_. There's a description of an imagined place or situation. Which is then referred to to facilitate framing and, in some approaches to RPGing, resolution.




This is where we disagree. I think there is a model, and it is a product of the GMs notes, maps, NPC descriptions, the GMs thinking on what is going on in the campaign setting, etc. There is an image the GM is sustaining that he is meant to refer to when making decisions about the present situation. There isn't just the present. There is the surrounding imaginary world (and I think calling that  a model is reasonable here. If you disagree that is fair. I can't force you to agree, and you can't force me to agree with you. I think we have both made pretty persuasive cases for our positions.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this. What do you mean by _action declaration_. I mean a player saying what his/her PC does - if what his/her PC does is speak some words, then often that just takes the form of _the player speaking those words as if s/he were the character_.



In games that I've played, which include primarily D&D, actions are more mechanical in nature.  I break the door down.  I throw the rock at the window.  I stab the goblin.  Roleplaying, and yes I understand that simply playing a role is roleplaying, but in the context that I'm using it here, is interaction with NPCs.  There may end up being mechanics involved in the form of skill rolls, but those don't have to happen and the player doesn't generally call for those.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Ravenloft is probably not serviceable here simply because its nature makes it amorphous



I only mentioned it because you did.



Bedrockgames said:


> There is knowledge. Again, no one is saying he is going off somewhere to verify the facts at a library how the faction would act. But he is checking against his own canon for the setting (which is part of the model: and that is going to include fact he has established in his head, facts he has written down, principles he has laid out governing how things work in the setting, in the subculture the organizations in question belong to, etc). If I make a faction and give them a clear set of motivations, goals, conflicts, etc; it is very easy for me to know how they will respond to certain actions taken by the party, and it is very easy to think through their response to make sure it is logical outgrowth of things existent in the sect





Bedrockgames said:


> Again, this isn't just a decision. Maxperson has to consult his model of the setting to weigh and judge what courses of action would result from the assassination. Maybe he doesn't have information on that, and will make things up. Maybe though he has the Duke's family tree laid out, the line of succession, the political and legal structures described enough that he knows what the standard procedures are going to be when a duke is assassinated. He has to assess his setting details and his NPCs.





Bedrockgames said:


> But this is the point of counterfactuals. Counterfactual was always looked down upon when I was a student (like biography). But I always enjoyed the thought exercise of counterfactual and the way biography personalizes history. I think with a game world it is more about using those kinds of historical patterns to figure out what you think is the likely course of events.



Are you asserting that there are unique solutions here, like 2+2 =4? I can't tell.

What I will add is that _only one thing occurs to me_ is not the same thing as a unique solution. The point of a unique solution is that anyone who considers the parameters and reasons correctly will arrive at it.



Bedrockgames said:


> This is well outside my area of interest (I've read a few books on WWI, and taken a survey course, but this isn't something I've developed a lot of deep knowledge of). But that said, I think in cases like this, it is really hard to say because our knowledge of how things played out makes it pretty impossible to know how well one would predict perfectly what unfolded. And I can't therefore say what my extrapolation would be. I imagine someone with good knowledge of the various treaties and alliances, and the politics of the time, might be able to determine that this act would result in a more expansive conflict.



I chose this example because it's low-hanging fruit: there is so much written about what was or was not inevitable in relation to the First World War that I think it amply demonstrates my point about a lack of unique solutions.

But the more general point is that _there is almost always more than one plausible way things can unfold_. Even with your factions - suppose that the party's action involves a lost kitten. How do we know that the faction leader doesn't have a soft spot for lost kittens, dating from his/her own childhood, which affects how s/he responds to what the PCs do?

The answer seems to be _we know that because the GM hasn't thought of it_. And when the players learn that the faction leader is as heartless towards lost kittens as s/he is to everyone and everything else, then the players are learning that fact about what the GM thought of.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I only mentioned it because you did.



I realize that. It just occurred to me Ravenloft is probably not the best example for me to have brought up because of its nature


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Are you asserting that there are unique solutions here, like 2+2 =4? I can't tell.




No, more like there are better conclusions and worse conclusions about where he might be. And sometimes there will be 2+2=4 situations (you may know where is he is based on circumstance and setting details in some situations---or at least have a 99 percent level of certainty barring freak occurrences).


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> This is where we disagree. I think there is a model, and it is a product of the GMs notes, maps, NPC descriptions, the GMs thinking on what is going on in the campaign setting, etc. There is an image the GM is sustaining that he is meant to refer to when making decisions about the present situation. There isn't just the present. There is the surrounding imaginary world (and I think calling that  a model is reasonable here. If you disagree that is fair. I can't force you to agree, and you can't force me to agree with you. I think we have both made pretty persuasive cases for our positions.



Where does this model exist? I presume you mean (in your case anyway) that it exists in your mind. It seems odd to tell someone else that a model exists in their mind though, at least when they contend that it does not. Arguing about the differences in out mental conceptions of campaign material seems like a fruitless task when no evidence can be brought to the table. I'd stop short of stating the existence of some sort of unified model, personally, as that doesn't match my experience in least in many instances. I'm certainly not "maintaining an image" in any way I can tell. The more developed the setting the more this might be true of course, but it's been an age since I've done serious development of an extensive campaign setting in the form of pre-prepped stuff. I tend to start small these days and work out as necessary.

The extent to which a particular game works without extensive prep, like Dungeon World for example, also puts paid to the notion that an extensive model of some kind need be the reference for adjudication. I'm not saying it _couldn't_ be, or that you aren't describing one kind of GM approach, only that functional RPGs get played without anything of the sort.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> But the more general point is that _there is almost always more than one plausible way things can unfold_. Even with your factions - suppose that the party's action involves a lost kitten. How do we know that the faction leader doesn't have a soft spot for lost kittens, dating from his/her own childhood, which affects how s/he responds to what the PCs do?
> 
> The answer seems to be _we know that because the GM hasn't thought of it_. And when the players learn that the faction leader is as heartless towards lost kittens as s/he is to everyone and everything else, then the players are learning that fact about what the GM thought of.




Sure, I am not saying there is just one logical outcome. But the assertion is there are logical courses of action you can identify. And as in the WWI example, sometimes you need to mix things up with a die roll to make sure it isn't too orderly and predictable. 

In the case of the lost kitten, I think it isn't so important that you arrive at the one correct solution (there isn't a one correct solution). It is more a "based on what I know about this character, about this faction and even about the religion this leader belongs to, I think this would be his reaction to the kitten being lost. A specific detail about the leader's childhood is something I think, just out of fairness of play, the GM should either establish before the campaign starts and stick with it, or leave to a random roll if he doesn't have sufficient character history. But soft spots and sympathies are things I try to establish with my NPCs (and if they aren't there I may try to extrapolate them like I said before from other background details).

No one is denying the GM though of the fact about the leader. Obviously that fact was created by the GM or by one of his procedures. But the point is, if he has in fact put in place a soft spot for kittens with the character (or has put in place a surprising cruelty towards them), then that is something that now exists in the living world and will help drive interactions between the PCs and that NPC. And the players may never know that fact. They may simply encounter it by way of the leader refusing to help them find a lost kitten (or if he is sympathetic to the cause, by giving them enormous resources to find the lost kitten). That detail is part of the model


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Where does this model exist? I presume you mean (in your case anyway) that it exists in your mind. It seems odd to tell someone else that a model exists in their mind though, at least when they contend that it does not. Arguing about the differences in out mental conceptions of campaign material seems like a fruitless task when no evidence can be brought to the table. I'd stop short of stating the existence of some sort of unified model, personally, as that doesn't match my experience in least in many instances. I'm certainly not "maintaining an image" in any way I can tell. The more developed the setting the more this might be true of course, but it's been an age since I've done serious development of an extensive campaign setting in the form of pre-prepped stuff. I tend to start small these days and work out as necessary.
> 
> The extent to which a particular game works without extensive prep, like Dungeon World for example, also puts paid to the notion that an extensive model of some kind need be the reference for adjudication. I'm not saying it _couldn't_ be, or that you aren't describing one kind of GM approach, only that functional RPGs get played without anything of the sort.




I think it exists in your mind but it is a product of a process involving your thoughts, your notes, etc. I am not advocating for a platonic form of the setting or something (though I am sure there are GMs who take this view somewhere). It is a concept. A model. I am not saying it is real. I am saying it resides somewhere in between the two extremes being offered (total non existence, and real). It exists in that it has some objective parameters the GM can track and build on in his mind. When I am running a setting, I am regularly modeling it in my head. I am not saying that is a perfect model. When I likened it to a computer simulation, I made a point of calling it primitive because I am using very remedial instruments (notes, maps, sketches, outlines of institutions, outlines of political structures, descriptions, knowledge of what is happening in the setting, knowledge of what the PCs are doing). It isn't as perfect as a computer model by any stretch. but it s also clearly not the same as a method where there is no attention paid to the setting as a living world model. This isn't something where you always have this mental projection going on in your mind obviously. It stops and starts. But I can imagine it pretty clearly when I think about it (and again not everything: I am not saying I have a zoom in and zoom out objective map of the setting in my head---I am saying I have a workable model). 

And also there can be more worked on and less worked on areas in the setting. Just out of necessity you may decide there is a vast basin to the west, but because you know it isn't likely to come up you don't tend to those details as much as the eastern provinces or something (though eventually you may need to: and there at least ought to be some idea of what is going on in that basin so the eastern provinces aren't in a vacuum).


----------



## Fenris-77

Perhaps the possibility that your particular mental construct might not be a universal occurrence needs to admitted into evidence. Just a thought.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> The extent to which a particular game works without extensive prep, like Dungeon World for example, also puts paid to the notion that an extensive model of some kind need be the reference for adjudication. I'm not saying it _couldn't_ be, or that you aren't describing one kind of GM approach, only that functional RPGs get played without anything of the sort.




I am not quite sure what puts paid to the notion means here. But I do think dungeon world might provide an interesting contrast in approach that could get us at something tangible. But I would have to rely on your description of how dungeon world operates.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Perhaps the possibility that your particular mental construct might not be a universal occurrence needs to admitted into evidence. Just a thought.




Oh, I am not saying this is universal. This is just one approach. And it isn't going to be a good approach for everyone. We all have different ways of thinking and organizing play. This is just how I do it. I get the sense many other world in motion/living world sandbox GMs do the same thing.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it exists in your mind but it is a product of a process involving your thoughts, your notes, etc. I am not advocating for a platonic form of the setting or something (though I am sure there are GMs who take this view somewhere). It is a concept. A model. I am not saying it is real. I am saying it resides somewhere in between the two extremes being offered (total non existence, and real). It exists in that it has some objective parameters the GM can track and build on in his mind. When I am running a setting, I am regularly modeling it in my head. I am not saying that is a perfect model. When I likened it to a computer simulation, I made a point of calling it primitive because I am using very remedial instruments (notes, maps, sketches, outlines of institutions, outlines of political structures, descriptions, knowledge of what is happening in the setting, knowledge of what the PCs are doing). It isn't as perfect as a computer model by any stretch. but it s also clearly not the same as a method where there is no attention paid to the setting as a living world model. This isn't something where you always have this mental projection going on in your mind obviously. It stops and starts. But I can imagine it pretty clearly when I think about it (and again not everything: I am not saying I have a zoom in and zoom out objective map of the setting in my head---I am saying I have a workable model).
> 
> And also there can be more worked on and less worked on areas in the setting. Just out of necessity you may decide there is a vast basin to the west, but because you know it isn't likely to come up you don't tend to those details as much as the eastern provinces or something (though eventually you may need to: and there at least ought to be some idea of what is going on in that basin so the eastern provinces aren't in a vacuum).




I'm curious how your mental model would process the below to come to a result (rather than consulting a game's procedure for building a dice pool > rolling dice > interpreting result based on the action resolution mechanics).  And I'm assuming you wouldn't "go to the dice" here?  This would just be full GM extrapolation.  Consider the following parameters and let me know what your instinct tells you would happen by answering the below questions (in like a sentence):

* Supernatural apocalypse so when people die their spirits don't crossover.  They haunt the world.  The sun "died", cities are tiny "points of light", little enclaves, each having to develop their own means for dealing with the horrific circumstances of the apocalypses.  The land in between is called "The Deathlands" (you can imagine why).

* However, the powers-that-be in the city of Duskvol have engineered a functional but imperfect solution; infrastructure + a small group of personnel capable of preventing their city from being completely overwhelmed by spirits:

_Infrastructure _- Arcane Spirit Bells at an attuned Bellweather Crematorium ring out when someone dies.  This sound channels through the Ghost Field (the arcane fabric of the world) and can only be heard locally.  Deathseeker Crows then release from the belfry and move inexorably toward the ward of the death(s) and circling when they draw nearer the corpse(s).  Back at Bellweather, there are special electroplasmic crematoriums to dissolve the spirit.

_Personnel _- The Spec Ops who handle the missions are few, but they are capable and geared to help them do the work of locating corpse(s) and getting it back to the crematoriums.  This is very time sensitive and a short loop (well within a day...maybe within a few hours).

* Charterhall (where the Bellweather Crematorium is located) is on the far side of the city (Eastern end).  Barrowcleft, the city's breadbasket (any other food must be imported in via the Electro-Rail trains that span The Deathlands and connect the dispirate cities of The Imperium) where The Radiant Farms are located, is situated on the West Wall of the big city.

* A massive death toll erupts, and secretly, in multiple places in Barrowcleft in the middle of the night.  The scale and circumstance of this kind of event would profoundly strain The Spirit Wardens in terms of personnel/capability and finding each body comes with an uncomfortable margin-of-error, despite the resources afforded to the group.



So what happens and how do you mentally model/extrapolate "what happens" based on the above parameters?

1) Is there a massive outbreak of malevolent spirits in Barrowcleft that then feeds back into more spirits (a supernatural pandemic) as new people are killed and the situation force-multiplies?  Is it completely contained?  Partially contained?

2) If it is only partially contained, is there food shortages (and when does it start)?  If its a complete cluster-eff, when does hysteria, famine, and violence (creating another feedback loop) overtake the city? 

3) Does the city's elite rulership try to contain the newspread of the problem to the public?  Or do they get out in front of it and let everyone know the dynamics in play?  How does the public respond?  

4)  Do warring factions temporarily truce under a cease-fire banner due to the bigger fish to fry?  Or do several/all use this as an opportunity?

5)  Does the elite rulership declare martial law on the whole city, just the affected ward, what?  Refugee crisis?  

6)  What resources do they martial in order to address the problem (whatever magnitude you decide it is)?  Do they enlist the public and invest them with temporary authority/capability in order to bulwark the Spirit Wardens ranks?



Procedurally, how do you answer those questions?  All extrapolation?  Some dice?  

If some dice, when, and how is that informed/what does it look like?

Ultimately, what are your answers?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I'm curious how your mental model would process the below to come to a result (rather than consulting a game's procedure for building a dice pool > rolling dice > interpreting result based on the action resolution mechanics).  And I'm assuming you wouldn't "go to the dice" here?  This would just be full GM extrapolation.  Consider the following parameters and let me know what your instinct tells you would happen by answering the below questions (in like a sentence):
> 
> * Supernatural apocalypse so when people die their spirits don't crossover.  They haunt the world.  The sun "died", cities are tiny "points of light", little enclaves, each having to develop their own means for dealing with the horrific circumstances of the apocalypses.  The land in between is called "The Deathlands" (you can imagine why).
> 
> * However, the powers-that-be in the city of Duskvol have engineered a functional but imperfect solution; infrastructure + a small group of personnel capable of preventing their city from being completely overwhelmed by spirits:
> 
> _Infrastructure _- Arcane Spirit Bells at an attuned Bellweather Crematorium ring out when someone dies.  This sound channels through the Ghost Field (the arcane fabric of the world) and can only be heard locally.  Deathseeker Crows then release from the belfry and move inexorably toward the ward of the death(s) and circling when they draw nearer the corpse(s).  Back at Bellweather, there are special electroplasmic crematoriums to dissolve the spirit.
> 
> _Personnel _- The Spec Ops who handle the missions are few, but they are capable and geared to help them do the work of locating corpse(s) and getting it back to the crematoriums.  This is very time sensitive and a short loop (well within a day...maybe within a few hours).
> 
> * Charterhall (where the Bellweather Crematorium is located) is on the far side of the city (Eastern end).  Barrowcleft, the city's breadbasket (any other food must be imported in via the Electro-Rail trains that span The Deathlands and connect the dispirate cities of The Imperium) where The Radiant Farms are located, is situated on the West Wall of the big city.
> 
> * A massive death toll erupts, and secretly, in multiple places in Barrowcleft in the middle of the night.  The scale and circumstance of this kind of event would profoundly strain The Spirit Wardens in terms of personnel/capability and finding each body comes with an uncomfortable margin-of-error, despite the resources afforded to the group.
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens and how do you mentally model/extrapolate "what happens" based on the above parameters?
> 
> 1) Is there a massive outbreak of malevolent spirits in Barrowcleft that then feeds back into more spirits (a supernatural pandemic) as new people are killed and the situation force-multiplies?  Is it completely contained?  Partially contained?
> 
> 2) If it is only partially contained, is there food shortages (and when does it start)?  If its a complete cluster-eff, when does hysteria, famine, and violence (creating another feedback loop) overtake the city?
> 
> 3) Does the city's elite rulership try to contain the newspread of the problem to the public?  Or do they get out in front of it and let everyone know the dynamics in play?  How does the public respond?
> 
> 4)  Do warring factions temporarily truce under a cease-fire banner due to the bigger fish to fry?  Or do several/all use this as an opportunity?
> 
> 5)  Does the elite rulership declare martial law on the whole city, just the affected ward, what?  Refugee crisis?
> 
> 6)  What resources do they martial in order to address the problem (whatever magnitude you decide it is)?  Do they enlist the public and invest them with temporary authority/capability in order to bulwark the Spirit Wardens ranks?
> 
> 
> 
> Procedurally, how do you answer those questions?  All extrapolation?  Some dice?
> 
> If some dice, when, and how is that informed/what does it look like?
> 
> Ultimately, what are your answers?




I am not familiar enough with this setting to really walk through the process on it (and I am quite unclear on many of the events, causes, etc to run that through the procedures and process I would use). I think you need a high degree of familiarity with the setting. For example there was a time when I had a strong enough command of Ravenloft (pre-3E era) to run through situations like you seem to be describing: alas no more! Now I am focused primarily on my own campaign setting. What I can say is if a region in my world for whatever reason was struck by an even that caused a massive death toll, I would try to look at things like what institutions are in place to respond, what are the consequences given the location itself (and the specific nature of the event would determine if this were some kind of expanding threat or just an isolated instance: is it a zombie plague, is it a massive natural disaster, is it a supernatural catastrophe like you describe above--or seem to describe). I would also ask what sects might become involved etc. 

But lets take a much simpler example: an invasion on the border of a major empire. Let's say the Kushen tribes finally decide to invade the Empire via its client kingdom Li Fan which serves as a kind of buffer in the south. The way this kind of event might play out in my game is I would look at the map, look at the size and quality of the invading army, the size and quality of the defenses (in this case how many thousands of men are stationed in the forts along the border) and I would assign d10 dice pools to each side. I might break this process up into stages that represent increments of time, or I might just simply and roll to see whether they manage to take Li Fan (generally for an earth shaking event like this it is going to play out more slowly so there can be a shifting of the 'front line' and an ongoing background changing war). I might also think about things like how is this handled in the capital of the empire, how does Hai'an, a potential enemy south of the empire react, how do the various martial orders react. Much of that is going to be dependent on how successful the Kushen are. This could eventually become a situation where the capital is taken by the Kushen and a new imperial order established and Kushen rule over the people of the empire (which might have an analog in the Mongolian or Jin invasions of the Song Dynasty). But it is also hard to know exactly how this might play out because in a wuxia campaign martial heroes are worth hundreds of men, and player characters can have significant impacts on historical events (this is something Jin Yong actually breaks down into numbers in Legends of Condor Heroes and Return of Condor Heroes, where characters are involved in historical battles and as martial heroes they kind of serve as tanks that just radically imbalance things). 

But to answer these questions: 

*Procedurally, how do you answer those questions?  All extrapolation?  Some dice? *
In the case I outlined above (which I used simply because I am more familiar with the setting and more comfortable making decisions about it): extrapolation and dice for sure. I would definitely want dice involved in something like determining the outcomes of major battles. I would probably chart the course of the Kushen invading forces and try to track the movements of the imperial forces (consider alliances and such as well, and the role of major sects that get involved). Some diplomacy might even be handled by dice because I would still want that x factor (I think I know how Hai'an would respond, but lets put a 10% chance on me being wrong). This probably is akin to the setting solitaire you described earlier, but it is very much in service to the creation of a canvass should the players become involved (and it is up to the players if they want to). Let's say the players don't get involved. Again, it could result in many different things based on how many men each side is losing with each step (they could repel the Kushen, the Kushen could take just the client kingdom, they could just take the client kingdom and some imperial prefectures, they could reach the capital, they could conquer the empire but crumble and quickly be replaced, or they could assert control. The dice will have a significant impact here. Sects and PCs would also potentially have a significant impact (and for sects I would look at how many oppose and how many support the empire, what the levels are of the disciples and leadership, etc). For me the key is I shouldn't know if the Kushen will reach the capital or not. And I shouldn't particularly care if they do. I should try to either figure things out logically and/or resort to dice rolls to chart how that pans out. 

And there may be other things that arise from all this the more I think of it (for example the empire may put out a call to all martial heroes and offer clemency to everyone who answers the call, supernatural forces such as gods could become involved: if the emperor has the mandate of Heaven, then the empire would get bonuses on its rolls, if the emperor doesn't have the mandate of heaven (for this particular emperor I would  have to check my notes on that), the empire would get a penalty (or possibly in both cases, if I think it warrants it, because it is a heavenly mandate: Kushen get a bonus/penalty, the empire gets a bonus/penalty). 

*If some dice, when, and how is that informed/what does it look like?*
I believe I described this above but generally I use dice when there are lots of unknowns or I am unsure or it is something like war (where you can never simply say "logically this side will win----there is always a chance things go another way). I have a few simple systems and procedures for handling war. The simplest is the opposing dice pools I mentioned. I like having various procedures to draw on. But I also have this, which I sometimes use (and I have about three or four variations on this--this one is written with player characters being present in mind, but I use it all the time for conflict where they aren't there, and I have about two or three sect war-sect conflict systems as well):


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand why you assert the bolded bit.
> 
> I think it's very common in RPGing for the GM to not know an answer to a question before it is asked. The GM then makes up an answer, having regard to whatever constraints the system and the context require. For instance, in my most recent Traveller session the PCs travelled to a gas giant moon that they knew to have been of interest to psionically-inclined aliens 2 billion years ago. I therefore had to narrate something about the moon.



So, in that instance, were you playing to discover your own conception of the fiction?

I ask, because my top priority isn't to find out my own thinking on ... setting things. My top priority is to find out what the characters will do. Discovering that information about the Epiphany Machine comes in the form of Ramones lyrics was a salutary side effect. 

I see that below, you describe it as _the players learning the GM's notes_. Are you considering the GM to be a player in this? I'm curious about your thinking regarding the GM's intents and priorities.


pemerton said:


> I didn't know this in advance. I made it up on the spot. And then told the players. There was probably some back-and-forth in that - one of the players is an engineer who sometimes winces at my "science" - but the quoted passage gives the gist.
> 
> In the same session, one of the PCs, Alissa, was put on trial by the NPC Toru von Taxiwan. The trial was being held inside a pinnace - a small spacefaring vessel with capacity for 8 passengers/crew.
> 
> The description began with me. But it was Alissa's player who established that Alissa went to the bridge when she spoke in her defence, after having first established that she could speak in her defence. I went along with all of this as GM: I had no prior conception of how a Taxiwanian trial would proceed.



I had a similar instance where a PC wanted to give a speech to a city council, to try to get them to change the law of the city more than they were intending to. That in-play process, I think, went pretty close to your description of the trial (except no one threw any grenades ...).


pemerton said:


> Obviously the players in my Traveller game might change the fiction, in the sense that (eg) they could use their starship beam lasers to destroy some or even all of the mining structures. (They probably can't change the orbit or volcanic character of the moon). In the case of the trial they did change the fiction - the player had his PC blow everyone else up with a concealed grenade. This was in fact why he wanted to establish that he went to the front of the pinnace.
> 
> But changing the established fiction (which I think is what you mean - as opposed to _adding _to it as happened in the play of the trial) requires the fiction to be established. And that has to come from someone.



I think we are in agreement about something needing to be established before it can be changed. I think I might describe what happened at the trial as the GM and the player/s negotiating some on the framing, and I think I'm more willing to do that than you might anticipate.


pemerton said:


> I find it hard to tell. I get the feeling that your play might be similar to @Maxperson's, though I think you are a bit more self-conscious about techniques. I think both of you are different from @Bedrockgames who is in turn, I think, different from @Emerikol. But those are just impressions formed on a very thin evidence base.



I think I agree with you, mostly. Thanks for answering: It occurs to me that might have come across as putting you on the spot, and I was really more interested in how much difference you saw between the people you are ... arguing with (with varying degrees of heat).


----------



## Campbell

@Bedrockgames 

That seems like fairly anodyne sandbox play to me. The sort of stuff I would do when running RuneQuest, Godbound or Stars Without Number. Lots of high level detail, but pretty impersonal stuff. That's not meant as an insult either. It's a tradeoff. We all have a limited amount of energy and it has to go somewhere. Both away from the today and at the table we need to prioritize. 

One thing I will say is I do believe you can have quality sandbox play while being mindful of the process and creative decisions you are making. It just requires playing the setting with integrity. You can absolutely make decisions for an NPC based on your prep and your sense of the situation without seeing them as having their own volition. I know because I have done it for years in a variety of games. 

I think my biggest issues, both in the commentary in this thread and also historically, from *living world *proponents comes down to what I see is a lack of acknowledging the cognitive limitations all us must deal with and what I personally view as a fairly reductive view of their own play. Basically my personal experience both with other GMs (I have played with and talked to in person) as well as in online communities is a sense that they have found the secret sauce. That they are literal Mentats who do not operate under the same limitations we all face. There also seems to be an erasure of the messier elements of running a game that do not fit their aesthetic goals. Stuff I cannot help but see when I run or play a game.


----------



## Campbell

I think there are some broader cultural differences that extend beyond gaming that can sometimes make these conversations difficult. I work as a software developer, but I have also trained extensively in graphic design and before I joined up with the Army went to film school for a time. I would never use the phrases _mere_ aesthetics or _only_ subjective. The aesthetic, the subjective, and the deeply personal parts of life and media are what make life worth living to me.

The following quote from Aesthetics Are Moral Judgements (a blog entry) summarizes my feelings quite well :



			
				Aesthetics Are Moral Judgements said:
			
		

> For me, personally, my aesthetic sensitivities are _precise_ in a way my moral intuitions aren’t.  My “conscience” will ping perfectly innocent things as “bad”; or it’ll give me logically incoherent results; or it’ll say “everything is bad and everyone is a sinner.” I’ve learned to mistrust my moral intuitions.
> 
> My aesthetic sensibilities, on the other hand, are stable and firm and specific. I can usually articulate why I like what I like; I’m conscious of when I’m changing my mind and why; I’m confident in my tastes; my sophistication seems to increase over time; intellectual subjects that seem “beautiful” to me also seem to turn out to be scientifically fruitful and important.  To the extent that I can judge such things about myself, I’m pretty good at aesthetics.
> 
> It’s easier for me to conceptualize “morality” as “the aesthetics of human relationships” than to go the other way and consider aesthetics as “the morality of art and sensory experience.”  I’m more likely to have an answer to the question “which of these options is more beautiful?” than “which of these options is the right thing to do?”, so sometimes I get to morality _through_ aesthetics. Justice is good because symmetry is beautiful.  Spiteful behavior is bad because resentment is an ugly state to be in.  Preserving life is good, at root, because complexity is more interesting and beautiful than emptiness.  (Which is, again, probably true because I am a living creature and evolutionarily wired to think so; it’s circular; but the aesthetic perspective is more compelling _to me_ than other perspectives.)
> 
> It always puzzles me when people think of aesthetics as a sort of side issue to philosophy, and I know I’ve puzzled people who don’t see why I think they’re central.  Hopefully this gives a somewhat clearer idea of how someone’s internal world can be “built out of aesthetics” to a very large degree.




I also have a tendency to view myself as separate from the communities I am part of. As an individual first and part of the community second. I see a lot of value in questioning the way things have always been done. I work in a space where I am often an agent of change. Viewing processes critically is part of my daily existence.

The impression I often get from folks like @Bedrockgames is that  a significant part of their personal identity comes from being part of the mainstream part of the community. Even when criticism does not apply to the way they play there seems to be an element of questioning orthodoxy that seems to rub them the wrong way.  

For instance I do not believe playing to find out what's in the GM's notes is a very accurate assessment of the sort of game @Bedrockgames describes, but it absolutely does describe a fair portion of more mainstream play. So I am a player in D&D 5e game that has the following features:


An expectation that players will hunt for and follow the GM's linear plot.
An expectation that a significant amount of our enjoyment should come from exploration of the GM's world building and exposition.
Spotlight balancing as an important element of play
Engaging in colorful characterization but not really playing to any particular dramatic needs unless the GM weaves it in.

From my experience this sort of play is pretty typical mainstream play. I think it's important that we are able to actually talk about this stuff. There is a substantial portion of anodyne RPG play that can adequately be described as play to find out what's in the GM's notes. I do it every two weeks.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> The impression I often get from folks like @Bedrockgames is that  a significant part of their personal identity comes from being part of the mainstream part of the community. Even when criticism does not apply to the way they play there seems to be an element of questioning orthodoxy that seems to rub them the wrong way.




You couldn't be more wrong at all about this Campbell


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I think my biggest issues, both in the commentary in this thread and also historically, from *living world *proponents comes down to what I see is a lack of acknowledging the cognitive limitations all us must deal with and what I personally view as a fairly reductive view of their own play. Basically my personal experience both with other GMs (I have played with and talked to in person) as well as in online communities is a sense that they have found the secret sauce. That they are literal Mentats who do not operate under the same limitations we all face. There also seems to be an erasure of the messier elements of running a game that do not fit their aesthetic goals. Stuff I cannot help but see when I run or play a game.




In all honesty Campbell I think this is more a reflections of issues you are carrying into the conversation than anything I am saying at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> @Bedrockgames
> 
> That seems like fairly anodyne sandbox play to me. The sort of stuff I would do when running RuneQuest, Godbound or Stars Without Number. Lots of high level detail, but pretty impersonal stuff. That's not meant as an insult either. It's a tradeoff. We all have a limited amount of energy and it has to go somewhere. Both away from the today and at the table we need to prioritize.




It might be, I don't know (not sure what you mean by impersonal here, so I can't really say). Like I said, Godbound and Stars without Number, those are living world sandboxes. My point about living world is you need both the macro level (which is what I was just describing) and the micro level (the NPCs and factions the players are immediately dealing with). It isn't some high concept, elusive thing. And it isn't something that everyone is going to like (it does involve a  lot of prep, because sandboxes by their nature require that, and it involves  a lot of thinking on your toes and putting elements together rapidly: some GMs seem to have no problem with this, some have great difficulty---like with any style of play). For me, the core concept that makes this click is the idea that things in the setting have volition, treating them like live players in the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> For instance I do not believe playing to find out what's in the GM's notes is a very accurate assessment of the sort of game @Bedrockgames describes, but it absolutely does describe a fair portion of more mainstream play. So I am a player in D&D 5e game that has the following features:
> 
> 
> An expectation that players will hunt for and follow the GM's linear plot.
> An expectation that a significant amount of our enjoyment should come from exploration of the GM's world building and exposition.
> Spotlight balancing as an important element of play
> Engaging in colorful characterization but not really playing to any particular dramatic needs unless the GM weaves it in.
> 
> From my experience this sort of play is pretty typical mainstream play. I think it's important that we are able to actually talk about this stuff. There is a substantial portion of anodyne RPG play that can adequately be described as play to find out what's in the GM's notes. I do it every two weeks.




I have used it as a criticism myself of mainstream play. Heck the very reason why I moved towards sandbox play was because I felt that running adventures during 3E, I might as well hand the players my notes. That was my honest response to those kinds of adventure structures. But as much as that was how I felt about it, I never for a moment honestly believed that was what was drawing people to the game (that for them the point was discovering what was in the GMs notes: clearly they were interested in the interactions that the GMs notes were providing them, in making decisions within that framework that mattered (even if it is a more limited path than I might have desired), etc. And importantly, this was a way of insulting the style because I was fed up with it. It isn't a sound foundation for understanding why people play something and what they are doing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Even when criticism does not apply to the way they play there seems to be an element of questioning orthodoxy that seems to rub them the wrong way.




I have no love of orthodoxy at all. If anything I am probably a contrarian more than orthodox. If you need to affix a negative label to what I do: stubborn and a little annoying I can accept (even my friends would attach that to me at times). Those two are fair criticisms. But I do tend to react negatively when I perceive elitism, so I will defend mainstream tastes against attacks that paint it as simple minded, not enlightened, etc. I don't really play a lot of mainstream games myself (I don't play 5E for example, I like dice pools--which are usually highly disliked in sandbox communities--at least the ones I travel in, etc). I think this might be why you think I am here to defend orthodoxy. Also I do tend to take the stance of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater a lot (but I see that as just being mindful of what you are changing, not being against change)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I think there are some broader cultural differences that extend beyond gaming that can sometimes make these conversations difficult. I work as a software developer, but I have also trained extensively in graphic design and before I joined up with the Army went to film school for a time. I would never use the phrases _mere_ aesthetics or _only_ subjective. The aesthetic, the subjective, and the deeply personal parts of life and media are what make life worth living to me.
> 
> The following quote from Aesthetics Are Moral Judgements (a blog entry) summarizes my feelings quite well :




Definitely much of our disagreement may be here. I read the whole blog entry and couldn't disagree more. I think it is too big a topic and too real worldy to discuss in this thread, but my only agreement with the writer is I like Bach. Beyond that, I think it runs the danger of mistaking the aesthetic for the message (as well as the content for the message).


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> In all honesty Campbell I think this is more a reflections of issues you are carrying into the conversation than anything I am saying at all.



Having had many of those same conversations with similar people, I would say he's entirely correct. Not about you perhaps, but correct none the less. Lots of role players treat their personal style as if its some kind of magic bullet, or that they have discovered or are doing something that other players or GMs don't. Every other style, and games that aren't built to support their style, get characterized as 'less than'. This is the very foundation of one true wayism.


----------



## estar

Bedrockgames said:


> EDIT: Just want to note that the video of me GMing, wasn't a living world sandbox session. It was a playtest of a straight forward dungeon crawl, with a bit of light 'living adventure' thrown in, but mostly it was just run as a standard crawl as I was trying to playtest something. The video in which I was a player, I believe was a sandbox with training wheels session that Rob Conley ran (I could be wrong on that, he would know, but it was a limited scenario: we weren't exploring the full map of the setting or anything in that).




Nominally it was about roleplaying in authentic medieval setting however I used a sandbox adventure that I am writing "Deceits of the Russet Lord" up so it serve and example of how I run adventures in a sandbox campaign. 

While it may have started out as a mission there is no particular way how it could have played out. The only constant is the inciting incident which was the encounter with the young couple in love. Of the 6 groups I ran this for the adventure started to diverge from that point onwards. Starting with how they handled the runaway young couple (a son of the village blacksmith, and the daughter of the local knight).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Having had many of those same conversations with similar people, I would say he's entirely correct. Not about you perhaps, but correct none the less. Lots of role players treat their personal style as if its some kind of magic bullet, or that they have discovered or are doing something that other players or GMs don't. Every other style, and games that aren't built to support their style, get characterized as 'less than'. This is the very foundation of one true wayism.




Every style has people like that in it. I definitely know living world proponents who do that (not seeing them in this thread really). But that critique can be lobbed at any position in this thread: there are people who do that with styles of play and games folks on the other side of the debate are advocating. I usually push back against people saying they have 'the secret sauce' (whether they are proponents of living world sandbox or proponents of a style not my own). This isn't an issue unique to more widespread among living world GMs than others. One of the reasons I jumped in an rejected the premise of the thread is because I felt there was a secret sauce premise baked into the whole GMs notes thing


----------



## Bedrockgames

estar said:


> Nominally it was about roleplaying in authentic medieval setting however I used a sandbox adventure that I am writing "Deceits of the Russet Lord" up so it serve and example of how I run adventures in a sandbox campaign.




Thanks for that Rob (I completely forgot that the session was for the authentic medieval style).


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Every style has people like that in it. I definitely know living world proponents who do that (not seeing them in this thread really). But that critique can be lobbed at any position in this thread: there are people who do that with styles of play and games folks on the other side of the debate are advocating. I usually push back against people saying they have 'the secret sauce' (whether they are proponents of living world sandbox or proponents of a style not my own). This isn't an issue unique to more widespread among living world GMs than others. One of the reasons I jumped in an rejected the premise of the thread is because I felt there was a secret sauce premise baked into the whole GMs notes thing



On the topic of significant misunderstandings would be the above. All the posters that you've been primarily interacting with here have no issues with D&D, sandbox play, or living worlds in general. Nor are any of them advocating for a secret sauce level up for the games they've examined in the course of the discussion (Blades, DW, Traveller etc). The goal has been, and continues to be, to get granular about prep and prep styles in terms of what they actually accomplish at the table. GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do. 

So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Every other style, and games that aren't built to support their style, get characterized as 'less than'. This is the very foundation of one true wayism.




This I do not disagree with, but I think this swings both ways more than people realize. I have definitely seen instances of characterizing a style as less than directed at sandbox and living world (in this thread and in other ones). And this is why I even take time to defend the styles I didn't like that drove me to sandbox. Because I think any analysis that is built around my dislike of something and doesn't try to understand it from the POV of someone within that style, is doomed to misunderstand it. There may be some valid criticisms, but more often than not it is like watching a Lutheran complain about Catholic doctrine, or watching a Catholic complain about Lutheran doctrine. The only time I think either makes headway is when they put their untrue way aside for a moment and truly try to understand the position of the other side. And an even more doomed approach is to try to understand something, in order to attack it. That clouds your analysis.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> On the topic of significant misunderstandings would be the above. All the posters that you've been primarily interacting with here have no issues with D&D, sandbox play, or living worlds in general. Nor are any of them advocating for a secret sauce level up for the games they've examined in the course of the discussion (Blades, DW, Traveller etc). The goal has been, and continues to be, to get granular about prep and prep styles in terms of what they actually accomplish at the table. GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do.




Many of the posters are as you describe, but I don't know how you can post this with a straight face when Pemerton has made a consistent point of attacking the approaches I have advocated and undermining us at every turn in these conversations. I am sorry but that is my impression of his position, and I think it is well warranted (it isn't like I just started engaging his posts yesterday, there is a long history here and a big history of dismissal on his part in my view: we've gone pages of him not even accepting that a living world or sandbox is truly possible in other threads. And 'playing to discover GMs notes' emerged as a point of critique in one fo those threads by Pemerton).


----------



## estar

hawkeyefan said:


> Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?




By summarizing the setting tersely.
Outlining some of the possibilities.
Have a discussion with each player individually and as a group over what they would like play. Or more accurately what they would like to pretend to be or pretend to be doing.
Guide them towards choices that result in a group that would stick together.
When it settled write up a half page or a page of what the character knows generally. And another half page or page of what they know specifically.




hawkeyefan said:


> A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!
> 
> Q: Um....okay, but....how?




Yeah that "living world" kind of vague.



hawkeyefan said:


> This is why I think literal descriptions can come in handy. "I give my NPCs motivations" is much more meaningful to me than "I breathe life into my NPCs".



While a setting has locales what brings it to life are its characters. And what brings a character to life is their personalities, goals, and motivations. All factors that go into how a referee or player roleplays a character. This is not the same as 'acting' or 'immersion'. It about the decision making process that goes into deciding what a character does in a particular situation. It can be fiat, or randomized. The result of the situation could be "acting", it code be acting as oneself with the abilities of the character, it could be third person. But it starts with understanding why a character would do certain things in certain decision. If the answer is clear cut then roleplay it out. If it not than toss some dice and roleplay the result.



hawkeyefan said:


> What we actually do as players and GMs is what I think is needed when we get into this level of discussion or analysis. When it's more beginning stages or general ideas, like "What kinds of campaigns do you enjoy?" a response like "When I feel like I'm exploring a living world" is perfectly fine. I think we're past that point in this specific conversation.




Sure but there need a foundation. My goal is to lay out a pen & paper virtual reality. Create a setting, create some locales, create some character, create their personalities, and goals. Then summarize that up and ask "Does sound like an interesting place and time you want to visit and have adventures in?"

My goal is not to create a narrative or some type of movie or tv experience. At best I will make one feel like they visited and living in a fictional setting like Middle Earth, Babylon 5, or life aboard a Starfleet starship. But but 99 times out of 100 I won't be putting you in the shoes of Aragon, Captain Sheridan, or Capitan Kirk. Either it will be your own character or you with the abilities of a character within that setting (not every hobbyist likes to be an actor).

If you have a related goal for running a campaign that similar to mine then I have some advice that may help. If not, well only some of what I write about will be relevant.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.




Maybe one place to start is to take people at their word over what they are doing in play, and if you don't understand ask for clarification (rather than accuse them of deifying their approach or hiding behind euphemistic language). When you guys talk about clocks, I try to understand them. When you guys talk about player facing stuff, I am trying to understand what it is. I believe you when you say it does what it does. I could sit here and attack every little point you raise about these approaches. That kind of nitpicking is easy to do.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton loves nuanced conversations about definitions, that's certainly true. Up to a point I agree with much of what he's had to say about shifty definitions in the hobby of exactly what that means (re living world). Saying he doesn't think a sandbox is possible is just silly though, he hasn't said that. He's even been up front about the fact that he plays from notes himself. Just because he's insisting on more granularity than you might like isn't the same thing as him bashing anything. No one is forcing you to engage in the definition game. Personally, I see that attempt as a direct result of the extent to which that particular playstyle gets valorized in general as what often gets called 'apex play'. I have no issue with someone asking for more deets there.


----------



## estar

Fenris-77 said:


> So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.



While certainly contributed my share of being aggressive in a discussion or debate." Overall I had a lot of success with the format of.

The problem I am trying to solve
How I went about solving it
The results of having tried the solution.
Written with the attitude, here is some useful to try if you experienced the same issue.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Maybe one place to start is to take people at their word over what they are doing in play, and if you don't understand ask for clarification (rather than accuse them of deifying their approach or hiding behind euphemistic language). When you guys talk about clocks, I try to understand them. When you guys talk about player facing stuff, I am trying to understand what it is. I believe you when you say it does what it does. I could sit here and attack every little point you raise about these approaches. That kind of nitpicking is easy to do.



How to respond here without seeming shirty? You haven't managed to provide examples of play that match the granularity of what some other posters have provided in an attempt to demystify and make clearer some games and mechanics that get routinely misunderstood. No one is attacking your style, but your responses have seemed euphemistic and less than precise in some cases. I think it's a matter of speaking in different registers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do.




The problem is 'GMs Notes' isn't a style. You are taking one aspect of prep and using that to define the style. That is in my view, backwards, and it doesn't describe what you see at a table, even in the most rigid adventure path or dungeon crawl. Notes are part of it for sure. No one in their right mind would deny that you have to map the dungeon, stock it, describe it, as part of the prep process. But the prep process isn't the play process nor is it the style of play.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem is 'GMs Notes' isn't a style. You are taking one aspect of prep and using that to define the style. That is in my view, backwards, and it doesn't describe what you see at a table, even in the most rigid adventure path or dungeon crawl. Notes are part of it for sure. No one in their right mind would deny that you have to map the dungeon, stock it, describe it, as part of the prep process. But the prep process isn't the play process nor is it the style of play.



There is a style that proceeds from GM notes though. Well more than one style, but one specific problematic style. That's been made pretty clear a number of times.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> It might be, I don't know (not sure what you mean by impersonal here, so I can't really say). Like I said, Godbound and Stars without Number, those are living world sandboxes. My point about living world is you need both the macro level (which is what I was just describing) and the micro level (the NPCs and factions the players are immediately dealing with). It isn't some high concept, elusive thing. And it isn't something that everyone is going to like (it does involve a  lot of prep, because sandboxes by their nature require that, and it involves  a lot of thinking on your toes and putting elements together rapidly: some GMs seem to have no problem with this, some have great difficulty---like with any style of play). For me, the core concept that makes this click is the idea that things in the setting have volition, treating them like live players in the game.




What I mean is that you seem incredibly focused on high level details. I am not saying there is no concern for those more personal details. Only that you seem to be much more focused on groups, logistics, and reasoning things out than representing vibrant characters with strong personalities.

We all have limited energy. That energy needs to go somewhere. Putting our focus somewhere means we are not putting it elsewhere. We only have so much time to prep and more importantly so much time and energy at the table. We all have cognitive limitations that cannot be solved by increasing work load.


Imagine we both spend the same amount of time on prep as the standard for analysis. I spend it on developing personal connections to the PCs, the immediate situation, and really developing the NPCs. You spend it on more high level details about troop movements, the interactions of various sects, and the history of your setting. How does that affect play? How do our different priorities affect where the energy and focus is during play?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton loves nuanced conversations about definitions, that's certainly true. Up to a point I agree with much of what he's had to say about shifty definitions in the hobby of exactly what that means (re living world). Saying he doesn't think a sandbox is possible is just silly though, he hasn't said that. He's even been up front about the fact that he plays from notes himself. Just because he's insisting on more granularity than you might like isn't the same thing as him bashing anything. No one is forcing you to engage in the definition game. Personally, I see that attempt as a direct result of the extent to which that particular playstyle gets valorized in general as what often gets called 'apex play'. I have no issue with someone asking for more deets there.




Maybe I am wrong, but that isn't my impression of his posts over many threads at all. What I am saying is he has challenged the viability of a living world sandbox in previous threads many times (and challenged the idea that the GM can present a believable world). He is hostile to this idea and seems to see it as a threat to his approach


----------



## estar

pemerton said:


> Like the thread title asks: what is the point of GM's notes?



They are mnemonics. Any setting has the potential to have the detail and richness of own world. That quite a handful for an individual to keep track of especially for something that enjoyed as a hobby.

And gets better, suppose one is interesting in creating a setting in general? For a novel, for a film, for a RPG campaign? How does one organize the details, to extent details are created.

The ideal is that when a question is asked, we just recall the answer on the spot and quickly move on. But that a lot to ask especially if one is starting out to create a setting. And in my experience the process to get to that point differs for everybody.  Sometimes perfect recall is not even the ideal endpoint if the interest is not there.

Whether perfect recall is the goal or something short of it, a person has to come up with mnemonics as an aid to recall the details of a setting. Ideally that mnemonics should be structured with how one things about the setting, how one organizes information, and most important done in a way that fun and interesting as a hobby.

Unfortunately there are myriad ways of doing this with written GM Notes being only one of the possibilities. I personally organize things in list in chronological order or in a spatial relationship. If ask me about the Kingdom of Kaldor in Harn it is because I have a list of what in Harn in my head and Kaldor is one of the top level entries. I know a great deal about Harn, my own Majestic Wilderlands, Greyhawk, and selected other settings. But more important I remember where I can find the details. Because while I can recite some facts about Kaldor in Harn, I definitely know where on my shelf in which book, and which chapter I can find anything written about Kaldor. 

When It comes to the Majestic Wilderlands, I have more of it in my head than just about any other setting. But even there there are limits. So as with Harn, I know where to go onto my computer or filing box to find the details of a character or locale.

I know the discussion is up to page 95 now. But I hope folks find my insight to the OP useful.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> So, in that instance, were you playing to discover your own conception of the fiction?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I see that below, you describe it as _the players learning the GM's notes_. Are you considering the GM to be a player in this? I'm curious about your thinking regarding the GM's intents and priorities.



I think that when the game is in these "exploration" phases - when the GM is telling the players about the setting their PCs are experiencing - the GM and players are doing very different things, and its rather asymmetrical. I don't see the GM as learning anything (except in the case where s/he is reading the module as s/he goes along!).

Classic Traveller Book 3 (1977 ed, p 8) has this to say about making sense of world profiles (like the one I had generated for the gas giant moon):

At times, the referee (or the players) will find combinations of features which may seem contradictory or unreasonable. Common sense should rule in such cases; either the players or referee will generate a rationale which explains the situation, or an alternative description should be made.​
So when I look at the situation I have - no atmosphere, but quite a few people, with the orbital features I described, and established as having been of interest to the aliens 2 billion years ago, and it having been established that the aliens had a mineral which may well have come from the moon - I have to make something up. _Generate_ something, in the words of the book. What I described in my earlier post is what I came up with!


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but that isn't my impression of his posts over many threads at all. What I am saying is he has challenged the viability of a living world sandbox in previous threads many times (and challenged the idea that the GM can present a believable world). He is hostile to this idea and seems to see it as a threat to his approach



Where have I posted that "sandboxes" aren't possible?

I have posted that they don't author themselves, and that no amount of detail will generate unique solutions like 2+2 = 4.

I have also posted that the "world" that the players "explore" is an idea that the GM has; and that the "exploration" consists in learning things from the GM. You call the GM's idea a "mental model" but I don't agree that it's a model because it doesn't generate unique solutions. And you agree that there is conversation but don't agree that the players learn things from the GM (I don't think) - but I'm still not sure how you think they learn it.



Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton has made a consistent point of attacking the approaches I have advocated and undermining us at every turn in these conversations.



Where have I attacked your approach? I have asked you to describe it, non-metaphorically. And have done my best to make non-metaphoric sense of what you post.



Bedrockgames said:


> And 'playing to discover GMs notes' emerged as a point of critique in one fo those threads by Pemerton).



It's not a "critique". It's a description, of a certain sort of play. If you don't think it describes your play then I don't even get why it bothers you: I'm not particularly applying it to you. In this thread I expressly applied it to @Emerikol, who was talking about enjoying the exploratory aspect of play and learning about the GM's world.


----------



## estar

@pemerton example about using Traveller World Stats is why I make sure I highlight the "Bag of Stuff" when I discuss my approach to running sandbox campaign. As referee we are not omniscience Gods just normal folks with normal abilities ranges of being able to remember stuff trying to have fun with a hobby. But when players go left instead of right we are confronted of having to come up with details great and small one the spot. 

A way to overcome that is to develop a mental "Bag of Stuff". A bunch of generic locales, characters, and personalities that you can put out, tweak a bit and use on the spot. It is rare to have to come with everything needed so often sufficient to just record what you do say and then later flesh it out to whatever level of detail you think is needed or find fun. 

For example think of a peasant hut. Think of what could be in a peasant hut. Think of the layout of a peasant. Now come up with two or three variation of that. (One room, two rooms two rooms with a loft). Then occasionally think about peasant huts, knights, villages reeves, from time to time until you are comfortable with recalling these details. Now you just added to your "Bag of Stuff" and don't have to sweat it if the players decide to enter some random peasant's hut and you don't have anything prepared.

From Traveller it things like different type of Gas Giants, planet types, settlement types. How many ways can a Class E starport with a single building, some tanks and an unimproved landing area can be laid out?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Where have I attacked your approach? I have asked you to describe it, non-metaphorically. And have done my best to make non-metaphoric sense of what you post.



I was talking about previous threads. It is entirely possible my memory is wrong or slanted. But my impression when we’ve discussed sandboxes, living worlds, open worlds, is that you were hostile to them (and very skeptical of a GM to run one where players any kind of real freedom to explore) and felt that an approach where players have more direct control of the fiction was superior.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> There is a style that proceeds from GM notes though. Well more than one style, but one specific problematic style. That's been made pretty clear a number of times.



Which style ? I was not aware a problematic style had been singled out


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I think that when the game is in these "exploration" phases - when the GM is telling the players about the setting their PCs are experiencing - the GM and players are doing very different things, and its rather asymmetrical. I don't see the GM as learning anything (except in the case where s/he is reading the module as s/he goes along!).



Oh, I agree that there's asymmetry between the GM and the players, and what they're experiencing. I think I'm getting at the idea that the GM has goals, intentions, and priorities, and their experience of play of this sort doesn't have to be limited to "play to discover the notes." (Aside: I cannot imagine running a published adventure without having read it first--I find them difficult enough to run, with prep.) So, if the players are playing to discern my conception of the world--which I think covers both "see what's in my notes" and "get me to make something up"--then maybe it can be said that I'm playing to discern the players' conceptions of their characters; I'm playing to find out what the PCs do. If I just wanted to world-build (or otherwise conceptualize settings) I wouldn't have to run a TRPG to do that.


pemerton said:


> So when I look at the situation I have - no atmosphere, but quite a few people, with the orbital features I described, and established as having been of interest to the aliens 2 billion years ago, and it having been established that the aliens had a mineral which may well have come from the moon - I have to make something up. _Generate_ something, in the words of the book. What I described in my earlier post is what I came up with!



Maybe another part of the fun for the GM--other than seeing what the PCs do--is the rush of spontaneous creativity (which is different from the rush of structured creativity, IME). I don't doubt that you find it fun to be put on the spot to make up setting details, like connecting the dots of the generated results for that world; I absolutely enjoy improvising details in-the-moment (like the results of a _legend lore_ I didn't foresee, or figuring out what this thing I noted exists actually _is_) at least as much as sitting alone and working out the political structure/s in a city.


----------



## AnotherGuy

estar said:


> Overall I had a lot of success with the format of.
> 
> The problem I am trying to solve
> How I went about solving it
> The results of having tried the solution.
> Written with the attitude, here is some useful to try if you experienced the same issue.




This is a pretty decent suggestion.
I have a momentous 5e session tonight and I haven't quite figured out the details of the framing and the mechanics for resolving the outcome of a particular event, but if I manage to come up with anything I'm remotely happy with then I will post it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> What I mean is that you seem incredibly focused on high level details. I am not saying there is no concern for those more personal details. Only that you seem to be much more focused on groups, logistics, and reasoning things out than representing vibrant characters with strong personalities.
> 
> We all have limited energy. That energy needs to go somewhere. Putting our focus somewhere means we are not putting it elsewhere. We only have so much time to prep and more importantly so much time and energy at the table. We all have cognitive limitations that cannot be solved by increasing work load.
> 
> 
> Imagine we both spend the same amount of time on prep as the standard for analysis. I spend it on developing personal connections to the PCs, the immediate situation, and really developing the NPCs. You spend it on more high level details about troop movements, the interactions of various sects, and the history of your setting. How does that affect play? How do our different priorities affect where the energy and focus is during play?



I think that impression was created because I was answering a post that asked about managing parts of the world I would call living structures (forces, groups, economies, etc). My approach is actually a combo of that impersonal layer and the personal. A good analogy would be macro history and micro history combined and meeting in the middle (the point of contact being the PCs). I often rely on history as a model for understanding game worlds. Just in case anyone is unfamiliar, macro history, at least as I am using the term (it has other classifications) is based on the large scale approach to history (the long duree of geography, the slow movement of empires and the role of structures like institutions, economies, etc: Fernand Braudel is the iconic example of this kind of approach). Micro history is sometimes called social history and tends to deal with people at the ground level navigating and being affected by those larger forces (the cheese and the worms is the classic example here). So my campaigns are very personal, very cheese and the worms. But I need to tend to larger scale things too


----------



## estar

AnotherGuy said:


> This is a pretty decent suggestion.
> I have a 5e session tonight and I haven't quite figured out the details of the framing and the mechanics for resolving the outcome but if I manage to come up with anything I'm remotely happy with then I will post it.



Sounds Great. What I outlined is a variant of how case law is formatted. What happens in a RPG campaign can be nuanced so following this type of format can be useful to see how people handled various things and learn from their experience.


----------



## estar

Bedrockgames said:


> I think that impression was created because I was answering a post that asked about managing parts of the world I would call living structures (forces, groups, economies, etc). My approach is actually a combo of that impersonal layer and the personal. A good analogy would be macro history and micro history combined and meeting in the middle (the point of contact being the PCs). I often rely on history as a model for understanding game worlds. Just in case anyone is unfamiliar, macro history, at least as I am using the term (it has other classifications) is based on the large scale approach to history (the long duree of geography, the slow movement of empires and the role of structures like institutions, economies, etc: Fernand Braudel is the iconic example of this kind of approach). Micro history is sometimes called social history and tends to deal with people at the ground level navigating and being affected by those larger forces (the cheese and the worms is the classic example here). So my campaigns are very personal, very cheese and the worms. But I need to tend to larger scale things too



I would be interested in seeing you pick out an element or elements of your living structures and how you use that to inform how to roleplay a character in your setting. For example a tax collector or another character in one of your setting's empires.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Imagine we both spend the same amount of time on prep as the standard for analysis. I spend it on developing personal connections to the PCs, the immediate situation, and really developing the NPCs. You spend it on more high level details about troop movements, the interactions of various sects, and the history of your setting. How does that affect play? How do our different priorities affect where the energy and focus is during play?



I am not so sure you have to choose between the two. But in terms of focus let’s say mine is split and the PCs get your undivided attention. My guess, and maybe I am wrong, is you are going to be more okay with the model of the larger world not being as important, maybe even falling by the wayside because your focus is the characters and their perspective. I don’t see anything wrong with that. That is my approach to running a lot of horror adventures (I may have ‘living’ elements I. Terms of nice they are specifically dealing with but my focus isn’t on modeling a larger world. But I see my approach as complimentary to dealing with the personal. After all people live there lives inside all kinds of daily structures. Maybe you go to church, go to a university, participate in a hobby like gaming. That stuff puts characters into a clearer context (if I know a given box is part of Tree Dwelling Nuns, that helps inform my sense of the cfaracters motivations and limitations (I know for example that whatever this character offers to the PCs at this moment, he will need to justify to the abbess (and that she has to weigh how this impacts their alliances and conflicts: plus the sect has a whole belief system that would influence the Npcs behavior)


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> I think my biggest issues, both in the commentary in this thread and also historically, from *living world *proponents comes down to what I see is a lack of acknowledging the cognitive limitations all us must deal with and what I personally view as a fairly reductive view of their own play. Basically my personal experience both with other GMs (I have played with and talked to in person) as well as in online communities is a sense that they have found the secret sauce. That they are literal Mentats who do not operate under the same limitations we all face. There also seems to be an erasure of the messier elements of running a game that do not fit their aesthetic goals. Stuff I cannot help but see when I run or play a game.



That's not unique to Sandbox DMs. Lots of DMs play up their style while attempting to diminish other styles.  I can't tell you how many times(it's too many to remember) DMs here have told me that player facing games are the awesome sauce and if I just understood them it would change everything.

I also don't know what cognitive limitations have to do with anything going on in a living world.  Nobody is suggesting that we can track all of the details like a real world.  We're saying that by putting in some, just some events and natural consequences to PC actions that happen outside of their view, it alters the feel of the game.  It makes it feel like a living, breathing world.  It doesn't take very much more in the way of brainpower to add those things in.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> On the topic of significant misunderstandings would be the above. All the posters that you've been primarily interacting with here have no issues with D&D, sandbox play, or living worlds in general. Nor are any of them advocating for a secret sauce level up for the games they've examined in the course of the discussion (Blades, DW, Traveller etc). The goal has been, and continues to be, to get granular about prep and prep styles in terms of what they actually accomplish at the table. GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do.
> 
> So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.



I don't believe that's entirely accurate.  It may not be what you and Manbearcat do, but Pemerton presents his style in glorious light with the words that he uses, and diminish other styles with words and phrases designed to evoke negative responses, like railroad and play to discover what's in the DMs notes.  He covers it over reasonably well with his language skills, but it's pretty apparent after you've read a few of his longer posts and OPs.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not so sure you have to choose between the two. But in terms of focus let’s say mine is split and the PCs get your undivided attention. My guess, and maybe I am wrong, is you are going to be more okay with the model of the larger world not being as important, maybe even falling by the wayside because your focus is the characters and their perspective. I don’t see anything wrong with that. That is my approach to running a lot of horror adventures (I may have ‘living’ elements I. Terms of nice they are specifically dealing with but my focus isn’t on modeling a larger world. But I see my approach as complimentary to dealing with the personal. After all people live there lives inside all kinds of daily structures. Maybe you go to church, go to a university, participate in a hobby like gaming. That stuff puts characters into a clearer context (if I know a given box is part of Tree Dwelling Nuns, that helps inform my sense of the cfaracters motivations and limitations (I know for example that whatever this character offers to the PCs at this moment, he will need to justify to the abbess (and that she has to weigh how this impacts their alliances and conflicts: plus the sect has a whole belief system that would influence the Npcs behavior)




I am not saying there are only two approaches here. That's a category error. My basic argument is that there is a cost to everything we do - effort spent in one direction is effort that is not available elsewhere. There is also a cognitive cost in that one sort of prep or time spent focusing more on high level strategizing during the session affects our mental processing. That we do not get to have the best of all worlds ever.

What I often get from your commentary seems to imply that these sorts of tradeoffs do not exist for you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

estar said:


> I would be interested in seeing you pick out an element or elements of your living structures and how you use that to inform how to roleplay a character in your setting. For example a tax collector or another character in one of your setting's empires.



See my post above about the sect. Another example would be a local magistrate. I have the power structure mapped out. I know what a county magistrates role is, what a district magistrates role is, what a prefectural magistrates role is. They enforce laws, collect taxes, and promote farming. One of their chief functions is handling bandits through their sheriffs (but there are rival power structures they need to deal with as well). Because they serve the empire they are technically supposed to arrest martial heroes but they often can’t because they lack adequate resources to deal with someone that powerful. I also map out all the magistrates in each region where I can. For example I have a prefecture where each district I made an entry for the magistrate (county level magistrates were too numerous to individually make entries for: at least for me, though I do have many of them as well). I also have a chart with each of them on it showing who their sherif is, who the resident patrolling inspector is, how many men each OBS has; and chart shows which magistrate is loyal, bribed (by whom), etc. same with sheriffs and patrolling inspectors. I also have tracked politics to know what tensions and conflicts create problems for the magistrate. This all helps feed into how I play that magistrate (or the sheriff) when he comes up in play. Players belonging to the 87 Killers, going before a magistrate who is bribed by Lady 87, will be more likely to be released and not charged with a crime. Stuff like that.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Which style ? I was not aware a problematic style had been singled out



I outlined it several (many?) pages ago, mostly so we could discard it as something that any of us were actually talking about. There is a kind of GM for whom their notes are inviolate, by which I mean the notes are their prime concern when it comes to framing and consequences. Those games tend to be very linear and would usually be described as railroads. When the players step outside the notes the GM works to push them back on track. That's none of us here, but it is common for a bunch of reasons.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> There is a style that proceeds from GM notes though. Well more than one style, but one specific problematic style. That's been made pretty clear a number of times.



There are no problematic styles.  There are problematic DMs who abuse certain styles.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> There are no problematic styles.  There are problematic DMs who abuse certain styles.



Um, ok, I guess. I meant problematic in terms of discussions like this. That style makes me want to pull my hair out, but people are free to play what makes them happy. I wanted to separate the idea of notes from the idea of GM force.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> There are no problematic styles.  There are problematic DMs who abuse certain styles.



I think "abuse certain styles" is roughly congruent with "insist on styles the players at their tables don't want." I also think there are some styles that are easier to abuse (@Fenris-77 mentioned treating prep/notes as inviolate, which seems likely to be a problem, if all prep/notes are such--the occasional element here and there seems less likely to be troublesome) and there are, plausibly, some styles that are more likely to be what the players don't want.


----------



## estar

Campbell said:


> That we do not get to have the best of all worlds ever.



Except throughout the life of the campaigns the situation is not static. The best of all worlds is being able to tailor one's approach to the circumstances. Use the tools that be suited for what happening now in the campaign and don't try for a one size fits all approach. It all boil down to how RPGs work in the first place. The players describe how they interact with the setting as their character. The referee describes what happens. The process and level of detail the referee uses to generate that describe can be varied. There no requirement in RPGs that the same approach has to be used every time as circumstance changed. 

The only thing I would recommend that given the same circumstance try to use the same procedures as before. Consistency is a virtue when it comes to encourage players engaging with a setting as their character. 

The problem here is that experience as a referee counts for a lot. The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that fun for all. A novice is pretty dependent on what aid the author of the rulebook gives. Even worse if they are younger and doesn't have much in the way of life experience or learning different subjects. The way around this is to emphasize that any particular method it just one way of handling this. Keep the broader picture in mind as new ideas and system are learned to be used in a campaign.


----------



## estar

Bedrockgames said:


> See my post above about the sect. Another example would be a local magistrate. I have the power structure mapped out. I know what a county magistrates role is, what a district magistrates role is, what a prefectural magistrates role is. They enforce laws, collect taxes, and promote farming. One of their chief functions is handling bandits through their sheriffs (but there are rival power structures they need to deal with as well). Because they serve the empire they are technically supposed to arrest martial heroes but they often can’t because they lack adequate resources to deal with someone that powerful. I also map out all the magistrates in each region where I can. For example I have a prefecture where each district I made an entry for the magistrate (county level magistrates were too numerous to individually make entries for: at least for me, though I do have many of them as well). I also have a chart with each of them on it showing who their sherif is, who the resident patrolling inspector is, how many men each OBS has; and chart shows which magistrate is loyal, bribed (by whom), etc. same with sheriffs and patrolling inspectors. I also have tracked politics to know what tensions and conflicts create problems for the magistrate. This all helps feed into how I play that magistrate (or the sheriff) when he comes up in play. Players belonging to the 87 Killers, going before a magistrate who is bribed by Lady 87, will be more likely to be released and not charged with a crime. Stuff like that.



All good but what are the final steps you take to figure out to roleplay the magistrate who controls district near the border with Xian? He is his own person right? With his own personality and history. So with those notes how you add the final bits to make a character the PCs can roleplay with?


----------



## estar

prabe said:


> "insist on styles the players at their tables don't want."



Sounds like a Human Relationship 101 problem to me. The heart of the advice I give about sandbox campaigns rest on talking with the players to find out what it is they want to play and what they find interesting. If a individual is unable or unwilling to do that. Well my advice on Sandbox Campaigns isn't going to be much use?

Yes every style has consequences. But I think when discussing them we should assume that participants have the Small Group Dynamic 101 part down pat. Otherwise the conversation will spin off to unrelated tangents that basically boil down to "don't be a dick about it and fracking listen to others."


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> I think "abuse certain styles" is roughly congruent with "insist on styles the players at their tables don't want." I also think there are some styles that are easier to abuse (@Fenris-77 mentioned treating prep/notes as inviolate, which seems likely to be a problem, if all prep/notes are such--the occasional element here and there seems less likely to be troublesome) and there are, plausibly, some styles that are more likely to be what the players don't want.



In my experience, it's pretty easy to abuse any style.  Notes aren't supposed to be inviolate any more than a DM in a player facing game is supposed to ignore player input. A bad DM is going to be bad and that's not the fault of the style.  I don't think that traditional note style games are more prone to be abused, but rather since there are so many more of them than other styles, most abusive DMs are among that style of play.


----------



## Campbell

estar said:


> Except throughout the life of the campaigns the situation is not static. The best of all worlds is being able to tailor one's approach to the circumstances. Use the tools that be suited for what happening now in the campaign and don't try for a one size fits all approach. It all boil down to how RPGs work in the first place. The players describe how they interact with the setting as their character. The referee describes what happens. The process and level of detail the referee uses to generate that describe can be varied. There no requirement in RPGs that the same approach has to be used every time as circumstance changed.
> 
> The only thing I would recommend that given the same circumstance try to use the same procedures as before. Consistency is a virtue when it comes to encourage players engaging with a setting as their character.
> 
> The problem here is that experience as a referee counts for a lot. The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that fun for all. A novice is pretty dependent on what aid the author of the rulebook gives. Even worse if they are younger and doesn't have much in the way of life experience or learning different subjects. The way around this is to emphasize that any particular method it just one way of handling this. Keep the broader picture in mind as new ideas and system are learned to be used in a campaign.




This all comes off like magical thinking to me. It also comes off as very professorial. I have been in this game for awhile and have direct experience running games in a variety of ways. Sure experience matters, but it is also specific to the skills and techniques being practiced.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> This all comes off like magical thinking to me. It also comes off as very professorial. I have been in this game for awhile and have direct experience running games in a variety of ways. *Sure experience matters, but it is also specific to the skills and techniques being practiced.*



The bolded portion is exactly what he said.  He said, "The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that is fun for all."  Mastery comes from experience and is related to the specific skills and techniques being practiced.  It also equates to experience.


----------



## prabe

estar said:


> Sounds like a Human Relationship 101 problem to me. The heart of the advice I give about sandbox campaigns rest on talking with the players to find out what it is they want to play and what they find interesting. If a individual is unable or unwilling to do that. Well my advice on Sandbox Campaigns isn't going to be much use?
> 
> Yes every style has consequences. But I think when discussing them we should assume that participants have the Small Group Dynamic 101 part down pat. Otherwise the conversation will spin off to unrelated tangents that basically boil down to "don't be a dick about it and fracking listen to others."



I think most non-game-rule GMing problems are Human Relationship problems. Insisting on GMing in a style the players don't want is an example, and it's at least mostly how I'd define a GM abusing a style. I think the rest of it would be on the lines of not understanding the style you're trying to run. I don't really get the appeal of dungeoncrawls or hexcrawls, so I'm probably not the right GM for either of those styles (and to be clear, the fact I don't get the appeal doesn't mean I think they're wrongbadfun or anything) and any attempt I made at those styles would probably be so wrong (as perceived by someone into those styles) as to seem abusive.

I think there is something to say in favor of game rules that make the social contract stuff more explicit. Way upthread I answered a question about how I was constrained as a GM by my players and/or the social contract, and I don't think any of my answers were in the rules of the game I'm running--which doesn't mean the constraints aren't real, it just means they're specific to me (or the tables I'm GMing).


Maxperson said:


> In my experience, it's pretty easy to abuse any style.  Notes aren't supposed to be inviolate any more than a DM in a player facing game is supposed to ignore player input. A bad DM is going to be bad and that's not the fault of the style.  I don't think that traditional note style games are more prone to be abused, but rather since there are so many more of them than other styles, most abusive DMs are among that style of play.



I do think some styles are easier to abuse than others, but I don't disagree that one can GM any style in bad faith. I agree that it's probable that what you describe as "traditional note style games" are abused more often than some others because they're more common, but I think the main part of the reason they're so common is that's the style most people learn (by running AP-style adventures) and I think the reason they're specifically abused in the "the notes are inviolate" sense is because people learning to GM are probably A) less likely to know the adventures (notes) can/should change and B) less likely to be comfortable changing them.


----------



## Campbell

Maxperson said:


> The bolded portion is exactly what he said.  He said, "The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that is fun for all."  Mastery comes from experience and is related to the specific skills and techniques being practiced.  It also equates to experience.




Experience is not magical. It helps us to better utilize our cognitive limits, not surpass them. We still only have so much work capacity and must choose to prioritize our mental energy. The idea that we do not need to make tradeoffs, that we do not need to specialize to get the best results is fanciful. That's not the way any human endeavor works.


----------



## Bedrockgames

estar said:


> All good but what are the final steps you take to figure out to roleplay the magistrate who controls district near the border with Xian? He is his own person right? With his own personality and history. So with those notes how you add the final bits to make a character the PCs can roleplay with?



Sure he will usually have an entry with background: details like interests, soft spots, family connections, etc. it is the combo of this ground level detail+those macro details I described that helps clarify the character for me. There is also something that occurs when you actually play the character (where it takes on more of a life of its own).


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> Experience is not magical. It helps us to better utilize our cognitive limits, not surpass them. We still only have so much work capacity and must choose to prioritize our mental energy. The idea that we do not need to make tradeoffs, that we do not need to specialize to get the best results is fanciful. That's not the way any human endeavor works.



I think you are selling people short.  I've mastered dozens of board games with different rules and different strategies to win.  I'm very good at them.  I've also played different styles of D&D(not much player facing) and mastered DMing and use a number of different tools to do things.  Not every tool is useful in every circumstance, so the more you master, the better your DMing ability.  

@pemerton, @Ovinomancer, @Manbearcat, and others have all stated that they have played and are good at a number of different styles from tradition to sandbox to player facing, etc.  Are you suggesting that it was a bad idea for them to diversify like that?  That they should have just specialized in one or two styles?  It sounds that way with that response there. If that is what you are suggesting, then I disagree with that.  Mastery of more styles gives you more tools at your disposal to run good games.  

People do have cognitive limits.  I don't think mastery multiple styles and tools hits those limits or amounts to magical thinking.


----------



## estar

Campbell said:


> This all comes off like magical thinking to me. It also comes off as very professorial. I have been in this game for awhile and have direct experience running games in a variety of ways. Sure experience matters, but it is also specific to the skills and techniques being practiced.



Had a while to think about it, write about it, obverse other and practice it since I started playing and refereeing in the late 70s.

The exact mix in the end has to fit with an individual skills and more importantly interests. If one is not interested in other approach then you are stuck with the consequences. Over the years I tried various systems and styles  outside of my wheelhouse and interests so I can improve what I do normally.

So sorry if I sound professorial but short of an entire book that the best summary I can give. If you want to remove the limitations of a style then learn others. Apply these other styles when the circumstances of the campaign warrant their use. This process take time and practice.

If you want a full explanation I suggest browsing the sandbox section of my blog.

Sandbox Fantasy on Bat in the Attic
Managing Sandbox Campaigns on Bat in the Attic


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> It might be, I don't know (not sure what you mean by impersonal here, so I can't really say). Like I said, Godbound and Stars without Number, those are living world sandboxes. My point about living world is you need both the macro level (which is what I was just describing) and the micro level (the NPCs and factions the players are immediately dealing with). *It isn't some high concept, elusive thing.* And it isn't something that everyone is going to like (it does involve a  lot of prep, because sandboxes by their nature require that, and it involves  a lot of thinking on your toes and putting elements together rapidly: some GMs seem to have no problem with this, some have great difficulty---like with any style of play). *For me, the core concept that makes this click is the idea that things in the setting have volition, treating them like live players in the game.*



Your final sentence in bold does sound like you ascribing a high concept descriptor of a "living world" campaign to me. This is not say that "elusive" applies, but it does sound fairly high concept. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I have no love of orthodoxy at all. If anything I am probably a contrarian more than orthodox. If you need to affix a negative label to what I do: stubborn and a little annoying I can accept (even my friends would attach that to me at times). Those two are fair criticisms. *But I do tend to react negatively when I perceive elitism, so I will defend mainstream tastes against attacks that paint it as simple minded, not enlightened, etc.* I don't really play a lot of mainstream games myself (I don't play 5E for example, I like dice pools--which are usually highly disliked in sandbox communities--at least the ones I travel in, etc). I think this might be why you think I am here to defend orthodoxy. Also I do tend to take the stance of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater a lot (but I see that as just being mindful of what you are changing, not being against change)



I think that it is less elitism and more about trying to advocate in favor of a minority, fringe perspective in gaming hobby that is dominated by the D&D (and its ilk) hegemony. I don't think that mainstream perspectives in gaming need _any_ white knights defending it from forum nobodies like us. D&D and its ilk have overwhelmingly won. So what does rushing in to emotionally defend these perspectives actually achieve, especially since the goal of many of these threads is, more often than not (IMHO), about trying to analyze and understand core, basic gaming differences from more analytical perspectives? It is not as if @Fenris-77 or @Campbell always agree with @pemerton on his positions, yet they can push back and criticize without getting into the sort of heated arguments that others do with him. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So maybe it's worth considering whether your purposes would be better served by a change in tact that is more conducive to constructive discussion. 



Bedrockgames said:


> This I do not disagree with, but I think this swings both ways more than people realize. I have definitely seen instances of characterizing a style as less than directed at sandbox and living world (in this thread and in other ones). And this is why I even take time to defend the styles I didn't like that drove me to sandbox. Because I think any analysis that is built around my dislike of something and doesn't try to understand it from the POV of someone within that style, is doomed to misunderstand it. There may be some valid criticisms, but more often than not it is like watching a Lutheran complain about Catholic doctrine, or watching a Catholic complain about Lutheran doctrine. The only time I think either makes headway is when they put their untrue way aside for a moment and truly try to understand the position of the other side. And an even more doomed approach is to try to understand something, in order to attack it. That clouds your analysis.



Part of the issue, which has been brought up numerous times before, is that a number of the main critics have played and do enjoy playing numerous, different games, but that same diversified perspective is not necessarily shared by others who are fighting for their preferred "doctrine." So the whole "both-sides-ism" is clearly something of a false equivalence. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but that isn't my impression of his posts over many threads at all. What I am saying is he has challenged the viability of a living world sandbox in previous threads many times (and challenged the idea that the GM can present a believable world). He is hostile to this idea and seems to see it as a threat to his approach



IMHO, the vast bulk of @pemerton's posts (or an oft recurring underlying motif) has mainly been challenging related ideas pertaining to GM vs. player authorship in sandbox play in regards to creating a consistent or living world. He (and others) has been trying to get you to think more critically about your games and elucidate on them in more concrete (and less abstracted) ways. It is not that GM-authored is bad, but, rather, that player-authored is equally valid. He is primarily "hostile" about anything that questions the validity of his own player-driven play, particularly coming from more traditional GM-fiat perspectives, which often has its fair share of mainstream plus OSR defenders. I think that if you (and a fair share of others) learned how to read "pemertonese," particularly without reading unwarranted hostility or elitism, these threads would be a LOT less prone to needless squabbling. Learn to be as a stream rolling over stones.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Your final sentence in bold does sound like you ascribing a high concept descriptor of a "living world" campaign to me. This is not say that "elusive" applies, but it does sound fairly high concept.




I don’t see it as such. I say clearly this is what makes the concept click for me. It is the mental mechanism I use to connect the concept to the table: if I act as if the box has volition, like how a pc does, it enables me to play them such that a different dynamic is achieved than if I don’t think of them as having that volition (and I might add: there is also a need to focus on that volition so it doesn’t fall by the wayside during play).


----------



## estar

prabe said:


> I think there is something to say in favor of game rules that make the social contract stuff more explicit. Way upthread I answered a question about how I was constrained as a GM by my players and/or the social contract, and I don't think any of my answers were in the rules of the game I'm running--which doesn't mean the constraints aren't real, it just means they're specific to me (or the tables I'm GMing).



My problem with social contract mechanics is that they are cast as mechanics. At least in western civilization it is heavily drilled into folks from a young age that you play a game by its rules or you are cheating. Transferring what should be part of Human Relationship 101 into game mechanics now has different dynamic as a set of game rules. Game mechanics are too rigid of a form to be successful as a guide for human relationship.

Hence my advice to folks that have problem with their gaming group is take a look at the some of the excellent sources on small group dynamics that are out there. Particularly those that focus on motivating and coordinating amateur sports organization (if the campaign has a competitive aspect) and volunteer groups.

For example a player making other uncomfortable (or worse offended OOG) by their roleplaying is no different than a volunteer making their group uncomfortable or offended by how they conduct themselves. There a bunch of nuances that has to be considered and dealt with it if they come up. I been involved long enough and with different type of groups (both gaming and non-gaming) to see the parallels. Enough that whatever Wizards, myself or other gaming authors publish on the topic is going to be inadequate compared to going to a good source by an author who knows the topic of how to deal with small group dynamics.


----------



## Campbell

Maxperson said:


> I think you are selling people short.  I've mastered dozens of board games with different rules and different strategies to win.  I'm very good at them.  I've also played different styles of D&D(not much player facing) and mastered DMing and use a number of different tools to do things.  Not every tool is useful in every circumstance, so the more you master, the better your DMing ability.
> 
> @pemerton, @Ovinomancer, @Manbearcat, and others have all stated that they have played and are good at a number of different styles from tradition to sandbox to player facing, etc.  Are you suggesting that it was a bad idea for them to diversify like that?  That they should have just specialized in one or two styles?  It sounds that way with that response there. If that is what you are suggesting, then I disagree with that.  Mastery of more styles gives you more tools at your disposal to run good games.
> 
> People do have cognitive limits.  I don't think mastery multiple styles and tools hits those limits or amounts to magical thinking.




I am saying that specialization *in the moment* matters. That for any given moment in time or space of time that we cannot serve all masters equally. That specificity of technique matters. Diversity of play helps a good deal, but we cannot experience it all at once. I also play and run games utilizing a variety of techniques. You should know that based on my posting history in this thread and elsewhere. 

I am simply talking about managing cognitive load, mental stress, and effective utilization of our limited energy. It's Athletics 101, but it's also Creativity 101. We all have limitations. Acknowledging and working around our limitations helps us to improve.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Aldarc said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, the vast bulk of @pemerton's posts (or an oft recurring underlying motif) has mainly been challenging related ideas pertaining to GM vs. player authorship in sandbox play in regards to creating a consistent or living world. *He (and others) has been trying to get you to think more critically about your games and elucidate on them in more concrete (and less abstracted) ways. *It is not that GM-authored is bad, but, rather, that player-authored is equally valid. He is primarily "hostile" about anything that questions the validity of his own player-driven play, particularly coming from more traditional GM-fiat perspectives, which often has its fair share of mainstream plus OSR defenders. I think that if you (and a fair share of others) learned how to read "pemertonese," particularly without reading unwarranted hostility or elitism, these threads would be a LOT less prone to needless squabbling. Learn to be as a stream rolling over stones.
Click to expand...



I do think critically about my games. I give them a great deal of thought, and I am equally critical of myself and my own ideas. But that doesn't mean I am going to reach the same conclusions as you and pemerton or put things into he same terms and frameworks as you and pemerton. Me disagreeing with your analysis doesn't mean I am not thinking critically (and by the way, I think you disagreeing with me doesn't reflect anything like that about you either).


----------



## Maxperson

estar said:


> My problem with social contract mechanics is that they are cast as mechanics. At least in western civilization it is heavily drilled into folks from a young age that you play a game by its rules or you are cheating. Transferring what should be part of Human Relationship 101 into game mechanics now has different dynamic as a set of game rules. Game mechanics are too rigid of a form to be successful as a guide for human relationship.



Could you explain that further?  I've seen the social contract used with the force of rules, but not mechanics, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> I am saying that specialization *in the moment* matters. That for any given moment in time or space of time that we cannot serve all masters equally. That specificity of technique matters. Diversity of play helps a good deal, but we cannot experience it all at once. I also play and run games utilizing a variety of techniques. You should know that based on my posting history in this thread and elsewhere.
> 
> I am simply talking about managing cognitive load, mental stress, and effective utilization of our limited energy. It's Athletics 101, but it's also Creativity 101. We all have limitations. Acknowledging and working around our limitations helps us to improve.



Okay.  That makes more sense, but I'm not seeing where that conflicts with what @estar wrote.  He wasn't saying to use multiple techniques at any given moment.  He was saying to draw upon the different techniques that you've mastered and pick the best one for the moment.  You're still specializing and using only one tool, but the more tools you have to draw upon, the more likely you will have one that works great for that moment and results in player fun.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I am not saying there are only two approaches here. That's a category error. My basic argument is that there is a cost to everything we do - effort spent in one direction is effort that is not available elsewhere. There is also a cognitive cost in that one sort of prep or time spent focusing more on high level strategizing during the session affects our mental processing. That we do not get to have the best of all worlds ever.
> 
> What I often get from your commentary seems to imply that these sorts of tradeoffs do not exist for you.




Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by mental trade offs. But I am not suggesting that trade offs don't exist or that you have infinite energy to distribute. I think it is often more about what you like dwelling on, what procedures make sense to you, etc. I know some GMs who focus a lot on acting, and acting out their NPCs, to the point that it is clear a lot of their energy is going in that direction. And they seem to get more energy out of doing that through interacting with people. For them that works and it probably doesn't take much away from drawing the dungeon and populating it. But for me, I would find that exhausting as a GM. It would take away from drawing the dungeon. Thinking about structures in the game world, thinking about NPCs, charting this all out, doesn't feel like work to me if that makes sense. It is a part of the hobby I really like. So it doesn't feel as enervating as the above to me


----------



## estar

Maxperson said:


> Could you explain that further?  I've seen the social contract used with the force of rules, but not mechanics, so I'm not sure what you mean by that.



Consider rules and mechanics to be synonymous in my reply.


----------



## Aldarc

estar said:


> My problem with social contract mechanics is that they are cast as mechanics. At least in western civilization it is heavily drilled into folks from a young age that you play a game by its rules or you are cheating. Transferring what should be part of Human Relationship 101 into game mechanics now has different dynamic as a set of game rules. Game mechanics are too rigid of a form to be successful as a guide for human relationship.



If I'm perfectly honest, this feels like a patronizing "old man yells at clouds" sort of take on the issue of games having explicit social contract mechanics, rules, principles, and guidelines, particularly with the appeals to "western civilization" values that are "drilled into" you bit.



estar said:


> Consider rules and mechanics to be synonymous in my reply.



...doesn't help anything or make it less problematic. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I do think critically about my games. I give them a great deal of thought, and I am equally critical of myself and my own ideas. But that doesn't mean I am going to reach the same conclusions as you and pemerton or put things into he same terms and frameworks as you and pemerton. Me disagreeing with your analysis doesn't mean I am not thinking critically (and by the way, I think you disagreeing with me doesn't reflect anything like that about you either).



I will trust your word that you do think critically about your games. However, I think that the issue is less about the conclusions you reach and more about your ability to express yourself critically and in concrete ways. It often feels like we waste pages upon pages trying to fish basic or concrete answers out of you about your games. Your posts often feel evasive or being overly defensive/sensitive and when we do somehow get answers, they often come across as idealized, romanticized, or genericized. It feels less like it's trying to resist reductionism so much as it does trying to resist anything that goes deeper or beyond this sort of idealized "living world" end aesthetic. So it would be nice if the critical thinking that you do do is more regularly reflected in the content of your postings, particularly in ways that engaged the subject matter rather than expressing how insulted you feel by the word "notes" for the umpteenth million time. I know from the perspective of someone who was reading along in this thread and then later participating that this has been the somewhat regularly frustrating thing about reading your posts.


----------



## Maxperson

estar said:


> Consider rules and mechanics to be synonymous in my reply.



Okay.  Personally, I don't consider them to be one and the same.  Having a rule that one player has to bring potato chips doesn't seem like a mechanic to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Aldarc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will trust your word that you do think critically about your games. However, I think that the issue is less about the conclusions you reach and more about your ability to express yourself critically and in concrete ways. It often feels like we waste pages upon pages trying to fish basic or concrete answers out of you about your games. Your posts often feel evasive or being overly defensive/sensitive and when we do somehow get answers, they often come across as idealized, romanticized, or genericized. It feels less like it's trying to resist reductionism so much as it does trying to resist anything that goes deeper or beyond this sort of idealized "living world" end aesthetic. So it would be nice if the critical thinking that you do do is more regularly reflected in the content of your postings, particularly in ways that engaged the subject matter rather than expressing how insulted you feel by the word "notes" for the umpteenth million time. I know from the perspective of someone who was reading along in this thread and then later participating that this has been the somewhat regularly frustrating thing about reading your posts.
Click to expand...



I don't know Aldarc. I feel I have been offering very clear concrete examples (I have done so in other threads too). I have even posted links to videos and podcast of me playing or running games. I have posted links to my blogs. I have posted sections from my own games (knowing many in the room are hostile towards me). I don't think I have been evasive. In terms of romantic language. I don't know what to say there. Living world is a common expression among sandbox GMs. As are most of the other terms I used (and I was happy to break those terms down, explain how I use them, and explain how I thought other people used them). I do generally resist labels that seem insulting. That isn't that weird. I am sure if I tried to characterize player authored games uncharitably or inaccurately, and insisted I was just doing objective analysis, you guys would object too.


----------



## prabe

estar said:


> My problem with social contract mechanics is that they are cast as mechanics. At least in western civilization it is heavily drilled into folks from a young age that you play a game by its rules or you are cheating. Transferring what should be part of Human Relationship 101 into game mechanics now has different dynamic as a set of game rules. Game mechanics are too rigid of a form to be successful as a guide for human relationship.



I meant something more along the lines of the difference between a social contract around the table concerning, e.g., how much consideration the GM will give the PC's needs/goals/history, and specific rules that tell the people at the table how much consideration will be given. Or, how much and how often authority will be shared around the table. If I want to do that in my 5E games, I need to explicitly hack the system or implicitly hack the social contract; someone running, say, Blades in the Dark has those rules right there.

I don't disagree that game rules are not the way to handle out of game problems, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about games that take some steps to codify the social contract as far as who does what in the game. I suppose in a way I'm talking about table-safety stuff, too (like the X-card) but most of what I've seen in that space is pretty system-agnostic.


----------



## estar

Aldarc said:


> If I'm perfectly honest, this feels like a patronizing "old man yells at clouds" sort of take on the issue of games having explicit social contract mechanics, rules, principles, and guidelines, particularly with the appeals to "western civilization" values that are "drilled into" you bit.



Sorry you feel that way but I can't see how a game author can write a better essay on small group dynamics than somebody who specializes in the subject. 



Aldarc said:


> doesn't help anything or make it less problematic.



A poster asked to clarify what I meant . I did. If you are reading more into my use of mechanics versus rules then you will go nowhere. @Maxperson said "I consider having one player bring the potato chips a rule not a mechanics." I understand his point, and I understand the source of confusion.

Moving on, rather engaging my point whether it better to read a book on small group dynamics versus a game author writing about how to handle dynamics of a small group playing RPGs. You elected to resort to insult. 

If you think an game author has the better insight then good for you. I happen to disagree. I think nearly all the game authors have too narrow of an experience base to offer generally useful advice when it comes to dealing with the nuances of small group dynamics. Especially when there books by authors who studied this as their career. Among the things addressed are how to get folks on the same page about what to do together and to make that process a fair one where everybody is heard. If you expand this to how to deal with amateur sports organizations then you will learn some useful technique to sue when the participant are not just in the group but competing with each other. But competition among players is situational when it comes to RPG and not always applicable. 

If one doesn't want take the time to learn this stuff and go the quick and easy route that fine too. Just don't complain when things come up short and don't work out. Like anything it takes time and study to become good at handling small group dynamics.


----------



## hawkeyefan

So I have two examples in mind, of similar situations in two different games that I've recently run for my players. It was the same players in both cases, all of whom I am familiar with from years of friendship and gaming. One is D&D 5E and the other is Blades in the Dark. Both involve an NPC in the given game who serves as an enemy of the PCs in that game, and specifically as a rival of one PC in particular. I'm gonna describe how my GM Notes came into play for each, and how that facilitated play, or provided some other kind of benefit. 

D&D 5E

NPC villain has connections to PC- both were apprentices to a wizard that the NPC wound up slaying at the behest of an evil faction
Has clear goals that I've set before hand- he's a classic toady in the sense that all he wants is to be treated as an equal among the evil faction, but he will never get that
He is useful to the evil faction, and helps their cause, but is never acknowledged as a true member
As a result, he hates what he has done and what he has become, and those in the evil faction who are his allies- he'd love nothing more than the change to bring it all crashing down around them
He's still unrepentantly evil and horrible- perhaps even more so because of all that he's been through
So he's still currently furthering the ends of the evil faction, but really no longer cares about any of it, and he's just waiting for some moment to try and sabotage all they've done, or else somehow seize power for himself. He's got elements of Gollum and StarScream and similar characters. 

These notes give me a sense of how to portray him. They also indicate some ways in which the PCs could interact with him; clearly, they may want to eliminate him (especially the one whose master he killed), but if they realize how far gone he is, perhaps they could capitalize on that, and turn him into an asset, if not an ally. 

So I have a very strong sense of this character. I know his goals, I can reasonably take some PC action that interacts with him, and then craft his response in a believable way. I'd say this is the way in which my GM Notes help me. I know this guy very well and can reasonably predict how he'd behave in any situation.

The way that they may hinder me is that I've kind of already plotted things out to an extent, haven't I? I mean, exactly how it goes will depend on the PCs, I expect, but still.....certain paths would seem far more likely than others. How much of a hindrance this may be is probably dependent on taste. For my purposes, and for those of my players, there seems to be plenty of opportunity here for player input with the PCs to influence how things go, and so I'm comfortable with it.

Blades in the Dark

NPC villain has connections to a PC - both served in the army together a few years before the start of the game
His goals are not specifically defined, all we know is that there was some kind of falling out or bad blood between the NPC and the PC, and that the NPC is now a vicious killer
I introduced the NPC into a score as a complication on a failed roll- the PC rolled a Failure to try and bluff his way past some officials into a property owned by another faction, and I had the Rival show up- he had not previously been seen in play
As you can see here, the notes are minimal. All I know is that they have a contentious relationship, and that the guy is a vicious killer. I had the guy show up and say something like "Oh if it isn't Cross Coleburn as I live and breathe" and then the NPC guards the PC was trying to trick are onto him. They try and seize the PC, but he manages to make a hasty escape. 

So what was the Rival doing there? Was he affiliated with the faction who owned the property? Was he also working against them like the PCs were? Was it simply chance? Was he there specifically to interfere with the PCs' plans? 

I didn't know the answer to any of these questions at the time. Some of them did indeed get answered in play, but I'm not going to elaborate on them other than to say that the player had some interesting ideas on why he may have been there, and I was able to incorporate those ideas into the game. 

The drawback, if there was one, was that my portrayal of the NPC was based on a very minimal sketch. I didn't have an elaborate backstory to offer ideas on how he'd behave. However, I don't think I needed one. I was actually free to portray him in any way I want. I mean, "vicious killer" and "former soldier" as your touchpoints would seem to yield all manner of NPCs. I was free to depict him how I thought it made sense in that moment.

In this case, having very minimal notes was no hindrance at all. In fact, it was a good thing because this Rival's ultimate role in play was shaped very much by the player, with some input from me and the other players, as well. His presence at the Score actually prompted questions that sparked ideas and creativity, and we were able to harness that creativity, and not watch it go to waste in favor of some idea I already had ahead of time. My portrayal of the NPC instead flavored the backstory that emerged as we determined their relationship and history in play.

It had the added benefit of me as GM being able to be surprised by the situation with this NPC, and the relationship between him and hte rival PC. I hadn't defined their history together, so I was able to be surprised by it. I like that feeling when I GM. I think it's one of the best things that can happen.

***********

Now, these are different games, and neither is right nor wrong. Different people may favor one approach over another. Some players may balk at having any ability to help shape the game's fiction in any way beyond character generation. Some GMs will struggle to come up with ideas if they're not determined ahead of time. 

But ultimately, there are notes involved in both instances, and those notes inform play. It just seems to me that they do so in different ways.


----------



## estar

hawkeyefan said:


> hawkeyefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way that they may hinder me is that I've kind of already plotted things out to an extent, haven't I? I mean, exactly how it goes will depend on the PCs, I expect, but still.....certain paths would seem far more likely than others. How much of a hindrance this may be is probably dependent on taste. For my purposes, and for those of my players, there seems to be plenty of opportunity here for player input with the PCs to influence how things go, and so I'm comfortable with it.
Click to expand...



I say you described tersely how the character exist in the setting. I am not sure what you think the possible hinderances are? Either the NPCs life will intersect the PC's life in which case the prep is useful. If they never do then it wasn't useful except perhaps the enjoyment it brought you while sketching the character out. 

The Blades in the Dark version is even more tersely described with the specific pushed to later. Blades in the Dark is designed in part to facilitate this kind of thing. Very rough sketch first, details fleshed out later in the interest of getting on with play.

The former can be an issue if your time is limited and need to make every moment of prep count. The latter can be an issue because the campaign develops differently as the details are made up after when they are needed. 

None of this is good or bad it just how it is when you use one or the other.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know Aldarc. I feel I have been offering very clear concrete examples (I have done so in other threads too). I have even posted links to videos and podcast of me playing or running games. I have posted links to my blogs. I have posted sections from my own games (knowing many in the room are hostile towards me). I don't think I have been evasive. In terms of romantic language. I don't know what to say there. Living world is a common expression among sandbox GMs. As are most of the other terms I used (and I was happy to break those terms down, explain how I use them, and explain how I thought other people used them). I do generally resist labels that seem insulting. That isn't that weird. I am sure if I tried to characterize player authored games uncharitably or inaccurately, and insisted I was just doing objective analysis, you guys would object too.



But you do know that I am not the only person in this thread who has conveyed similar sentiments about your posting, this includes more amiable people such as @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77, so maybe it's worth reflecting on why your posts have so regularly come across to me and others as often being opaque, evasive, and cagey. There is likely more merit to this than you realize, though this may also be one of your own personal blind spots. 



estar said:


> Sorry you feel that way but I can't see how a game author can write a better essay on small group dynamics than somebody who specializes in the subject.





estar said:


> If you think an game author has the better insight then good for you. I happen to disagree.



I'm not suggesting that game author is better equipped to do so. I'm saying that these frank social contract discussions, guidelines, and principles are useful to have in games and that it's better overall to have them in games than not. It's unreasonable and unrealistic IMHO to expect everyone who picks up a game book to have read an essay on small group dynamics in order to safely run a game, because people won't.



estar said:


> Moving on, rather engaging my point whether it better to read a book on small group dynamics versus a game author writing about how to handle dynamics of a small group playing RPGs. You elected to resort to insult.



You elected to a write your post in a patronizing tone that was dismissive of social contract mechanics, rules, and guidelines that many groups, particularly younger groups, have not only found helpful but increasingly like to see in their games while also beating your chest about "western civilization values."


----------



## Imaro

estar said:


> Had a while to think about it, write about it, obverse other and practice it since I started playing and refereeing in the late 70s.
> 
> The exact mix in the end has to fit with an individual skills and more importantly interests. If one is not interested in other approach then you are stuck with the consequences. Over the years I tried various systems and styles  outside of my wheelhouse and interests so I can improve what I do normally.
> 
> So sorry if I sound professorial but short of an entire book that the best summary I can give. If you want to remove the limitations of a style then learn others. Apply these other styles when the circumstances of the campaign warrant their use. This process take time and practice.
> 
> If you want a full explanation I suggest browsing the sandbox section of my blog.
> 
> Sandbox Fantasy on Bat in the Attic
> Managing Sandbox Campaigns on Bat in the Attic



This is pretty much what I advocated for earlier in the thread.  Get rid of "playstyles" in a strict sense and instead discuss various techniques, when to utilize them and the results they produce... then you can pick the technique that achieves the result you are looking for and fits best for you.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> This is pretty much what I advocated for earlier in the thread.  Get rid of "playstyles" in a strict sense and instead discuss various techniques, when to utilize them and the results they produce... then you can pick the technique that achieves the result you are looking for and fits best for you.



There has mostly been a desire, with a few exceptions, to focus discussion more concretely on specific games, because various games do actively try supporting these techniques through their mechanics, guidelines, and play framework. I think that @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 have both been big advocates for presenting concrete games and their associated techniques that they cultivate. The issue, much as @prabe says, is that some games support certain techniques (or social contract issues regarding player goals, spotlight, etc.) better than others, which may require that you hack or radically change things up.


----------



## hawkeyefan

estar said:


> I say you described tersely how the character exist in the setting. I am not sure what you think the possible hinderances are? Either the NPCs life will intersect the PC's life in which case the prep is useful. If they never do then it wasn't useful except perhaps the enjoyment it brought you while sketching the character out.
> 
> The Blades in the Dark version is even more tersely described with the specific pushed to later. Blades in the Dark is designed in part to facilitate this kind of thing. Very rough sketch first, details fleshed out later in the interest of getting on with play.




Well, as I said the hindrance is that the NPC in my D&D game has more limited trajectories based on what I've decided about him. The dynamic between that NPC and his PC rival is more clearly defined. He has set allies (although his feelings there are conflicted). The way he will interact with the PCs and the gameworld are pre-defined. 

It may not be a hindrance at all to some folks. To others, it may be.



estar said:


> The former can be an issue if your time is limited and need to make every moment of prep count. The latter can be an issue because the campaign develops differently as the details are made up after when they are needed.
> 
> None of this is good or bad it just how it is when you use one or the other.




Right, I said as much in my post, I think. Each may have benefits or drawbacks, but those are subjective and will vary from person to person, and so neither approach is objectively good or bad. 

The result in both cases is an NPC rival of a PC. The two are similar game elements, but crafted in different ways, and so I wanted to share them as the kind of specific example I think helps most in these conversations.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> You elected to a write your post in a patronizing tone that was dismissive of social contract mechanics, rules, and guidelines that many groups, particularly younger groups, have not only found helpful but increasingly like to see in their games while also beating your chest about "western civilization values."




You are bringing assumption to the table here that Estar is not. He was not beating his chest about western values. He was just trying to talk about how people in a lot of English speaking countries are raised when it comes to gaming culture (and he wasn't doing so with commentary). Estar is not a 'save western civilization from X' thinker at all, nor is he a culturally arrogant person.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> But you do know that I am not the only person in this thread who has conveyed similar sentiments about your posting, this includes more amiable people such as @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77, so maybe it's worth reflecting on why your posts have so regularly come across to me and others as often being opaque, evasive, and cagey. There is likely more merit to this than you realize, though this may also be one of your own personal blind spots.




There are a small group of posters here who frequently post together, I would expect them to have similar reactions to my posts. However I have a much easier time communicating with some than others (I don't feel I have an issue communicating with Fenris the way I do with you for example). And I am not saying I am 100% innocent here, I get irritated sometimes and post impulsively. But you've been hostile to me from the beginning. I have been trying to engage what you say and answer honestly. As far as I can tell, your attitude towards me is I should ether get on board and post how you want me to post, or go away.


----------



## estar

prabe said:


> I meant something more along the lines of the difference between a social contract around the table concerning, i.e., how much consideration the GM will give the PC's needs/goals/history, and specific rules that tell the people at the table how much consideration will be given. Or, how much and how often authority will be shared around the table. If I want to do that in my 5E games, I need to explicitly hack the system or implicitly hack the social contract; someone running, say, Blades in the Dark has those rules right there.



My counterpoint that it is not something RPGs need to address. You need to address it and tailor your approach to the group of folks you are gaming with. That you will need to address this issue whether the group decides to play a RPG, a boardgame, a wargame, a card game, go to a LARP event together, and gather online for a MMORPG. And it not all on you either. Each individual there need to take responsibility for their part to make things happen. 

If you have specific problems with individuals or getting the group motivated then there are books available on Amazon that will help better than advice from a game author. Like I said in a previous post, the advice, rules and mechanics that various RPGs have about social contracts can be useful but they are almost never through or cover all the bases. 

Look, I understand if you disagree. All I can say it try it. If it safe, (considering the pandemic and  all)  go to your local library and look at some books on subject. If you are lucky they will have somethings on-line. If not then browse Amazon and other bestseller and pick something. See if it helps. 

While I may thing having social contracts as rules is not ideal, I do see them working for some. It may be that you are one of them. For myself my technique is to pay attention and ask questions. All the time every session. Sure most of the time it friends just talking, but I will make sure I ask about how the campaign is going for them as a group and individuals periodically. I have to remember to do this it is not something that comes naturally. 



prabe said:


> I don't disagree that game rules are not the way to handle out of game problems, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about games that take some steps to codify the social contract as far as who does what in the game. I suppose in a way I'm talking about table-safety stuff, too (like the X-card) but most of what I've seen in that space is pretty system-agnostic.



The question I would ask myself about X-card is what I am doing as a referee (or maybe a player) that makes the individuals uncomfortable to speak up about something they are not having fun with, offended by, or uncomfortable with. Why have things gotten to the point that there needs to be a prop or formal system to signal those things? 

This needs to be dealt with as part of what make a RPG work. In my experience the nuances are best handled by the training I got managing volunteer groups. If X cards work for you and your group then great. It more important have something than nothing at all.


----------



## Fenris-77

I think we've actually managed to collectively hit on an important thing here. Games like _Blades_, or _Dungeon World_, have a very specific style that their mechanics are purpose-designed to foster and support. Talking about them is, at least in that way, pretty easy. Those games still vary from GM to GM of course, but not to the same extent that D&D or OSR games do. With those latter games things change. They lack the same mechanical support for a specific style or approach, that portion of their rules is left very much to the GM or perhaps the table to decide on. Here I'm talking about things like the division of agency or the fashion in which outcomes are driven by player decision making. That's neither a good nor a bad thing, just a thing. But it does result in a much higher variance in GM styles and approaches using the same rules set, and I think it's about as hard, perhaps harder, to compare two different D&D GM styles than it is to compare a Blades GM to a D&D GM because the rules themselves lack specific mechanics that would provide a shared frame of reference.

When you ask a PbtA GM how he works threats in his game, for example, he can point to the idea of fronts and be very specific about how those notes turn into adjudicated outcomes and consequences at his table. D&D or OSR games? No such luck. Each GM in those cases is faced with the problem of trying to elucidate their personal style from scratch, a style that they might well not have formally codified, it's just a collection of learned skills and habits accreted over time. That's not necessarily an easy thing to explain. Personally, I've taken a lot of ideas from PbtA and _Blades_ and codified more of what I do at the table as a GM in those terms, even if might I adjust the specifics to match different systems or desired table outcomes. So for me it's maybe easier to compare my OSR campaign to a _Blades_ campaign. But for someone who hasn't run _Blades_? Maybe more difficult. Frame of reference is, I think, tripping us up a little here.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> You are bringing assumption to the table here that Estar is not. He was not beating his chest about western values. He was just trying to talk about how people in a lot of English speaking countries are raised when it comes to gaming culture (and he wasn't doing so with commentary). Estar is not a 'save western civilization from X' thinker at all, nor is he a culturally arrogant person.



Then his purposes would have been far better served had he not included it at all.



Bedrockgames said:


> There are a small group of posters here who frequently post together, I would expect them to have similar reactions to my posts. However I have a much easier time communicating with some than others (I don't feel I have an issue communicating with Fenris the way I do with you for example). And I am not saying I am 100% innocent here, I get irritated sometimes and post impulsively. *But you've been hostile to me from the beginning.* I have been trying to engage what you say and answer honestly. As far as I can tell, your attitude towards me is I should ether get on board and post how you want me to post, or go away.



As I recall you elected in your first post in this thread to make hostile, passive-aggressive barbs about pemerton. Don't act like some sort of unfairly treated victim when people treat you like you choose to treat others.


----------



## estar

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, as I said the hindrance is that the NPC in my D&D game has more limited trajectories based on what I've decided about him. The dynamic between that NPC and his PC rival is more clearly defined. He has set allies (although his feelings there are conflicted). *The way he will interact with the PCs and the gameworld are pre-defined.*



I view the part I highlighted in bold as a misconception. My advice is to work out how to roleplay the character from first principles every time it comes up. The character's personality. motivations, and goals are what they are but how the character acts on them at that moment in the campaign is not predetermined. At least in my campaign circumstances are too nuanced for me to do that. Instead I look through the character's eyes and imagine what would happen based on what the character see and known. If a bunch of things leap then maybe I will dice for it. Often there one or two things and it straightforward what to do as a result.

The only time something predetermined happens is that the PCs are not around. To be specific what they did or not do hasn't intersected what the NPC is doing or not doing. Then and only then will things proceed in accordance with my notes.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> I think we've actually managed to collectively hit on an important thing here. Games like _Blades_, or _Dungeon World_, have a very specific style that their mechanics are purpose-designed to foster and support. Talking about them is, at least in that way, pretty easy. Those games still vary from GM to GM of course, but not to the same extent that D&D or OSR games do. With those latter games things change. They lack the same mechanical support for a specific style or approach, that portion of their rules is left very much to the GM or perhaps the table to decide on. Here I'm talking about things like the division of agency or the fashion in which outcomes are driven by player decision making. That's neither a good nor a bad thing, just a thing. But it does result in a much higher variance in GM styles and approaches using the same rules set, and I think it's about as hard, perhaps harder, to compare two different D&D GM styles than it is to compare a Blades GM to a D&D GM because the rules themselves lack specific mechanics that would provide a shared frame of reference.
> 
> When you ask a PbtA GM how he works threats in his game, for example, he can point to the idea of fronts and be very specific about how those notes turn into adjudicated outcomes and consequences at his table. D&D or OSR games? No such luck. Each GM in those cases is faced with the problem of trying to elucidate their personal style from scratch, a style that they might well not have formally codified, it's just a collection of learned skills and habits accreted over time. That's not necessarily an easy thing to explain. Personally, I've taken a lot of ideas from PbtA and _Blades_ and codified more of what I do at the table as a GM in those terms, even if might I adjust the specifics to match different systems or desired table outcomes. So for me it's maybe easier to compare my OSR campaign to a _Blades_ campaign. But for someone who hasn't run _Blades_? Maybe more difficult. Frame of reference is, I think, tripping us up a little here.



I would like to second your point here. I think that reframing discussion around games and how they actively support these styles of play would be better than more generalized discussions of living worlds and what not.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Then his purposes would have been far better served had he not included it at all.



Look, I am just explaining to you, Estar isn't the kind of guy you decided he was based on the wording he chose. Do what you want with that information


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> I would like to second your point here. I think that reframing discussion around games and how they actively support these styles of play would be better than more generalized discussions of living worlds and what not.



Also to examine, in any given game, what portions of the matter at hand aren't specifically supported, mechanically, and what GMs decide to do in those cases.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> As I recall you elected in your first post in this thread to make hostile, passive-aggressive barbs about pemerton. Don't act like some sort of unfairly treated victim when people treat you like you choose to treat others.




I definitely take ownership of coming into the thread and stating, as I believed, the title was a trap (because I recognized his wording from one of our arguments earlier). And a bunch of posters chimed in to say I was basically right. But I don't mind taking heat for that particular thing. What I dislike is your steady stream of hostility, which frankly predates this thread.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Look, I am just explaining to you, Estar isn't the kind of guy you decided he was based on the wording he chose. Do what you want with that information



Setting aside the acrimony here for a moment, I will state from personal knowledge that @estar is a chill dude and I've had many enjoyable, interesting, and drama free interactions with him online.


----------



## estar

Aldarc said:


> Then his purposes would have been far better served had he not included it at all.



Unlike you I don't assume. I don't know all the variations of fair play different cultures have. I know enough that they are not the same. So I qualified my answer. You don't know me well enough to have an opinion on what my views on western civilization are. I will say this, every person on this planet deserves a fair shake and respect. Try showing some yourself and doing the same.


----------



## estar

I will say this about general issue of x-cards, social contracts, and small groups dynamics. If these techniques work great! It better to be proactive than not. If this whole issue of doing what right is an interest or concern. Then I recommend taking a leadership course or reading some books on the topics I mentioned. They will help more than you think. In addition many of these have leadership techniques that allow to you get a group going with these things without having them take the time to take the course or read the books. Believe they are aware not everybody has the time or interest so it factored in what they teach you.

And if you are still interested try two or three courses or books. The change in perspective different authors have is illuminating. Now I know it seem like a big ask but understand I did this over the course of decades. So my advice should be taken in the sense if you have time and opportunity do it then. Don't feel you have to drop what you do.


----------



## Fenris-77

Apropos of nothing in particular, every time I read @estar 's name I think of Astar the Robot, star of Canada's most hardcore PSAs and a piece of my childhood. _I'm Astar the robot, I can put my arm back on, you can't, so play safe. _Anyway, as you were gentlemen.


----------



## hawkeyefan

estar said:


> I view the part I highlighted in bold as a misconception. My advice is to work out how to roleplay the character from first principles every time it comes up. The character's personality. motivations, and goals are what they are but how the character acts on them at that moment in the campaign is not predetermined. At least in my campaign circumstances are too nuanced for me to do that. Instead I look through the character's eyes and imagine what would happen based on what the character see and known. If a bunch of things leap then maybe I will dice for it. Often there one or two things and it straightforward what to do as a result.
> 
> The only time something predetermined happens is that the PCs are not around. To be specific what they did or not do hasn't intersected what the NPC is doing or not doing. Then and only then will things proceed in accordance with my notes.




I wouldn't say it's a misconception. I mean, the example is from my game, and that's how I find it to be. The details of the character's history and personality that I've committed to (in so much as I commit to anything prior to it coming up in play) definitely steers things towards certain outcomes, or at least certain paths. 

For instance, I chose to have the NPC be apprenticed to the same wizard as a PC, and that the NPC ultimately killed that wizard. Certainly, I've just put into play a strong potential for some kind of mission of revenge. Now, I did so knowing (or hoping and expecting) that the player would enjoy that idea. But I benefit from that player being a friend of 30 odd years. 

What if I decided that the master wizard had done something to make the NPC apprentice hate him? Maybe he did what he thought he had to do, and is now considered a villain for it? Or.....what if the master wizard hadn't been murdered at all? What if the NPC apprentice balked at the assassination, and then was cursed or damned by the true villain? Those decisions would likely not result in a mission of revenge as readily as what I decided. Maybe then the PC would be looking to save or redeem the NPC? Totally different theme or feeling based entirely on the decision I made as a GM.

And this isn't necessarily good or bad, but it is what happens.

As you go on to say, there could be a myriad of possibilities.....but usually, a couple present themselves as the obvious choices. I think those obvious ones are very dependent on the GM in D&D and similar games. There's less surprise for the GM....less discovery. The more that the GM decides ahead of time, the more things are determined.

I mean, that's one of the main reasons we do so much prep for those games, right? To be prepared.....so that we don't have to make things up on the fly, so that we know what will or at least may happen. The more the GM decides ahead of time, the more things are determined.

Now, that's not to say things are fully predetermined. I feel there's still plenty of room for the players in my D&D game to change things up, and I'll respond accordingly, and maybe a lot will change. Of course that's the case. But I don't know if I'd say the same thing for my Blades game.


----------



## estar

Fenris-77 said:


> Apropos of nothing in particular, every time I read @estar 's name I think of Astar the Robot, star of Canada's most hardcore PSAs and a piece of my childhood. _I'm Astar the robot, I can put my arm back on, you can't, so play safe. _Anyway, as you were gentlemen.



:

It actually a shortened form of my LARP's character name Endless Star a paladin type I played in NERO LARP. My forum picture is me dressed as Endless Star.  Was on the internet pretty early and thus was able to use estar as my username pretty much everywhere. But those days are gone and four letter username are nearly impossible to get. So I just my normal name now.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> There has mostly been a desire, with a few exceptions, to focus discussion more concretely on specific games, because various games do actively try supporting these techniques through their mechanics, guidelines, and play framework. I think that @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 have both been big advocates for presenting concrete games and their associated techniques that they cultivate. The issue, much as @prabe says, is that some games support certain techniques (or social contract issues regarding player goals, spotlight, etc.) better than others, which may require that you hack or radically change things up.




I am in the camp of making a game your own to suit your specific groups needs or desires, so unless a game actively works against a particular technique... I don't see why the conversation should be limited to only games that actively/best support.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I definitely take ownership of coming into the thread and stating, as I believed, the title was a trap (because I recognized his wording from one of our arguments earlier). And a bunch of posters chimed in to say I was basically right. But I don't mind taking heat for that particular thing. What I dislike is your steady stream of hostility, which frankly predates this thread.



That "steady stream of hostility" feels two-sided, and it's about time that you own up to your own culpability in that. 



estar said:


> *Unlike you I don't assume. *I don't know all the variations of fair play different cultures have. I know enough that they are not the same. So I qualified my answer. You don't know me well enough to have an opinion on what my views on western civilization are. I will say this, every person on this planet deserves a fair shake and respect. Try showing some yourself and doing the same.



You don't show respect by treating everyone with patronizing condescension, @estar. You don't show respect by making bold statements like this in bold about me. Get the log out of your own eye before criticizing others.


----------



## estar

hawkeyefan said:


> (snip)
> 
> And this isn't necessarily good or bad, but it is what happens.



Sure and I understand where you coming from.


hawkeyefan said:


> As you go on to say, there could be a myriad of possibilities.....but usually, a couple present themselves as the obvious choices. I think those obvious ones are very dependent on the GM in D&D and similar games. There's less surprise for the GM....less discovery. The more that the GM decides ahead of time, the more things are determined.



Circa 1990 I would agree. Then I played a LARP for a decade and observed what people did when confronted with similar situation. Granted LARPS are no simulation of how it would play out in D&D. It impact was that it opened my eyes to the possibilities. That what I thought was obvious in 1990 it not that obvious especially witnessing so many making choices that were not the obvious ones on I thought would occur.

As a result I altered my process to consider what was plausible, if there was an option or options that were highly probable, like a apprentice taking revenge against a PC having killed their master, then I would dice to see if that would occur. If that didn't happen then I would choose some of the plausible but less likely outcomes. And I began dicing more to reduce my bias over what obvious. The result of doing so was good. Made for better verisimilitude as what happen as the campaign unfold didn't always feel what Rob Conley would have chosen.  Now there were still were time when there was only one choice. But for something like the apprentice seeking revenge. Revenge i.e. killing the guy who kill his master is a pretty big step. And risky. Even for the low stakes of NERO LARP I seen people balk at revenge for many different reason when PvP combat occurred.

Food for thought.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> I am in the camp of making a game your own to suit your specific groups needs or desires, so unless a game actively works against a particular technique... I don't see why the conversation should be limited to only games that actively/best support.




I don't think it needs to be limited in that way. But I think when a game allows for multiple interpretations or processes of play, then you need to explain clearly how you specifically do things. 

For example, when I run D&D 5e, I always openly provide any and all DCs for any checks. I know many GMs who don't share any, and I know plenty who will share some but not others, depending on the circumstances (usually on some kind of attempt to keep player and character knowledge in sync). 

I don't expect everyone to play D&D the way I do, so when the topic of DCs comes up, I'll point out that I always disclose all DCs. 

That's a pretty basic example, but I hope you get the idea.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> That "steady stream of hostility" feels two-sided, and it's about time that you own up to your own culpability in that.



If you want me to be more kindly towards you I am happy to be so. I am not trying to make an enemy of you or anyone else. But when I sense someone is being hostile to me, or someone is insulting me (even if it is concealed under some kind of forum decorum) my pride definitely gets provoked and I will respond, sometimes overly aggressively. Now maybe I said something to you on another thread earlier and I started it and don't realize that. If that is the case, I am happy to own up to my end. But for the time being I think we'd both be better served if we tried to be more charitable towards one another.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think it needs to be limited in that way. But I think when a game allows for multiple interpretations or processes of play, then you need to explain clearly how you specifically do things.
> 
> For example, when I run D&D 5e, I always openly provide any and all DCs for any checks. I know many GMs who don't share any, and I know plenty who will share some but not others, depending on the circumstances (usually on some kind of attempt to keep player and character knowledge in sync).
> 
> I don't expect everyone to play D&D the way I do, so when the topic of DCs comes up, I'll point out that I always disclose all DCs.
> 
> That's a pretty basic example, but I hope you get the idea.




Yep I get the idea, but this is the type of stuff I would rather dig into than discussing the wider umbrella of playstyles which I'm not so sure many games neatly fall into...  Why do you disclose DC's... what is the result you are trying to achieve... How well does it achieve that result... What are the downsides of that technique... What are the upsides... what other techniques could achieve the same result... If there are, why not use those?  

This is the type of stuff I am interested in  hearing about from others.


----------



## Fenris-77

I disclose DCs because i want the difficulty of tasks to be player facing. One, the character would often know how difficult a task is (usually), sonit makes sense. Two, it helps the players make more informed tactical decisions. Both are wins in my book.


----------



## Imaro

Fenris-77 said:


> I disclose DCs because i want the difficulty of tasks to be player facing. One, the character would often know how difficult a task is (usually), sonit makes sense. Two, it helps the players make more informed tactical decisions. Both are wins in my book.




Thanks.  I am curious do the 5e rules dictate that they should or shouldn't be player facing.   I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Fenris-77

Imaro said:


> Thanks.  I am curious do the 5e rules dictate that they should or shouldn't be player facing.   I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.



Honestly, I don't recall. A peril of having played every edition is that sometimes the rules blend together.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> Thanks.  I am curious do the 5e rules dictate that they should or shouldn't be player facing.   I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.



I don't think they say explicitly, but they are written in a 1e/2e style with the DM controlling the world, rules, NPCs, etc., so DM facing.  I think there might be a short paragraph or two that explains different styles, including allowing players more control, though.


----------



## Campbell

My number one priority as a player is a consistent standard for what good play looks like. It does not have to be a game described in any particular book, but the consistent application of both play principles and techniques is critical to me personally. That's also something I try my damnedest to provide to the people I play with. 

What I personally value most in gaming is a shared sense of purpose. It's really what I value most in life. One team. One fight. That's really what draws me to games with more clear objectives. I know what the mission is. In the absence of clear objectives built into a game I will generally try to build that consistency back in.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> My number one priority as a player is a consistent standard for what good play looks like. It does not have to be a game described in any particular book, but the consistent application of both play principles and techniques is critical to me personally. That's also something I try my damnedest to provide to the people I play with.
> 
> What I personally value most in gaming is a shared sense of purpose. It's really what I value most in life. One team. One fight. *That's really what draws me to games with more clear objectives. I know what the mission is. In the absence of clear objectives built into a game I will generally try to build that consistency back in.*



I think that bolded portion is true of almost everyone.  For a sandbox game to run smoothly, you need proactive players that are going to set those goals and then begin pursuing them.  Without that a sanbox fails and you need a game where the DM or RPG itself puts the goals out there.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Yep I get the idea, but this is the type of stuff I would rather dig into than discussing the wider umbrella of playstyles which I'm not so sure many games neatly fall into...  Why do you disclose DC's... what is the result you are trying to achieve... How well does it achieve that result... What are the downsides of that technique... What are the upsides... what other techniques could achieve the same result... If there are, why not use those?
> 
> This is the type of stuff I am interested in  hearing about from others.



Much like Fenris-77, I use it to give players a sense of the difficulty. It's meta-knowledge that communicates an in-character perspective. Also, it makes things more transparent to players, and I don't think that hiding the DC from players really adds much. 

I tell the players the TN in the Cypher System as well. After which point, the players can use their various resources and abilities to overcome that task. The GM doesn't roll, so a lot of the task resolution tends to be player-facing. 

I do this in Index Card RPG as well. Hank Ferinale even recommends putting a d20 in front of players that shows the singular DC (and even AC) of everything in the room. So an entire room (and the monsters therein) may have, for example, a DC/AC of 13. So it's like saying that this is a "DC 13 dungeon room." For some variation: if something is easy, it's -3 of that base number or if it's challenging, it's +3 of that number.


----------



## Campbell

Speaking more generally one of the reasons I like giving out DCs or Target Numbers is because it forces me to make a decision about what is at stake and helps me to stay honest.


----------



## Bedrockgames

i don’t have any problem telling players TNs. If there is a special reason to hide it or make the roll myself secretly, I will do that (for a divination roll for instance), but otherwise telling them TNs doesn’t bug me


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> Games like _Blades_, or _Dungeon World_, have a very specific style that their mechanics are purpose-designed to foster and support. Talking about them is, at least in that way, pretty easy. Those games still vary from GM to GM of course, but not to the same extent that D&D or OSR games do. With those latter games things change. They lack the same mechanical support for a specific style or approach, that portion of their rules is left very much to the GM or perhaps the table to decide on. Here I'm talking about things like the division of agency or the fashion in which outcomes are driven by player decision making.



On the one hand, I agree and what you are saying is pretty apparent to most RPGers who are familiar with a variety of games.

On the other hand, I disagree in the following way: I think the degree of variation or "flexibility" of D&D is easily exaggerated. For instance, Moldvay Basic and Gygax's AD&D do offer mechanical support for a specific style: skilled play dungeon exploration (with rules for doors, traps, treasure in rooms, etc) and in the latter case hexcrawl exploration also. There is also a clear division of agency: the GM decides what is there to discover, and frames it in general terms as a threat to the PCs (eg how much damage will the scything blade do? are there dragons in those hills?) while the players declare where their PCs move, what their PCs look at, who their PCs talk to and who their PCs fight.

There are plenty of people who have used Gygax's AD&D to run political campaigns. But to me that seems like using Dungeon World to run a Moldvay-esque dungeon crawl. In both cases a lot of gaps have to be filled and probably some bits of the rules ignored or papered over. The reason there's more of that "variant D&D" than "variant DW" I think is mostly because nearly every RPGer in the world knows the former, whereas reltively few know the latter. And almost anyone who knows the latter already knows it's not a system one would use to run a skilled-play dungeon crawl.


----------



## Fenris-77

I was talking about the full range of editions, not just the old ones. At that point i don't see a lot of arguments. YMMV I guess.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Yep I get the idea, but this is the type of stuff I would rather dig into than discussing the wider umbrella of playstyles which I'm not so sure many games neatly fall into...  Why do you disclose DC's... what is the result you are trying to achieve... How well does it achieve that result... What are the downsides of that technique... What are the upsides... what other techniques could achieve the same result... If there are, why not use those?
> 
> This is the type of stuff I am interested in  hearing about from others.




Sure. I agree....I'd rather talk about specific processes and what they do or don't do. 

For me, always sharing the DC keeps everything in the open. The players know their chances, and know that nothing is being done to alter the outcome of the roll. It also establishes a clear process of play: they say what they want to do, I say what kind of roll it is (although they may also suggest a specific skill) and I set the DC, and then they roll. 

That routine helps keep expectations set accurately, and streamlines play, and eliminates any chance for me to force an outcome.


----------



## Campbell

Fenris-77 said:


> I was talking about the full range of editions, not just the old ones. At that point i don't see a lot of arguments. YMMV I guess.




I think generally a fair number of people who do not have much experience with general use indie games like Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World tend to oversell how focused indie games are and dramatically undersell how many mostly unspoken expectations inform most mainstream play. I kind of blame a decent portion of this on indie community overselling the notion of the focused game and no real counter marketing now that it is substantially less true.

Speaking personally I know that when I run something like Scion, Exalted, or L5R I would be extremely careful about making the sort of hard moves, dramatic consequences or aggressive framing I utilize when running indie games.  I think it's really important to give players more room to think things through as a group in more traditional/mainstream games. I am also a lot more careful about the sort of questions I ask players and how I ramp up tension.

When running Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World I do things as a GM I would not dream of doing in D&D.


----------



## Imaro

For me whether I share the DC's or not depends on what type of fantasy I am trying to emulate.  If I am trying to emulate the high, pulpy, heroic, etc. type genre then I definitely want the players to know the DC's as these are supposed to be capable and confident heroes and knowing the DC tends to foster this type of play.  That said if I am running a more horror oriented, dark or gritty fantasy style game I will sometimes opt to hide the exact DC.  I like the uncertainty, the tension and even the hesitation it tends to engender in my players and thus their characters is something I associate with those genres.


----------



## prabe

I will generally share the DCs for saves. Some tasks I do, some I don't--some amount of "it depends" (usually comes to whether they can see the whole task before they try, I guess). I'll start announcing ACs after a round or two.


----------



## Arilyn

Campbell said:


> I think generally a fair number of people who do not have much experience with general use indie games like Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World tend to oversell how focused indie games are and dramatically undersell how many mostly unspoken expectations inform most mainstream play. I kind of blame a decent portion of this on indie community overselling the notion of the focused game and no real counter marketing now that it is substantially less true.
> 
> Speaking personally I know that when I run something like Scion, Exalted, or L5R I would be extremely careful about making the sort of hard moves, dramatic consequences or aggressive framing I utilize when running indie games.  I think it's really important to give players more room to think things through as a group in more traditional/mainstream games. I am also a lot more careful about the sort of questions I ask players and how I ramp up tension.
> 
> When running Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World I do things as a GM I would not dream of doing in D&D.




I agree 100%. The games you mentioned play very differently. There's a lot of debate over games like Fate, but Fate plays very much in the traditional space, and is as close to DnD than it is to BitD, for example. I bring up Fate because of the backlash it often receives as not a true rpg, and because I play a lot of Fate. Aspects, fate points, etc. are really just game mechanics. At its basic core, it follows the traditional rpg play loop. This is true for the majority of games, but not true for the games focussed on story now/protagonist play, or whatever the best term is for these games. The participants' roles and expectations are not the same as in traditional RPGs, and is an actual shift away from traditional play. I think this gets missed because people enter the conversation with traditional play in mind.


----------



## Aldarc

Arilyn said:


> I agree 100%. The games you mentioned play very differently. There's a lot of debate over games like Fate, but Fate plays very much in the traditional space, and is as close to DnD than it is to BitD, for example. I bring up Fate because of the backlash it often receives as not a true rpg, and because I play a lot of Fate. Aspects, fate points, etc. are really just game mechanics. At its basic core, it follows the traditional rpg play loop. This is true for the majority of games, but not true for the games focussed on story now/protagonist play, or whatever the best term is for these games. The participants' roles and expectations are not the same as in traditional RPGs, and is an actual shift away from traditional play. I think this gets missed because people enter the conversation with traditional play in mind.



I suspect that one reason Fate gets a lot of backlash is because of how it sits in the overlap between more mainstream games and story games. Fate, for example, has a lot of GM advice, guidelines, and principles that are perfectly at home in story games. There is also a lot of player authorship, whether they are declaring a story detail, conceding a contest, or discovering aspects.

But in regards to "[entering] the conversation with traditional play in mind," I have had several people on this forum from more traditional, mainstream perspectives who assumed that cheating was rampant in Fate and flat out told me that they would "cheat to win" or "power-game to break/win the game" if they were playing Fate. This was also somewhat bizarre to me, because I actually have observed practically far less cheating (i.e., practically none) and this sort of behavior from my players when playing Fate than when I am playing D&D, where players (including the same Fate players) are fudging their rolls more regularly. But I also get the icky feeling that mainstream gamers sometimes secretly wanting to see untraditional indie games fail.


----------



## Arilyn

I've heard this too. Breaking Fate. But the strength of Fate is that it can't be broken. If your aspects don't have a downside, no fate points. If your weakness doesn't come up, no fate points. And using a fate point to alter the scene requires the GM and/or table to agree. You toss a fate point at the GM and say there's a machine gun just lying around, that fate point is going to be tossed right back with a nice try comment.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> Speaking personally I know that when I run something like Scion, Exalted, or L5R I would be extremely careful about making the sort of hard moves, dramatic consequences or aggressive framing I utilize when running indie games.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When running Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World I do things as a GM I would not dream of doing in D&D.



Are you able to give some examples? This is a topic I think I (at least) would benefit from discussing more.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Now, these are different games, and neither is right nor wrong. Different people may favor one approach over another. Some players may balk at having any ability to help shape the game's fiction in any way beyond character generation. Some GMs will struggle to come up with ideas if they're not determined ahead of time.
> 
> But ultimately, there are notes involved in both instances, and those notes inform play. It just seems to me that they do so in different ways.



I thought this was a pretty decent and fair overview of the two styles.  You don't often get that.

My reaction as both a player and a DM is that I would vastly prefer the former.  

I think one aspect of the latter is that the authoring the fictional setting's notes as the session rolls along is a major payoff for that style.  It feels to me like a collaborative crafting of a story.  I think in the latter you'd be far more likely to see a disconnect between what the player thinks is cool and what a character played by that player would want.   Playing this way means you must devote a good bit of your energy to being a setting author.

For me, I'm more into the game aspects of roleplaying.  So I want my skills as an adventurer to be the focus.  I want my tactical and strategic planning skills to be challenged.  I want to feel like I genuinely overcame a real challenge to be victorious.  This synergizes with the character viewpoint I think.  

I agree that what one person thinks is fun is different from another person.  I'm just stating what I'm after when I roleplay a long term campaign.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> the GM has goals, intentions, and priorities, and their experience of play of this sort doesn't have to be limited to "play to discover the notes."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if the players are playing to discern my conception of the world--which I think covers both "see what's in my notes" and "get me to make something up"--then maybe it can be said that I'm playing to discern the players' conceptions of their characters; I'm playing to find out what the PCs do. If I just wanted to world-build (or otherwise conceptualize settings) I wouldn't have to run a TRPG to do that.
> 
> Maybe another part of the fun for the GM--other than seeing what the PCs do--is the rush of spontaneous creativity



I generally agree with this, though I think I would say that I also want to learn how the players conceive of the world.

But I think we may well disagree when we cash this out in more concrete terms. To go back to a well-trodden example, suppose a player's conception of his/her character is as _a finder of secrets_, how does one experience that as a GM? And how does one set things up, and adjudicate action declarations, so as to permit this conception to emerge? I suspect we adopt different answers to these sorts of questions.


----------



## pemerton

estar said:


> @pemerton example about using Traveller World Stats is why I make sure I highlight the "Bag of Stuff" when I discuss my approach to running sandbox campaign. As referee we are not omniscience Gods just normal folks with normal abilities ranges of being able to remember stuff trying to have fun with a hobby. But when players go left instead of right we are confronted of having to come up with details great and small one the spot.
> 
> A way to overcome that is to develop a mental "Bag of Stuff". A bunch of generic locales, characters, and personalities that you can put out, tweak a bit and use on the spot. It is rare to have to come with everything needed so often sufficient to just record what you do say and then later flesh it out to whatever level of detail you think is needed or find fun.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> From Traveller it things like different type of Gas Giants, planet types, settlement types. How many ways can a Class E starport with a single building, some tanks and an unimproved landing area can be laid out?



The layout of a starport has never come up for me and my group in twenty sessions of Classic Traveller play. On a few occasions its been necessary to tell the players, whose PCs are in one part of the starport, that they can see something else happening there (eg a vessel landing or taking off). I've always just narrated that, using contemporary airports as my reference point.

My own view is that one legacy of D&D and its wargame-style dungeon-crawling is an overemphasis, in RPGing, on the details of maps and architecture. It's one thing I've found refreshing GMing Prince Valiant that we can almost always avoid them - we used a sketch map once to plot out the PCs three-pronged warband attack on some sleeping Huns. And Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP's use of Scene Distinctions instead is in my view a real strength of that system.

For me, in Traveller play the interests and inclinations of NPCs (whether individuals, or organisations) is generally the main thing of interest. As I posted upthread we do use a starmap, because that is necessary to frame and resolve starship travel given the system's rules. But we've never needed to consider a world map: we've never used map-and-key style resolution to work out whether the PCs can get from A to B or whether they can find what they're looking for.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> the vast bulk of @pemerton's posts (or an oft recurring underlying motif) has mainly been challenging related ideas pertaining to GM vs. player authorship in sandbox play in regards to creating a consistent or living world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is not that GM-authored is bad, but, rather, that player-authored is equally valid. He is primarily "hostile" about anything that questions the validity of his own player-driven play, particularly coming from more traditional GM-fiat perspectives



My main interest is in reflecting, in plain terms, on who is authoring the shared fiction. So I always take it as a premise that the fiction has to come from somewhere.

There are two particular things related to that. One is unpacking the metaphor of "exploration". In the literal sense, one explores something by brining it into interaction with ones sensory and cognitive capacities (eg peeking around a corner; looking in a cupboard; cresting a hill). And the knowledge gained is the result of a causal process whereby the "external world" impinges upon the explorers brain/mind.

In RPGing the only process that resembles this, on the player side, is _prompting the GM to say stuff_. Relative to any given player, the GM is part of "the external world" and the things s/he says impinge upon the player's brain/mind and generate new knowledge/ideas. But the player is _not_ in any causal relationship with an imaginary world. Not even by proxy - the GM is not a model, nor running a model. The GM is making authorship decisions.

The other thing is action declaration. My view is that action declaration and resolution is often under-examined, or is explained adopting premises that need not be true, or under investigation turn out to be quite odd (like the idea that because a _player_ is responsible for some fictional element, that must mean the _character controlled by that player _is causally creating that element, at that moment, in the gameworld). My rote example for this: as moments of authorship by way of gameplay, _I search for a secret door - hey, look, I found one!_ and _I attack the Orc with my sword - hey, look, I killed it!_ are no different. Both are action declarations that result in the fiction taking on a new "shape" or new content. But it is very hard to get clear discussion about, this, because the first gets framed as "changing the setting" (it is now established that a secret door is part of it) where as the latter is not (_even though_ it is now established that a dead Orc is part of it). And this tends to go back to notions of "exploration" of an "objective world" - as if authorship by way of action declaration is (ipso facto) correlative to causation in the actual world by performing actual, causally efficacious, actions.

When we try and unpack what is actually different about the secret door and the Orc actions, it turns out to be something to do with _who gets to author what topic of fiction_, and this is related to _GM authority by way of prep/notes_.

To relate this to @hawkeyefan's comment about the limitations imposed in his 5e D&D game by describing the rival NPC, I think everyone agrees that a game in which the GM had already pre-authored that the Orc will, or will not, die might count as a railroad. (I don't think it has to, but it clearly might and I think typically would). So how is the game in which the GM has already pre-authored that no secret door will be found different? I'm not saying there is no answer to that question, but I don't see how any good answer can be given that doesn't engage with the question of who gets to author what. You can't answer it just by pointing out that _characters can't spontaneously create secret doors_, because outside of passwall-type spells everyone agrees with that and there games don't feature that sort of thing.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> I thought this was a pretty decent and fair overview of the two styles.  You don't often get that.
> 
> My reaction as both a player and a DM is that I would vastly prefer the former.
> 
> I think one aspect of the latter is that the authoring the fictional setting's notes as the session rolls along is a major payoff for that style.  It feels to me like a collaborative crafting of a story.  I think in the latter you'd be far more likely to see a disconnect between what the player thinks is cool and what a character played by that player would want.   Playing this way means you must devote a good bit of your energy to being a setting author.
> 
> For me, I'm more into the game aspects of roleplaying.  So I want my skills as an adventurer to be the focus.  I want my tactical and strategic planning skills to be challenged.  I want to feel like I genuinely overcame a real challenge to be victorious.  This synergizes with the character viewpoint I think.
> 
> I agree that what one person thinks is fun is different from another person.  I'm just stating what I'm after when I roleplay a long term campaign.




Sure, it is a matter of preference, absolutely.

Challenges in Blades compared to D&D are a bit different, that is true, though there is still plenty of overlap. What's interesting for me is that I've found that my group seems to have a much stronger connection to their character and their roleplay is stronger in Blades versus D&D. Yes, there are elements that have them contributing in a more authorial way, beyond the view of their character. But instead of breaking immersion, those instances seem to actually enhance it in other ways.

I think the players feel more a part of creating the world, and as a result their characters feel more like an actual part of that world. There's a kind of sympathetic angle there.

I think this is also enhanced by the XP/reward system in Blades versus D&D. Blades ties XP rewards to more character based things, where as D&D typically offers XP for either gaining treasure or for killing monsters. So as players try to get XP, they're actively defining their characters.

Now, there's nothing to stop players in D&D from diving into their characters and really defining and portraying them....but there's very little in any iteration of D&D that actively supports that, or promotes it in play. I mean, ultimately, if we look at the reward system of any RPG, that's a really strong indicator of what the game is about.

That's just my experience with both games and the same group of players.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I generally agree with this, though I think I would say that I also want to learn how the players conceive of the world.



Yes. I think I had a similar thought after posting--though I am probably more interested in the players' conceptions of their characters than I am their conceptions of the setting, I am not uninterested in the latter.


pemerton said:


> But I think we may well disagree when we cash this out in more concrete terms. To go back to a well-trodden example, suppose a player's conception of his/her character is as _a finder of secrets_, how does one experience that as a GM? And how does one set things up, and adjudicate action declarations, so as to permit this conception to emerge? I suspect we adopt different answers to these sorts of questions.



Oh, we almost certainly answer the questions differently: We play (because we prefer them) different sorts of games, at least mostly. Among other things, I suspect that given the expectations of the games, playing someone as a finder of secrets means something different in Burning Wheel than it does in 5E.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> My number one priority as a player is a consistent standard for what good play looks like. It does not have to be a game described in any particular book, but the consistent application of both play principles and techniques is critical to me personally. That's also something I try my damnedest to provide to the people I play with.
> 
> What I personally value most in gaming is a shared sense of purpose. It's really what I value most in life. One team. One fight. That's really what draws me to games with more clear objectives. I know what the mission is. In the absence of clear objectives built into a game I will generally try to build that consistency back in.





Maxperson said:


> I think that bolded portion is true of almost everyone.  For a sandbox game to run smoothly, you need proactive players that are going to set those goals and then begin pursuing them.  Without that a sanbox fails and you need a game where the DM or RPG itself puts the goals out there.



I didn't take Campbell to be referring to a shared sense of purpose _among the characters_. Nor did I take the "mission" or "goal" to be an in-fiction one. I took him to be referring to the project of playing the game itself. Like _When I turn up to the table for pemerton's game, what am I expected to be doing?_

My guess is that my group is probably sloppy in this respect by Campbell's standards. Judging from his posting, Campbell brings a degree of intensity/commitment to play that some of my group do, but not others.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> But I think we may well disagree when we cash this out in more concrete terms. To go back to a well-trodden example, suppose a player's conception of his/her character is as _a finder of secrets_, how does one experience that as a GM? And how does one set things up, and adjudicate action declarations, so as to permit this conception to emerge? I suspect we adopt different answers to these sorts of questions.



For me, I would take the player's stated goal for his PC and conform to that input.  I'd start letting him found things out during the games.  Maybe that the merchant's wife is cheating on him, or the lord is a vampire.  That sort of thing.  And to forestall the inevitable, "Look, he's playing to discover your notes!!!" that is going to be coming in response to the answer to that trap question, no he isn't playing to discover my notes.  He would be playing to achieve his own set goals and my notes would be created to comply with HIS goals and HIS input.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I thought this was a pretty decent and fair overview of the two styles.  You don't often get that.
> 
> My reaction as both a player and a DM is that I would vastly prefer the former.
> 
> I think one aspect of the latter is that the authoring the fictional setting's notes as the session rolls along is a major payoff for that style.  It feels to me like a collaborative crafting of a story.  I think in the latter you'd be far more likely to see a disconnect between what the player thinks is cool and what a character played by that player would want.   Playing this way means you must devote a good bit of your energy to being a setting author.





hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, it is a matter of preference, absolutely.
> 
> Challenges in Blades compared to D&D are a bit different, that is true, though there is still plenty of overlap. What's interesting for me is that I've found that my group seems to have a much stronger connection to their character and their roleplay is stronger in Blades versus D&D. Yes, there are elements that have them contributing in a more authorial way, beyond the view of their character. But instead of breaking immersion, those instances seem to actually enhance it in other ways.



My experience as a player in Burning Wheel play contradicts Emerikol's conjecture. It does not feel like the collaborative crafting of a story. It feels like intense identification with my character. When I roll the dice I'm anxious for what will happen to _me _(ie me as a projection onto the persona of my character). There is no disconnect of the sort Emerikol points to. When I (as my character) try to recall the location of Evard's tower, or hope to meet my brother when I return to my ancestral estate, I don't feel like a setting author. I feel like I am moving through the world that my character inhabits.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I didn't take Campbell to be referring to a shared sense of purpose _among the characters_. Nor did I take the "mission" or "goal" to be an in-fiction one. I took him to be referring to the project of playing the game itself. Like _When I turn up to the table for pemerton's game, what am I expected to be doing?_



"*That's really what draws me to games with more clear objectives. I know what the mission is. In the absence of clear objectives built into a game I will generally try to build that consistency back in."*

It seems clear that he's talking about games, not groups.  He specifically says games with with more clear objectives.  Missions( gaming groups don't get missions, PCs do).  And clear objectives built INTO a game(gaming groups are not built into a game).


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> My experience as a player in Burning Wheel play contradicts Emerikol's conjecture. It does not feel like the collaborative crafting of a story. It feels like intense identification with my character. When I roll the dice I'm anxious for what will happen to _me _(ie me as a projection onto the persona of my character). There is no disconnect of the sort Emerikol points to. When I (as my character) try to recall the location of Evard's tower, or hope to meet my brother when I return to my ancestral estate, I don't feel like a setting author. I feel like I am moving through the world that my character inhabits.




I haven't played Burning Wheel yet, so my knowledge of it boils down to having read through the book a bit, and then mostly your accounts of play. So I know it is different than how Blades in the Dark functions.

I can see the idea of collaborative storytelling being used to describe Blades. I think very often that gets overstated....it's certainly nothing on par with games like Fiasco or Microscope, but there are elements of it in Blades. So I think I get it as a descriptor, but I think its importance is overstated. It is a small part of the game. I think it's also a part of most games, including D&D, but it's more present in Blades.

However, there are players out there for whom ANY instance of player decision that is not 100% "in character" is a deal breaker. Or at least, any such decision that isn't somehow justified through exception of some sort. For such folks, the idea that players in Blades can select or influence elements of the Score, for example......doesn't work for them.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I haven't played Burning Wheel yet, so my knowledge of it boils down to having read through the book a bit, and then mostly your accounts of play. So I know it is different than how Blades in the Dark functions.
> 
> I can see the idea of collaborative storytelling being used to describe Blades. I think very often that gets overstated....it's certainly nothing on par with games like Fiasco or Microscope, but there are elements of it in Blades. So I think I get it as a descriptor, but I think its importance is overstated. It is a small part of the game. I think it's also a part of most games, including D&D, but it's more present in Blades.
> 
> However, there are players out there for whom ANY instance of player decision that is not 100% "in character" is a deal breaker. Or at least, any such decision that isn't somehow justified through exception of some sort. For such folks, the idea that players in Blades can select or influence elements of the Score, for example, doesn't work for them.



As BW is to you, so BitD is to me, or even less b/c I haven't read it, only heard you and other posters talk about it.

I believe that BitD uses the PbtA techniques of _ask questions and build on the answers_.

In BW the "space" of that technique tends to be filled by Wises-type checks: ie the player posits what his/her PC knows/recalls/is familiar with and then the precise stakes are established and then the check is made and then we know whether things are as the PC thought or whether there's some sort of wrinkle (or worse!). A tentative conjecture is that the BW approach makes it easier to adhere to the 100% "in character" approach.


----------



## Campbell

@pemerton has the right of it. For me personally Unity of purpose among players (including the GM) is essential. Unity of purpose between characters is sometimes desirable. Sometimes not so desirable. My worst experiences have come from cases where characters have a unified purpose in game, but their players are looking for dramatically different things from the game.

When I speak about games having clear objectives I mean the game's like reward system and instructions for players. Not the details of the fiction where I actually prefer some ambiguity.

My language choice might not have been the best for mixed company. I am a former Soldier. Everything in my life is a mission.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> @pemerton has the right of it. For me personally Unity of purpose among players (including the GM) is essential. Unity of purpose between characters is sometimes desirable. Sometimes not so desirable. My worst experiences have come from cases where characters have a unified purpose in game, but their players are looking for dramatically different things from the game.
> 
> When I speak about games having clear objectives I mean the game's like reward system and instructions for players. Not the details of the fiction where I actually prefer some ambiguity.
> 
> My language choice might not have been the best for mixed company. I am a former Soldier. Everything in my life is a mission.



Fair enough.  The language threw me off.  I had initially thought you might be going that way, but then that part I bolded seemed to cement things in the other direction. 

I don't think that I've ever been in an RPG where we as a group had different individual goals outside of the game fiction.  What does that look like?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I don't think that I've ever been in an RPG where we as a group had different individual goals outside of the game fiction.  What does that look like?



I can't speak for @Campbell, but I can provide an example: one player is looking to play a game of intense character-focused play, really trying to find out what makes a given character tick and what might be the limits of that; and another character is looking to goof around a bit and maybe talk in a funny voice after work.

I think I'm more tolerant of that sort of mis-match than @Campbell, but I agree that it's a mis-match.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I can't speak for @Campbell, but I can provide an example: one player is looking to play a game of intense character-focused play, really trying to find out what makes a given character tick and what might be the limits of that; and another character is looking to goof around a bit and maybe talk in a funny voice after work.
> 
> I think I'm more tolerant of that sort of mis-match than @Campbell, but I agree that it's a mis-match.



Okay.  I can see that.  I've said time and time again, in thread after thread, that the DM/Players need to find like minded people to play with.  I've used playstyle and not goal of the players, but it seems that I do the same thing that @Campbell does.  I just didn't think of it in the same terms.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> As BW is to you, so BitD is to me, or even less b/c I haven't read it, only heard you and other posters talk about it.
> 
> I believe that BitD uses the PbtA techniques of _ask questions and build on the answers_.
> 
> In BW the "space" of that technique tends to be filled by Wises-type checks: ie the player posits what his/her PC knows/recalls/is familiar with and then the precise stakes are established and then the check is made and then we know whether things are as the PC thought or whether there's some sort of wrinkle (or worse!). A tentative conjecture is that the BW approach makes it easier to adhere to the 100% "in character" approach.




Yes, I would think so. It certainly would seem that way to me. But I know that often gets a lot of push back because it's a shift in thinking from the way many games do that, where any kind of setting detail is subject to GM approval. 

And yes, "ask questions and build on the answers" is a principle carried over from PbtA to FitD. I think Blades takes it a little further in that beyond just helping to establish setting details, there are points of player input which can shape the game even more dramatically. 

When the crew picks a Score, they do so by selecting a Plan and a Detail. The Plan is the kind of mission they want to perform: Assault, Deception, Stealth, Occult, Social, or Transport. Then whichever Plan you choose, the players pick a Detail. This is something specific which informs how the Plan will work. So if you choose an Assault, then you would provide a Detail like "we're going to attack the building from behind", and if you choose Stealth, then you might say "we're sneaking into the compound from the tunnels underneath".

This gives the players a lot of say about what the thrust of play will be. It also gives the GM ideas on what kind of obstacles may be appropriate and what additional details may matter. To compare it to D&D, the players have the ability to help shape "the map" for what they're going to do. 

I don't think this is the kind of authoring that many tend to think of when this comes up, but it's a pretty important point of player input.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, it is a matter of preference, absolutely.
> 
> Challenges in Blades compared to D&D are a bit different, that is true, though there is still plenty of overlap. What's interesting for me is that I've found that my group seems to have a much stronger connection to their character and their roleplay is stronger in Blades versus D&D. Yes, there are elements that have them contributing in a more authorial way, beyond the view of their character. But instead of breaking immersion, those instances seem to actually enhance it in other ways.



Maybe it's my group and their desire to roleplay their characters but I would agree in general that plenty of D&D players are barely roleplaying at all. 



hawkeyefan said:


> I think the players feel more a part of creating the world, and as a result their characters feel more like an actual part of that world. There's a kind of sympathetic angle there.



Well I can only equate it with real life.  As @pemerton says above and I believe him, he is more connected by authoring the fictional setting as a player.   I have no analog myself for that.  My experience of life is that I perceive the world and I act/react to what I perceive.  The GM is my interface to this fantasy world so he provides my sensory input.   Otherwise, I make decisions and think about the things my character would think about.  So skilled play follows naturally from that premise.  I don't want to die so I prepare and make plans to prevent it and overcome my enemies.   Obviously it's a game so my fear of death is likely not equivalent to what it would be in real life.  I'm not a superhero in real life either.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think this is also enhanced by the XP/reward system in Blades versus D&D. Blades ties XP rewards to more character based things, where as D&D typically offers XP for either gaining treasure or for killing monsters. So as players try to get XP, they're actively defining their characters.



I think you mean that you adopt traits or characteristics for your character and that comes into play far more effectively than it does in D&D.   D&D lacks any such system for sure.   It's interesting but for me again it forces me to look at my character as something separate from me.  No character ever wants to screw up due to alcoholism at a key moment in the game.  A player might want to trigger such a thing but usually to incentivize such triggers there are metagame rewards.  



hawkeyefan said:


> Now, there's nothing to stop players in D&D from diving into their characters and really defining and portraying them....but there's very little in any iteration of D&D that actively supports that, or promotes it in play. I mean, ultimately, if we look at the reward system of any RPG, that's a really strong indicator of what the game is about.
> 
> That's just my experience with both games and the same group of players.



By that standard, I think we'd say that D&D is about going through dungeons and getting the treasure.  If that were all D&D were for me, I'd have left the game long ago.  My players are always embroiled in world events.  They are always trying to change things and advance their standing in the world.  How exactly they do that will depend on the world they are experiencing but they will find an interesting path from what I've observed.  This might not become really pronounced though until they get out of the super low levels.  Until then they'll just build alliances/friendships with various NPCs in the local town.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> My experience as a player in Burning Wheel play contradicts Emerikol's conjecture. It does not feel like the collaborative crafting of a story. It feels like intense identification with my character. When I roll the dice I'm anxious for what will happen to _me _(ie me as a projection onto the persona of my character). There is no disconnect of the sort Emerikol points to. When I (as my character) try to recall the location of Evard's tower, or hope to meet my brother when I return to my ancestral estate, I don't feel like a setting author. I feel like I am moving through the world that my character inhabits.



I kind of discussed this a bit in my reply to @hawkeyefan.   

For me there is no analog to player authored reality.  I am used to perceiving it and reacting to it.   So I don't doubt you like your character and you find the things he gets into interesting.  I can even see where you might identify with your character the way you would identify with a friend who is telling you their troubles.  I don't see how though you can feel like you are your character and lose yourself in the game that way.  Not saying you don't.  Just saying I don't see how you do it.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I know that often gets a lot of push back because it's a shift in thinking from the way many games do that, where any kind of setting detail is subject to GM approval.



No dissent; but for elaboration I refer back to my post 1999 upthread, about action declaration and authorship. TL,DR: I think that notion of "setting detail" vs "outcome of action" is very often not well described.



hawkeyefan said:


> When the crew picks a Score, they do so by selecting a Plan and a Detail. The Plan is the kind of mission they want to perform: Assault, Deception, Stealth, Occult, Social, or Transport. Then whichever Plan you choose, the players pick a Detail. This is something specific which informs how the Plan will work. So if you choose an Assault, then you would provide a Detail like "we're going to attack the building from behind", and if you choose Stealth, then you might say "we're sneaking into the compound from the tunnels underneath".
> 
> This gives the players a lot of say about what the thrust of play will be. It also gives the GM ideas on what kind of obstacles may be appropriate and what additional details may matter. To compare it to D&D, the players have the ability to help shape "the map" for what they're going to do.
> 
> I don't think this is the kind of authoring that many tend to think of when this comes up, but it's a pretty important point of player input.



In BW, to infiltrate via the tunnels would be a Wises-check (eg in the GM I GM one of the players kept declaring - and failing - Catacombs-wise checks to move around beneath the streets of Hardby).

Because it's an action declaration, the GM can "say 'yes'" and cut to the next scene. But it's still framed as action declaration and so can all be done in character.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I kind of discussed this a bit in my reply to @hawkeyefan.
> 
> For me there is no analog to player authored reality.  I am used to perceiving it and reacting to it.   So I don't doubt you like your character and you find the things he gets into interesting.  I can even see where you might identify with your character the way you would identify with a friend who is telling you their troubles.  I don't see how though you can feel like you are your character and lose yourself in the game that way.  Not saying you don't.  Just saying I don't see how you do it.



As I'm returning to my homeland, I hope to meet my brother. 

As we travel through the wildlands of the Pomarj, and I'm inhabiting a character whose goal is to locate spellbooks and who has studied the history of the great masters, I think _Isn't Evard's tower around here somewhere_.

These are not _perceptions_. They are the _inner mental life _of the character.

This goes back to the "space aliens" point that I made upthread (and @Campbell also posted something similar).


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not familiar enough with this setting to really walk through the process on it (and I am quite unclear on many of the events, causes, etc to run that through the procedures and process I would use). I think you need a high degree of familiarity with the setting. For example there was a time when I had a strong enough command of Ravenloft (pre-3E era) to run through situations like you seem to be describing: alas no more! Now I am focused primarily on my own campaign setting. What I can say is if a region in my world for whatever reason was struck by an even that caused a massive death toll, I would try to look at things like what institutions are in place to respond, what are the consequences given the location itself (and the specific nature of the event would determine if this were some kind of expanding threat or just an isolated instance: is it a zombie plague, is it a massive natural disaster, is it a supernatural catastrophe like you describe above--or seem to describe). I would also ask what sects might become involved etc.




I appreciate the response.  There are a lot of interesting takeaways from the above.  A few things that strike me and some questions as well:

1) When I put together my post, that felt like a massive info dump; the event itself, the backdrop of the setting for context, related infrastructure, personnel, and relevant factions potential response to such an event.  

Your response to that information was the following:

_I am not familiar enough with this setting to really walk through the process on it (and I am quite unclear on many of the events, causes, etc to run that through the procedures and process I would use). I think you need a high degree of familiarity with the setting._

That feels extremely instructive on bridging some of our divide in our conversations broadly and in this conversation specifically:

* I certainly wouldn't qualify myself as possessing "a high degree of familiarity with the setting."  I know enough "to be dangerous."  Where I don't know things in a pinch I make them up or I "ask questions and use the answers."

* The information that I gave you above is precisely the info I use to deploy the procedures for the game to determine "what happens now?"  No more, no less.  So when I look at the information, it feels like _an information surplus_ to me.

* However, when you look at the above info you feel like you're working from an information deficit of sufficient capacity to make it impossible for either you to (i) entirely extrapolate _what comes next_, (ii) deploy your procedures, or (iii) some combination of the two (from your post it seems like a combination).

I wonder if some other posters look at what I typed out on the situation/setting/context and also felt like they would be working from an insurmountable information deficit if they attempted to engage with it?  I'd be curious to hear from them, if so.

The above shouldn't read like "I'm right, you're wrong."  It should read like "this is interesting insight into the cognitive framing divide on the same info/circumstances."

2)  For your MCS, your *Combat Rating* and *Strength *actually looks very kindred with Blades *Scale, Potency, Quality,* and *Tier*.  Do you have some procedure like this that determines the magnitude of things that are the collision of other events (not Mass Combat); eg pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a church's response + a city's physickers?

In Blades Fortune Roll procedure to handle something like this, you assess the relevant parts in play and build a singular dice pool if its just a Mission Clock or multiple dice pools if its Racing Clocks (Take top result; 1-3 result = 1 Tick, 4-5 = 2 Ticks, 6 = 3 Ticks).  Here is what that this has looked like over the last weeks of the game:



> *"Save Barrowcleft vs Barrowcleft Apocalypse" - 10 Tick Competing Clocks*
> 
> Tier 6 apiece so d6 apiece.
> 
> Save = 2 so _1/10_
> Apocalypse = 4 so _2/10
> 
> The tide turns against the ward, its citizens, and the city. A few brave souls enlist to fight the ghosts. They don't return..._






> *"Save Barrowcleft vs Barrowcleft Apocalypse" - 10 Tick Competing Clocks*
> 
> Tier 6 + 2d6 for 2 * Major Advantages for Save due to your Score results, so 2d6 Save vs W[2d6] Apocalypse.
> 
> Save = 5 & 6 = 2 so 4/10
> Apocalypse = 1 & 4 = 1 so 3/10
> 
> _The tide turns back the other way. Your successful apprehension of some of the ghosts and deployment of the gear have led to a breakthrough for the Sparkwrights tweaking the gear to be more potent. Its also led to more enlistment of competent field personnel against the threat. Finally, the discovery of the two epicenters of death have led to the Spirit Wardens being able to work directly on those areas._






> *"Save Barrowcleft vs Barrowcleft Apocalypse" - 10 Tick Competing Clocks*
> 
> Tier 6 + 2d6 for 2 * Major Advantages for Save, so 2d6 Save vs W[2d6] Apocalypse.
> 
> Save = 5 & 4 = 2 so 6/10
> Apocalypse = 1 & 6 = 1 so 4/10
> 
> _A shipment of fruit comes in via the Electro-rail Trains.  Whitehollow's orchards (the immediately adjacent Imperium city) alleviates the immediate threat of food shortage hysteria. Things are looking up._




As is hopefully clear in the above, the process is:


Set up Racing Clocks.
Assess Factors to build opposing Dice Pools.
Every Downtime Phase, roll opposing Dice Pools (take top result; 1-3 result = 1 Tick, 4-5 = 2 Ticks, 6 = 3 Ticks).
Interpret results and evolve the situation.
If situation changes between phases (as it did here), adjust opposing Dice Pools.



Given what I've written above here, do you think you could either:

* Ask questions that would give you sufficient resolution for you to work with the depicted situation then use my answers to show us the exact procedure that you would use to evolve the situation?

or

* Break down a play excerpt where you did something similar (like I mentioned above - pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a prefecture's infrastructural and personnel driven response they could martial)?  I'm particularly interested in if you use competing dice pools for something like this similar to how you deploy your Mass Combat System.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Maybe it's my group and their desire to roleplay their characters but I would agree in general that plenty of D&D players are barely roleplaying at all.




Yeah, there is a range of possibilities with D&D when it comes to that because there are so many editions, and it's been around so long that many folks have kind of used different bits from different editions to kind of craft their own version of the game. What almost every edition lacks, though, is any kind of robust system for promoting roleplay. It's something that's always been left up to the participants to decide.




Emerikol said:


> Well I can only equate it with real life. As @pemerton says above and I believe him, he is more connected by authoring the fictional setting as a player. I have no analog myself for that. My experience of life is that I perceive the world and I act/react to what I perceive. The GM is my interface to this fantasy world so he provides my sensory input. Otherwise, I make decisions and think about the things my character would think about. So skilled play follows naturally from that premise. I don't want to die so I prepare and make plans to prevent it and overcome my enemies. Obviously it's a game so my fear of death is likely not equivalent to what it would be in real life. I'm not a superhero in real life either.




Well with this I think there are two ways to look at it, as far as the role of the GM as interface with the world. 

Your character reaches a new town and passes through the gates, and he looks around.....what does he see? It makes sense that he may not know, and the GM shares what he sees. 

But what about what your character knows? You start play with a person who's likely a young adult or older.....so they have experiences that have already happened. They should KNOW things about themselves and about the world. Certainly, some of this knowledge may be limited, but where do you draw the line? While my PC may not know who is the king of all the orcs, he would know who his family and friends are, he would have some general knowledge about the world. 

For many, having to rely on someone else to act as interface for these internal things that are a part of the character is disruptive to immersion. 




Emerikol said:


> I think you mean that you adopt traits or characteristics for your character and that comes into play far more effectively than it does in D&D. D&D lacks any such system for sure. It's interesting but for me again it forces me to look at my character as something separate from me. No character ever wants to screw up due to alcoholism at a key moment in the game. A player might want to trigger such a thing but usually to incentivize such triggers there are metagame rewards.




It depends, I think. In Blades, each PC has 3 XP Triggers, for each of which they can get up to 2 XP per session. This is what they look like:


Addressing a challenge with your specialty (each class has this, so the fighter type gets it for addressing a challenge with violence, and the thief type for addressing with stealth, etc.)
Portaying your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background
Struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session

So the game rewards the player depicting a character. It isn't limited to the accumulation of wealth (like early D&D with XP for gold) or the killing of enemies (like 5E D&D), but the system actually may reward those kinds of actions. 

What happens is that these characters become very vividly depicted, even with a player who speaks entirely third person and rarely actually acts in character. They still have a strong idea of who this person is.  




Emerikol said:


> By that standard, I think we'd say that D&D is about going through dungeons and getting the treasure. If that were all D&D were for me, I'd have left the game long ago. My players are always embroiled in world events. They are always trying to change things and advance their standing in the world. How exactly they do that will depend on the world they are experiencing but they will find an interesting path from what I've observed. This might not become really pronounced though until they get out of the super low levels. Until then they'll just build alliances/friendships with various NPCs in the local town.




Sure, I imagine many D&D games to play this way. Most of my own games probably fit your concept at least pretty well. 

I think the thing with D&D is that there's some incoherence as it has changed over editions. Early versions were about a very specific mode of play. That mode has loosened over editions, or become only part of a bigger picture, and as that's happened, some rules have fallen out of use and others have come along, and they've never again added up to as coherent a whole as they did in early D&D. 

But, having said that, I've had very satisfactory games across all editions, with plenty of role playing and plenty of interesting things happening. It's never something the game can't handle, it just doesn't promote it.


----------



## pemerton

A further comment about inhabiting the _inner mental life _of one's character, as a player (building on my post 2016 upthread).

It relates to what @Bedrockgames has said about "mental models", and what @prabe has said about spontaneous production of fiction.

When, as a player of a character who is trained in the lore of the great masters and who is intent on finding spellbooks to enhance her repertoire of magic, I think _Isn't Evard's tower around here_, I am engaging in the same mental process as the GM who, in response to a question from a player, feels that there is no logical or possible answer but _this is how things are in the gameworld._

In my view both are acts of authorship. But to the extent that someone is hesitant to use that word, because it doesn't _feel _like making things up, then that is as true for the player playing the character as the GM "playing" the world.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> It depends, I think. In Blades, each PC has 3 XP Triggers, for each of which they can get up to 2 XP per session. This is what they look like:
> 
> 
> Addressing a challenge with your specialty (each class has this, so the fighter type gets it for addressing a challenge with violence, and the thief type for addressing with stealth, etc.)
> Portaying your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background
> Struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session
> 
> So the game rewards the player depicting a character. It isn't limited to the accumulation of wealth (like early D&D with XP for gold) or the killing of enemies (like 5E D&D), but the system actually may reward those kinds of actions.
> 
> What happens is that these characters become very vividly depicted, even with a player who speaks entirely third person and rarely actually acts in character. They still have a strong idea of who this person is.




The role of functional incentive structures cannot be underplayed (in both life broadly and in games). 

Its no coincidence that 4e's recharge schedule plus Milestone mechanic (if you push forward, rather than attempt to recharge, your group gets HUGE Action Economy gains...even as your daily suite of resources erodes) propelled play forward compared to the stall-out (and/or mini-game/arms race of Team PC pushing to affect a recharge of spell loadout) of workday issues of D&D of yore (and present).

Its no coincidence that Dogs players bring in their Traits and Relationships (and even the ones that specifically complicate their lives) as conflicts progress...which in turn (a) ensures thematic focus and (b) drives the xp/erosion of PC engine.

Its no coincidence that, despite being a game being about violent scoundrels ensconced in gang warfare, Blades games feature a lot more thematic xp triggers than body count (because body count = Heat...which engages with a positive feedback loop you don't want).


----------



## innerdude

Campbell said:


> My number one priority as a player is a consistent standard for what good play looks like. It does not have to be a game described in any particular book, but the consistent application of both play principles and techniques is critical to me personally. That's also something I try my damnedest to provide to the people I play with.
> 
> What I personally value most in gaming is a shared sense of purpose. It's really what I value most in life. One team. One fight. That's really what draws me to games with more clear objectives. I know what the mission is. In the absence of clear objectives built into a game I will generally try to build that consistency back in.






hawkeyefan said:


> Challenges in Blades compared to D&D are a bit different, that is true, though there is still plenty of overlap. What's interesting for me is that I've found that my group seems to have a much stronger connection to their character and their roleplay is stronger in Blades versus D&D. Yes, there are elements that have them contributing in a more authorial way, beyond the view of their character. But instead of breaking immersion, those instances seem to actually enhance it in other ways.
> 
> I think the players feel more a part of creating the world, and as a result their characters feel more like an actual part of that world. There's a kind of sympathetic angle there.
> 
> I think this is also enhanced by the XP/reward system in Blades versus D&D. Blades ties XP rewards to more character based things, where as D&D typically offers XP for either gaining treasure or for killing monsters. So as players try to get XP, they're actively defining their characters.
> 
> Now, there's nothing to stop players in D&D from diving into their characters and really defining and portraying them....but there's very little in any iteration of D&D that actively supports that, or promotes it in play. I mean, ultimately, if we look at the reward system of any RPG, that's a really strong indicator of what the game is about.






Manbearcat said:


> The role of functional incentive structures cannot be underplayed (in both life broadly and in games).
> 
> Its no coincidence that 4e's recharge schedule plus Milestone mechanic (if you push forward, rather than attempt to recharge, your group gets HUGE Action Economy gains...even as your daily suite of resources erodes) propelled play forward compared to the stall-out (and/or mini-game/arms race of Team PC pushing to affect a recharge of spell loadout) of workday issues of D&D of yore (and present).
> 
> Its no coincidence that Dogs players bring in their Traits and Relationships (and even the ones that specifically complicate their lives) as conflicts progress...which in turn (a) ensures thematic focus and (b) drives the xp/erosion of PC engine.
> 
> Its no coincidence that, despite being a game being about violent scoundrels ensconced in gang warfare, Blades games feature a lot more thematic xp triggers than body count (because body count = Heat...which engages with a positive feedback loop you don't want).




All of this is tremendously applicable to Ironsworn. The main driver of play is supposed to be the characters' "Iron Vows"---the solemnly sworn, honor-bound promises made to themselves and others within the game world. 

And the mechanics dramatically reinforce how important these are to the characters. Abandoning an Iron Vow carries significant narrative and mechanical impact, all of it negative. The gaining of XP and advancement is solely tied to players successfully completing Iron Vows. There is no justification, in-or-out of fiction, for players not to agree to swear Iron Vows and then do everything possible to pursue their fulfillment.  

And it's positively revelatory on how it shapes the dynamic of play for our group. Like, just last session, one of my players about 2/3 of the way through the session approached the group and said, "I'm not finding ways to connect my character's Iron Vows to what the group is pursuing. Can we talk about how we can build in some of these things into our pursuits?"

I was floored by it. This was a player taking an active role---wholly within the play principles established---of building on their character motivations. And everyone of course jumped happily at the opportunity to collaborate and build on this player's primary vow ("I will discover and eradicate the sources of darkness that have infiltrated this land").

The combination of Ironsworn's vows + progress tracker + "complete a vow" mechanical move are the kind of connected advancement mechanics that I would have never imagined possible in other contexts.

Savage Worlds never, not once, naturally pushed play in this direction, because the reward/advancement feedback loop in Savage Worlds is little more than, "Now you get to keep playing the game with a more powerful character."

We're heading into our 6th session tomorrow, and I don't recall being this excited to GM a game in years.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> 2)  For your MCS, your *Combat Rating* and *Strength *actually looks very kindred with Blades *Scale, Potency, Quality,* and *Tier*.  Do you have some procedure like this that determines the magnitude of things that are the collision of other events (not Mass Combat); eg pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a church's response + a city's physickers?




Sort of. I have tables for determining historical developments and events. Something like this:






But generally I would manage the developments from these events organically (which could involve rolls here or there if I thought it needed). So the church's response is generally going to be me figuring out what their response is. But if the church tries to do something to stem a problem, I may assign a dice pool and roll against a TN (say they send aid to an area hit by flooding, I might assign them 2d10 feeling they only sent a small group of clergy, and roll against a TN based on the extent of the flood---I might even make them roll monthly to see how well they manage it over time). 

I also have sect shakeup tables for conflict in the martial world. This has things on it like a member of sect A infiltrating sect C, Sect B losing lots of men in a fight, Sect D encroaching on sect C's territory, etc.

in a different setting I have a table for religious sects and their development around characters (it is a setting where the characters have a spark of divinity and can attract followers: having a system for figuring out what becomes of that following was handy (characters with that divine spark are called Sertori, so the "Sertori present" column is the column for when the Sertori can be there physically to manage followers him or herself (and there is a tracking sheet as well--the full sheet goes up to 6):


----------



## hawkeyefan

innerdude said:


> We're heading into our 6th session tomorrow, and I don't recall being this excited to GM a game in years.




That’s awesome, man. I haven’t yet played Ironsworn, but I have a copy (it was free and I think still is?) and I remember being impressed by it just from reading. Always entirely different to see a game in play, though. Glad to hear your group’s digging it.


----------



## Campbell

Maxperson said:


> Okay.  I can see that.  I've said time and time again, in thread after thread, that the DM/Players need to find like minded people to play with.  I've used playstyle and not goal of the players, but it seems that I do the same thing that @Campbell does.  I just didn't think of it in the same terms.




I'm not entirely comfortable with the framing of playstyles rather than designed games. Particularly when it comes with the conceit of someone having like a natural or inborn style. At least for me what's important is consistency within the scope of a game. Basically I want to have a firm grasp of what good play looks like so I can be the best player I can be. For me embracing whatever it is we are doing and like developing skill, having my skill and contributions valued, and like that sense of shared purpose means everything to me. 

What makes those games where everyone has a different purpose for me personally is not missing out on a particular experience. It's that I have no way of knowing what good play looks like. Without that insight than I have no way of developing the skill of play. It's impossible for me to enjoy the experience because nothing is really fun for me in isolation (besides weight training). What's fun for me is the fun we are all having together when we are gaming rather than individual kinks.

I think that's why the idea of a shared fiction is so important to me. It's not that I do not see the value of prep which constrains play. I just believe that play functions best when we focus on what is shared rather than anyone's individual experience. 

A lot of that is just in accident of my upbringing. I grew up playing card games, board games, chess, and playing team sports. My time in the military was some of the best years of my life because of that sense of connection. That sense of community and friendly competition is a big part of what makes me who I choose to be.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Your character reaches a new town and passes through the gates, and he looks around.....what does he see? It makes sense that he may not know, and the GM shares what he sees.
> 
> But what about what your character knows? You start play with a person who's likely a young adult or older.....so they have experiences that have already happened. They should KNOW things about themselves and about the world. Certainly, some of this knowledge may be limited, but where do you draw the line? While my PC may not know who is the king of all the orcs, he would know who his family and friends are, he would have some general knowledge about the world.
> 
> For many, having to rely on someone else to act as interface for these internal things that are a part of the character is disruptive to immersion.



I agree, but until-unless we get all the players wearing DM-controllable virtual-reality headsets with the whole setting programmed in it's kind of all we've got.

In part, this is why I tend to like playing characters who are foreign to the adventuring area when first starting a new campaign: I can discover the region along with my character.  Then for a future character in the same game I can play a local and have some local knowledge already built in.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> No character ever wants to screw up due to alcoholism at a key moment in the game.  A player might want to trigger such a thing but usually to incentivize such triggers there are metagame rewards.



Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.

So one possibility is _no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic_. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.

Another possibility is that _drinking alcohol _(or consuming some other drug) _confers an ingame beneift_, which incentivises the player to have his/her PC consume it, and there is also an addiction mechanic of some sort. Rolemaster has a system like this, not for alcohol but for other drugs including magic-enhancing ones. In one of our games a PC ended up addicted to hugar (an intoxicant which allowed  him to rapidly regain his spell points) and ended up losing all his money (from purchasing doses) and his house (from being unable to pay the lease) and then suffering withdrawal symptoms (until he was healed with relatively high-level healing magic). During this period of hugar addiction, another player whose PC had something of a "leader" status would have his PC plan expeditions based around the cycle of intoxication and recovery of the addicted character.

The possibility just described won't really work for drugs that confer no ingame benefit - while in real life _pleasure _can be a reason to do things, it doesn't generate much incentive for the player of a character who doesn't him-/herself get to experience the purely imaginary pleasure of the character's intoxication.

A third possibility is that _drinking alcohol_ is desirable to the player because it does bring them a benefit (eg the metagame reward that Emerikol describes) and so the player, playing the PC, is tempted to have a drink just as the character is . . .

A further point that cuts across these possibilities is _what does it mean to screw up _in a RPG? In some approaches to RPGing, a failed check means not only that the PC doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" in the fiction) but that the player also doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" at the table). In other approaches to RPGing this isn't necessarily the case, because of how the adjudication of failure is handled. For instance, in the case of my RM game the character suffered problems due to his addiction, but the player was still able to play his PC who was continuing to have a big impact on the ongoing fiction of the game.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> I agree, but until-unless we get all the players wearing DM-controllable virtual-reality headsets with the whole setting programmed in it's kind of all we've got.



No. I've posted an example of a different way of doing this not very far upthread.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.
> 
> *So one possibility is no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.
> 
> Another possibility is that drinking alcohol (or consuming some other drug) confers an ingame beneift, which incentivises the player to have his/her PC consume it, and there is also an addiction mechanic of some sort. *Rolemaster has a system like this, not for alcohol but for other drugs including magic-enhancing ones. In one of our games a PC ended up addicted to hugar (an intoxicant which allowed  him to rapidly regain his spell points) and ended up losing all his money (from purchasing doses) and his house (from being unable to pay the lease) and then suffering withdrawal symptoms (until he was healed with relatively high-level healing magic). During this period of hugar addiction, another player whose PC had something of a "leader" status would have his PC plan expeditions based around the cycle of intoxication and recovery of the addicted character.
> 
> The possibility just described won't really work for drugs that confer no ingame benefit - while in real life _pleasure _can be a reason to do things, it doesn't generate much incentive for the player of a character who doesn't him-/herself get to experience the purely imaginary pleasure of the character's intoxication.
> 
> A third possibility is that _drinking alcohol_ is desirable to the player because it does bring them a benefit (eg the metagame reward that Emerikol describes) and so the player, playing the PC, is tempted to have a drink just as the character is . . .
> 
> A further point that cuts across these possibilities is _what does it mean to screw up _in a RPG? In some approaches to RPGing, a failed check means not only that the PC doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" in the fiction) but that the player also doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" at the table). In other approaches to RPGing this isn't necessarily the case, because of how the adjudication of failure is handled. For instance, in the case of my RM game the character suffered problems due to his addiction, but the player was still able to play his PC who was continuing to have a big impact on the ongoing fiction of the game.



I think that the first two examples often involves a "play to win" mentality/approach to the game where character flaws are either excised or minimized* for the sake of the player's ahem... I mean "character's" victory. Character flaws or backstory elements are "conveniently forgotten" in times when they would potentially be an impediment to personal or group victory. 

* Which commonly includes, at least in this mode of thinking, lacking any form of personal character attachments (e.g., family, friends, pets, etc.) that can be "weaponized" by the GM against the player characters.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Aldarc said:


> I think that the first two examples often involves a "play to win" mentality/approach to the game where character flaws are either excised or minimized* for the sake of the player's ahem... I mean "character's" victory. Character flaws or backstory elements are "conveniently forgotten" in times when they would potentially be an impediment to personal or group victory.
> 
> * Which commonly includes, at least in this mode of thinking, lacking any form of personal character attachments (e.g., family, friends, pets, etc.) that can be "weaponized" by the GM against the player characters.




This is all true.
In 5e D&D one can introduce a mechanic whereby when a PC uses their Inspiration, the DM gains a token.
The DM may, if the PC's flaw works within a future moment's fiction, use such token to hinder* the PC, thus weaponising as you've put it.

* Raise the DC required by 5 or incur the disadvantage mechanic on the die roll.

The other method is the DM offering the PC an Inspiration point to incur disadvantage on their roll by activating their flaw (again if it works for the fiction in the moment). I have not had much success with this method.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.
> 
> So one possibility is _no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic_. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.
> 
> Another possibility is that _drinking alcohol _(or consuming some other drug) _confers an ingame beneift_, which incentivises the player to have his/her PC consume it, and there is also an addiction mechanic of some sort. Rolemaster has a system like this, not for alcohol but for other drugs including magic-enhancing ones. In one of our games a PC ended up addicted to hugar (an intoxicant which allowed  him to rapidly regain his spell points) and ended up losing all his money (from purchasing doses) and his house (from being unable to pay the lease) and then suffering withdrawal symptoms (until he was healed with relatively high-level healing magic). During this period of hugar addiction, another player whose PC had something of a "leader" status would have his PC plan expeditions based around the cycle of intoxication and recovery of the addicted character.
> 
> The possibility just described won't really work for drugs that confer no ingame benefit - while in real life _pleasure _can be a reason to do things, it doesn't generate much incentive for the player of a character who doesn't him-/herself get to experience the purely imaginary pleasure of the character's intoxication.
> 
> A third possibility is that _drinking alcohol_ is desirable to the player because it does bring them a benefit (eg the metagame reward that Emerikol describes) and so the player, playing the PC, is tempted to have a drink just as the character is . . .
> 
> A further point that cuts across these possibilities is _what does it mean to screw up _in a RPG? In some approaches to RPGing, a failed check means not only that the PC doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" in the fiction) but that the player also doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" at the table). In other approaches to RPGing this isn't necessarily the case, because of how the adjudication of failure is handled. For instance, in the case of my RM game the character suffered problems due to his addiction, but the player was still able to play his PC who was continuing to have a big impact on the ongoing fiction of the game.




I think there might be a fourth possibility.  In this possibility the player has declared his character an alcoholic and it is for the most part a flavor thing  with the option for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character mechanically, gaining a minor benefit when it does affect them in game. 

IME this is how I've seen the modern version of D&D play out.  One of my players takes alcoholism as their flaw, whether it is a focus of their character, a hindrance that pops up a majority of the time or an addiction that they manage to control for the most part is entirely up to them and since the reward is minimal the player doesn't feel forced to lean into it any more than they want to.  Commonly the effects of actually drinking alcohol in-game are decided in one of two ways... either the DM and player talk it out and come to an agreement or it is usually codified through an equipment like list.


----------



## Imaro

AnotherGuy said:


> This is all true.
> In 5e D&D one can introduce a mechanic whereby when a PC uses their Inspiration, the DM gains a token.
> The DM may, if the PC's flaw works within the moment's fiction, use such token to hinder* the PC, thus weaponising as you've put it.
> 
> * Raise the DC required by 5 or incur the disadvantage mechanic on the die roll.
> 
> The other method is the DM offering the PC an Inspiration point to incur disadvantage on their roll by activating their flaw (again if it works for the fiction in the moment). I have not had much success with this method.



I wonder how much this has to do with genre though?  I'll be honest when I think of heroic or adventure fantasy... I can't think of too many protagonists who fail when it's life or death due to something like alcoholism.  They can be alcoholics and display it in plenty of situations where it's an inconvenience or embarrassing but rarely does it end up getting them killed.  While in a genre like urban horror, say something like the Kult rpg that is inspired by movies like Seven and by Clive Barker stories I could totally see a protagonist failing in a life or death situation due to alcoholism.  I think 5e's genre for the most part is supposed to be heroic fantasy and dying to a goblin with a rusty dagged because you were drunk doesn't line up with most people's genre expectations very well.  Personally I think this is why the flaws, ideals, bonds, etc are kept light because in the genre it is inspired by they usually are.  That's not to say they can't easily be given more weight, I've done it on my own games.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> A further comment about inhabiting the _inner mental life _of one's character, as a player (building on my post 2016 upthread).
> 
> It relates to what @Bedrockgames has said about "mental models", and what @prabe has said about spontaneous production of fiction.
> 
> When, as a player of a character who is trained in the lore of the great masters and who is intent on finding spellbooks to enhance her repertoire of magic, I think _Isn't Evard's tower around here_, I am engaging in the same mental process as the GM who, in response to a question from a player, feels that there is no logical or possible answer but _this is how things are in the gameworld._
> 
> In my view both are acts of authorship. But to the extent that someone is hesitant to use that word, because it doesn't _feel _like making things up, then that is as true for the player playing the character as the GM "playing" the world.



I think that for me at least I would be as unsatisfied if the GM made it up at that moment as I would if the PC made it up.   I will readily say that historically my rejection of campaigns has been more about GM's making too much stuff up on the fly than it has been about players authoring the fiction.   I suspect my belief that a GM can't effectively make up something so central to the game in a believable way is why I am hesitant about players doing it.

Face it, the average GM is more knowledgeable and more invested than the average player.   Now there are players who are every bit as invested.  GM's play too and of course there are just really good players.  So I said "on average".   So my doubt that a good GM can pull it off just continues on to players doing it.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.
> 
> So one possibility is _no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic_. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.



I think generally this is how my games have went.  D&D doesn't really have a disadvantages system so it's not really been a big challenge.   There are disadvantages though you could put on a PC that would be playable like bad eyesight which would just give negatives in certain instances.   But those involving willpower vs addiction, are hard to do without going to metagame approaches which is too high a cost for me.   Even with a player that would roleplay an addiction in a believable way, I would not like it because it's still separating the player from the character.


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> Sort of. I have tables for determining historical developments and events. Something like this:



This is a great approach and works on a small scale too.  It's a great way if you reach the end of your calendar to generate new events on into the future.   Inside a sandbox, it keeps the GM somewhat honest.

I even think rolling for reactions to actions by the players that influence an NPC is a good idea.  If the PCs attack an lair and end up retreating, what do the inhabitants do?  You could just use common sense based on what you know about them.   You might though assign probabilities with the largest being what you think is most likely but the other options are possible and roll for it.   It keeps the GM from falling into a rut and becoming predictable.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Imaro said:


> I wonder how much this has to do with genre though?  I'll be honest when I think of heroic or adventure fantasy... I can't think of too many protagonists who fail when it's life or death due to something like alcoholism.  They can be alcoholics and display it in plenty of situations where it's an inconvenience or embarrassing but rarely does it end up getting them killed.  While in a genre like urban horror, say something like the Kult rpg that is inspired by movies like Seven and by Clive Barker stories I could totally see a protagonist failing in a life or death situation due to alcoholism.  I think 5e's genre for the most part is supposed to be heroic fantasy and dying to a goblin with a rusty dagged because you were drunk doesn't line up with most people's genre expectations very well.  Personally I think this is why the flaws, ideals, bonds, etc are kept light because in the genre it is inspired by they usually are.  That's not to say they can't easily be given more weight, I've done it on my own games.




Sure. I was not delving into genre but looking at a possible mechanic solely in relation to Aldarc's post about the "conveniently forgotten" character flaws.
Also, I guess as your example highlights, different DMs would use such flaw tokens differently. Goblins killing a PC due to alcoholism isn't what I would consider working within the fiction. Perhaps there should be a further limitation in how the DM could utilise such token. Trust works great at tables you are familiar with not so much with strangers.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I think that for me at least I would be as unsatisfied if the GM made it up at that moment as I would if the PC made it up.   I will readily say that historically my rejection of campaigns has been more about GM's making too much stuff up on the fly than it has been about players authoring the fiction.   I suspect my belief that a GM can't effectively make up something so central to the game in a believable way is why I am hesitant about players doing it.
> 
> Face it, the average GM is more knowledgeable and more invested than the average player.   Now there are players who are every bit as invested.  GM's play too and of course there are just really good players.  So I said "on average".   So my doubt that a good GM can pull it off just continues on to players doing it.



My experience is that players do (or ask about) things I didn't anticipate. There are times--my last Saturday session was one--where I look at where the PCs are and I realize I have literally no idea what they'll do or ask, after a few things pending from the previous session (the players are more-than-reasonable about letting me work out answers between sessions, where it fits to do so); in those instances I prep very little--this past Saturday I prepped literally nothing at all (other than answering a couple pending things). I don't think the fact the session was more-improvised than most sessions I run was damaging to anyone's suspension of disbelief. Now, I'm running in a setting I've made up, and I know it pretty well, so--especially since the PCs weren't spoiling for a fight right away--I was able to fall back on that. I wouldn't argue that I'm more knowledgeable about my setting than the players are, but I'd be kinda reluctant to say I'm that much more committed to it.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I think there might be a fourth possibility.  In this possibility the player has declared his character an alcoholic and it is for the most part a flavor thing  with the option for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character mechanically, gaining a minor benefit when it does affect them in game.
> 
> IME this is how I've seen the modern version of D&D play out.  One of my players takes alcoholism as their flaw, whether it is a focus of their character, a hindrance that pops up a majority of the time or an addiction that they manage to control for the most part is entirely up to them and since the reward is minimal the player doesn't feel forced to lean into it any more than they want to.  Commonly the effects of actually drinking alcohol in-game are decided in one of two ways... either the DM and player talk it out and come to an agreement or it is usually codified through an equipment like list.



Of course, but to bring this to my earlier point, as I think that a potential pitfall of this fourth possibility again comes from minimizing/excising character flaws in practice, particularly when it comes to the ability "for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character," as there is a potential conflict of interest between the player's rational meta-analysis of play (e.g., win/victory conditions of the game) and the character's own irrational psychology (e.g., the character's alcoholism). A "hinderance" than can be easily turned off or on at-will by the player as convenient for them is often in practice not a hinderance at all.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> When, as a player of a character who is trained in the lore of the great masters and who is intent on finding spellbooks to enhance her repertoire of magic, I think _Isn't Evard's tower around here_, I am engaging in the same mental process as the GM who, in response to a question from a player, feels that there is no logical or possible answer but _this is how things are in the gameworld._
> 
> In my view both are acts of authorship. But to the extent that someone is hesitant to use that word, because it doesn't _feel _like making things up, then that is as true for the player playing the character as the GM "playing" the world.



I wanna comment on this, since I was tagged into the larger post:

I agree that both of these are authorship, and I am clear, now (though I might not have been clear or stated it clearly in the past) that my preferences in GMing-style are very much mostly centered around being much more comfortable GMing when the vast majority facts I have to keep track of are the ones I add; there's also at least a little bit of bad experience with worlds where different people wanted different things in the world seeming muddled.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> I agree, but until-unless we get all the players wearing DM-controllable virtual-reality headsets with the whole setting programmed in it's kind of all we've got.




Not at all. People are literally sharing other ways of doing that in this thread, and have in many others that you've read.

It's really real!!!!



Lanefan said:


> In part, this is why I tend to like playing characters who are foreign to the adventuring area when first starting a new campaign: I can discover the region along with my character. Then for a future character in the same game I can play a local and have some local knowledge already built in.




Sure, that's a perfectly fine way to play. I do think it works for certain approaches, or certain types of games. I don't think I'd ever want that to be the default for my PCs. I prefer when my PC actually feels like a part of the world....that they existed and had a life before the game starts, and that those past experiences can matter to what we do in the game.

That makes me feel much more involved and immersed than if we're both strangers arriving in a new frontier in every game.



Imaro said:


> I think there might be a fourth possibility.  In this possibility the player has declared his character an alcoholic and it is for the most part a flavor thing  with the option for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character mechanically, gaining a minor benefit when it does affect them in game.
> 
> IME this is how I've seen the modern version of D&D play out.  One of my players takes alcoholism as their flaw, whether it is a focus of their character, a hindrance that pops up a majority of the time or an addiction that they manage to control for the most part is entirely up to them and since the reward is minimal the player doesn't feel forced to lean into it any more than they want to.  Commonly the effects of actually drinking alcohol in-game are decided in one of two ways... either the DM and player talk it out and come to an agreement or it is usually codified through an equipment like list.




This sounds like it's a bit of flavor and not much else. Kind of like the Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws of 5E D&D. It's there, and it potentially helps give a sense of character, but it doesn't influence play a lot, and usually only when the player would like it to.

And that's fine. I think some of us here in the discussion prefer when something like a character's flaw may actually be a flaw that causes trouble for them. I prefer that, I think. That can be achieved through some mechanical carrot, maybe offered by the GM or maybe suggested by the player....I think Fate does this, though my experience with that game is minimal. Blades in the Dark does it by simply offering XP if the PC struggles with their Vice or their Traumas; so it's still up to the player, but it offers them a whole new XP trigger that they can use to advance.

These kinds of mechanics make it so that the character traits of the characters are more central to play. They actually come up and matter, so that the game is actually about them.

Again, this is possible to do with something like D&D 5E's Traits and Flaws, but it will require a player who is wiling to work at it, and maybe some effort on the part of the DM make sure that it carries more weight.


----------



## prabe

Aldarc said:


> Of course, but to bring this to my earlier point, as I think that a potential pitfall of this fourth possibility again comes from minimizing/excising character flaws in practice, particularly when it comes to the ability "for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character," as there is a potential conflict of interest between the player's rational meta-analysis of play (e.g., win/victory conditions of the game) and the character's own irrational psychology (e.g., the character's alcoholism). A "hinderance" than can be easily turned off or on at-will by the player as convenient form them is often in practice not a hinderance at all.



This is true. There's also a difference between a player wanting to turn off a hindrance so they can succeed in-game, and a player not wanting to deal with a hindrance for out-of-game reasons (they don't feel like dealing with a story about alcoholism at the game table tonight). A player who doesn't want yet another session to center around that hindrance, after some number recently, is different from both of those, but closer to the latter.

Looking at that, I guess it's pretty clear what my largest issue with such systems is ...


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> My experience is that players do (or ask about) things I didn't anticipate. There are times--my last Saturday session was one--where I look at where the PCs are and I realize I have literally no idea what they'll do or ask, after a few things pending from the previous session (the players are more-than-reasonable about letting me work out answers between sessions, where it fits to do so); in those instances I prep very little--this past Saturday I prepped literally nothing at all (other than answering a couple pending things). I don't think the fact the session was more-improvised than most sessions I run was damaging to anyone's suspension of disbelief. Now, I'm running in a setting I've made up, and I know it pretty well, so--especially since the PCs weren't spoiling for a fight right away--I was able to fall back on that. I wouldn't argue that I'm more knowledgeable about my setting than the players are, but I'd be kinda reluctant to say I'm that much more committed to it.



Maybe I overstated a bit.   I realize that there is a point no matter how well prepared where the GM may have to improvise on minor details.   And as you say there are times where the players will do things like hang around town and see what trouble they can get themselves into when the GM has to make some judgments.

I may be a bit further along on the prep dial than you but it is a dial.  And no matter how well prepped you may have to improv.  Most of the time for me this is conversations between NPCs and PCs.   I try to inform my improv a lot with good notes on the NPCs and judicious use of die rolls for reactions etc... to maintain fairness.


----------



## Fenris-77

I might go further than that. Regardless of prep depth, it's actually really easy for players to zig when you'd thought they'd zag and end up deep in the blank spaces of your prep. Even a single city will never be completely prepped, and the best prepped keyed hex map still needs all manner of other details to actually use. It's just part of RPG play.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> Maybe I overstated a bit.   I realize that there is a point no matter how well prepared where the GM may have to improvise on minor details.   And as you say there are times where the players will do things like hang around town and see what trouble they can get themselves into when the GM has to make some judgments.
> 
> I may be a bit further along on the prep dial than you but it is a dial.  And no matter how well prepped you may have to improv.  Most of the time for me this is conversations between NPCs and PCs.   I try to inform my improv a lot with good notes on the NPCs and judicious use of die rolls for reactions etc... to maintain fairness.



I suspect you are quite a lot further on the prep dial than I am, which is fine--it's how you prefer to run and the people at your table/s are happy to play in that style (and plausibly are specifically looking to play in that style); I wouldn't be surprised if--in the unlikely event you were to play at one of my tables--you thought I was making too much stuff up for your tastes--which again is fine.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, that's a perfectly fine way to play. I do think it works for certain approaches, or certain types of games. I don't think I'd ever want that to be the default for my PCs. I prefer when my PC actually feels like a part of the world....that they existed and had a life before the game starts, and that those past experiences can matter to what we do in the game.
> 
> That makes me feel much more involved and immersed than if we're both strangers arriving in a new frontier in every game.



I'm not replying to this post so much as the many posts you've made recently where this subject was mentioned.  So it's an aggregate response.

Specifically as it regards character background knowledge.

Yes on average, I tend to have PCs arriving from out of town.  Before the game starts though I interview each player and we work out his or her background.  We establish some allies and usually where they came from and how much they know.   I may even give them a map and a list of NPCs.   If that is appropriate.  It varies from game to game.  if someone is a cleric then I give them a lot of notes on their religion, it's practices, rituals, and the hierarchy.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> I think that for me at least I would be as unsatisfied if the GM made it up at that moment as I would if the PC made it up.   I will readily say that historically my rejection of campaigns has been more about GM's making too much stuff up on the fly than it has been about players authoring the fiction.   I suspect my belief that a GM can't effectively make up something so central to the game in a believable way is why I am hesitant about players doing it.
> 
> Face it, the average GM is more knowledgeable and more invested than the average player.   Now there are players who are every bit as invested.  GM's play too and of course there are just really good players.  So I said "on average".   So my doubt that a good GM can pull it off just continues on to players doing it.




This is something that comes up a lot, and I don't think is very accurate. Pretty much every game I've ever played or GMed has involved some amount of improvisation. Even the most railroady of adventures still had the players do something that made the GM have to think on their feet and narrate stuff on the fly. And all of those games worked perfectly fine in that respect. 

The GM having to wing it does not cause everything to fall apart. 

Now, I do think that any game needs to have some information established as a foundation. I'm not saying that GMs should start at zero input and then expect to craft a world for the players on the fly. But the amount of prep and pre-determination that is often considered "necessary" simply isn't. 

It may be a preference on the part of a specific GM. It may be something that helps them or that they enjoy doing in between game sessions. But no, when it comes to gaming, something that a GM has already decided days in advance based on 12 pages of backstory that he's written is not inherently more believable than something else another GM made after taking 30 seconds to consider, and making a call. 

Very often, I find not having to track all that pre-determined history to make crafting believable details much easier. A lot of times, once you commit to a detail, the why of it becomes very clear on its own.



Emerikol said:


> I think generally this is how my games have went. D&D doesn't really have a disadvantages system so it's not really been a big challenge. There are disadvantages though you could put on a PC that would be playable like bad eyesight which would just give negatives in certain instances. But those involving willpower vs addiction, are hard to do without going to metagame approaches which is too high a cost for me. Even with a player that would roleplay an addiction in a believable way, I would not like it because it's still separating the player from the character.




So you don't want any kind of meta mechanic or incentive (although I expect you do use XP, or no?) because that would break immersion, but having a world where no one actually suffers from things like alcoholism doesn't break immersion?


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> I might go further than that. Regardless of prep depth, it's actually really easy for players to zig when you'd thought they'd zag and end up deep in the blank spaces of your prep. Even a single city will never be completely prepped, and the best prepped keyed hex map still needs all manner of other details to actually use. It's just part of RPG play.



This becomes a bit more of a hazard at high level when the sandbox starts to creak a bit.   At low levels, I really do have the starting sandbox pretty detailed out.  Of course I roll for wandering monsters because I don't know every transients movements in the game world.  I do though especially with town locations build my own "wandering peoples" tables that reflect where at a given time certain NPCs could theoretically be.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Of course, but to bring this to my earlier point, as I think that a potential pitfall of this fourth possibility again comes from minimizing/excising character flaws in practice, particularly when it comes to the ability "for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character," as there is a potential conflict of interest between the player's rational meta-analysis of play (e.g., win/victory conditions of the game) and the character's own irrational psychology (e.g., the character's alcoholism). A "hinderance" than can be easily turned off or on at-will by the player as convenient for them is often in practice not a hinderance at all.




But if this is the concept the player has determined for their character and rewards have only a slight mechanical benefit shouldn't we trust the player to play the concept as they have envisioned it in an honest manner?  Especially if said small mechanical benefit is still under the jurisdiction of the GM and/or the table as a whole?


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> So you don't want any kind of meta mechanic or incentive (although I expect you do use XP, or no?) because that would break immersion, but having a world where no one actually suffers from things like alcoholism doesn't break immersion?



We are talking PCs here not the entire world.  So no it doesn't bother me that a small group of five people does not have an addict.  I encounter such groups in the real world all the time.   I can have NPC alcoholics because I as GM are not immersed at all.  I am just playing roles.   

At least with D&D, I don't think killing monsters and taking their treasure as a motive for adventurers is hard to sustain.  To the degree x.p. motivates that is about it.  My players engage in lots of other things and have all sorts of desires that don't come back to the x.p. motivation.   The x.p. will come from playing and it's not a driving force.   If I told my players "I'll just tell you when you level", it wouldn't be the end of the world.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> This becomes a bit more of a hazard at high level when the sandbox starts to creak a bit.   At low levels, I really do have the starting sandbox pretty detailed out.  Of course I roll for wandering monsters because I don't know every transients movements in the game world.  I do though especially with town locations build my own "wandering peoples" tables that reflect where at a given time certain NPCs could theoretically be.



I wasn't impugning you sandbox prep at all. It's just the nature of the game that certain detail, descriptions, etc etc etc will always have to be improv-ed. It's not possible to prep _everything_ about a world or even desirable. We each do out best to prep the things we think we'll need, or the things we think the players will interact with, to the extent we feel we need to, but you never escape the need to improv in a sandbox (or any game for that matter). Random tables are the usual answer, as well as my personal answer to this issue.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> I wasn't impugning you sandbox prep at all. It's just the nature of the game that certain detail, descriptions, etc etc etc will always have to be improv-ed. It's not possible to prep _everything_ about a world or even desirable. We each do out best to prep the things we think we'll need, or the things we think the players will interact with, to the extent we feel we need to, but you never escape the need to improv in a sandbox (or any game for that matter). Random tables are the usual answer to this, and my personal answer to this issue.



I wasn't denying that.  Perhaps it was your blank hex comment that got me.  There are no blank hexes inside my sandbox.  Of course if the hex is a woodlands hex, I will describe some trees.  I don't have that description noted other than maybe broadly that the forest is a temperate climate forest.   So if I describe branches with leaves rustling in the wind, I don't have it noted that the wind will blow at 2pm on Friday or that there is a tree in spot X that will have branches that rustle.   I agree that some details must be improv'd.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> This sounds like it's a bit of flavor and not much else. Kind of like the Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws of 5E D&D. It's there, and it potentially helps give a sense of character, but it doesn't influence play a lot, and usually only when the player would like it to.
> 
> And that's fine. I think some of us here in the discussion prefer when something like a character's flaw may actually be a flaw that causes trouble for them. I prefer that, I think. That can be achieved through some mechanical carrot, maybe offered by the GM or maybe suggested by the player....I think Fate does this, though my experience with that game is minimal. Blades in the Dark does it by simply offering XP if the PC struggles with their Vice or their Traumas; so it's still up to the player, but it offers them a whole new XP trigger that they can use to advance.
> 
> These kinds of mechanics make it so that the character traits of the characters are more central to play. They actually come up and matter, so that the game is actually about them.
> 
> Again, this is possible to do with something like D&D 5E's Traits and Flaws, but it will require a player who is wiling to work at it, and maybe some effort on the part of the DM make sure that it carries more weight.




I get that others may prefer something different, but at the same time if we are doing analysis then it's important not to leave a potential possibility out that might suit others better.  Ultimately I just wanted to show another option, and one I would argue is popular enough that it should probably be mentioned as well.

I would also state that the flaw being established in this fashion does not preclude it from being central to play or from coming up and mattering.  What it does do is push that determination solely onto the player who chose the flaw as opposed to enforcing it with game rules.


----------



## AnotherGuy

prabe said:


> This is true. There's also a difference between a player wanting to turn off a hindrance so they can succeed in-game, and a player not wanting to deal with a hindrance for out-of-game reasons (they don't feel like dealing with a story about alcoholism at the game table tonight). A player who doesn't want yet another session to center around that hindrance, after some number recently, is different from both of those, but closer to the latter.
> 
> Looking at that, I guess it's pretty clear what my largest issue with such systems is ...




Given that D&D campaigns can certainly last a long time - one could have more than 1 flaw or have new flaws introduced by the player which may be temporary to a particular storyline. We should not cement characters to one singular unchanging flaw for an entire campaign. Furthermore the system I recommend upthread allows the GM to call upon the flaw via token earned only after one has used their Inspiration or only with the buy-in of the player via offering an Inspiration point for the PC to play to the flaw.
Therefore in both instances the player still controls how often the flaw comes into effect.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I wonder how much this has to do with genre though?  I'll be honest when I think of heroic or adventure fantasy... I can't think of too many protagonists who fail when it's life or death due to something like alcoholism.  They can be alcoholics and display it in plenty of situations where it's an inconvenience or embarrassing but rarely does it end up getting them killed.



Possibly, but that doesn't mean that analogs to alcoholism or such flaws don't exist in the adventure fantasy genre, both contemporary and older forms. For example, we can look at characters like Elric, whose physical condition has made him at first dependent on sorcery and drugs and then, later, on the soul-sucking sword Stormbringer. "He can quit Stormbringer anytime he wants to." He knows that what he does has a moral dimension to it and that it often wrecks his personal life. But he repeatedly falls back onto using the sword for his personal fix, which often gets his friends and loved-ones killed. It's not alcoholism but it is definitely a hinderance that creates narrative complications.

In Arthurian fantasy we may see flaws like "lust" (e.g., Arthur, Lancelot, etc.) and these flaws lead to fracturing of the Round Table and leads, quite literally, to _Le Morte d'Arthur_. This is what games like Pendragon and Prince Valiant attempt to emulate. In Greek epics, "hubris" often leads to the undoing or hinderance of many of its most valiant heroes. Odysseus does eventually get back home, but his own hubris (and lust) is personally responsible for prolonging this journey: "Cyclops, if any one asks you who it was that put your eye out and spoiled your beauty, say it was the valiant warrior Odysseus, son of Laertes, who lives in Ithaca." Oops.



Imaro said:


> But if this is the concept the player has determined for their character and rewards have only a slight mechanical benefit shouldn't we trust the player to play the concept as they have envisioned it in an honest manner?  Especially if said small mechanical benefit is still under the jurisdiction of the GM and/or the table as a whole?



Do you not agree that there may be a conflict of interest at play between at the player's rational understanding of optimal play and the irrationality of a character's in-fiction actions? 



prabe said:


> This is true. There's also a difference between a player wanting to turn off a hindrance so they can succeed in-game, and a player not wanting to deal with a hindrance for out-of-game reasons (they don't feel like dealing with a story about alcoholism at the game table tonight). A player who doesn't want yet another session to center around that hindrance, after some number recently, is different from both of those, but closer to the latter.
> 
> Looking at that, I guess it's pretty clear what my largest issue with such systems is ...



This is a point, were we playing Fate, that I would ask the player (1) "why did you pick this as your Trouble, if you didn't want to see it regularly come up into play?" (2) "how did you envision this Trouble would work out in play for your character?" and (3) "would you like to take the opportunity now to change your character's Trouble?" In Fate a character's Troubles can (and are even encouraged to) change. If a character's trouble involves their long lost brother, to borrow from a discussion from another heated thread, then that may Trouble will naturally change once that brother is found, whether they are living or dead.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> I wasn't denying that.  Perhaps it was your blank hex comment that got me.  There are no blank hexes inside my sandbox.  Of course if the hex is a woodlands hex, I will describe some trees.  I don't have that description noted other than maybe broadly that the forest is a temperate climate forest.   So if I describe branches with leaves rustling in the wind, I don't have it noted that the wind will blow at 2pm on Friday or that there is a tree in spot X that will have branches that rustle.   I agree that some details must be improv'd.



Ah, I didn't say blank hexes, I said blank spaces in your prep, which was more to stand in for whatever's not prepped in a given game, rather than map areas specifically. Although in games other than yours that could be map areas, and perhaps in your game as well depending on what lies beyond the borders of your map. Anyway, yeah, improv and random tables.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Possibly, but that doesn't mean that analogs to alcoholism or such flaws don't exist in the adventure fantasy genre, both contemporary and older forms. For example, we can look at characters like Elric, whose physical condition has made him at first dependent on sorcery and drugs and then, later, on the soul-sucking sword Stormbringer. "He can quit Stormbringer anytime he wants to." He knows that what he does has a moral dimension to it and that it often wrecks his personal life. But he repeatedly falls back onto using the sword for his personal fix, which often gets his friends and loved-ones killed. It's not alcoholism but it is definitely a hinderance that creates narrative complications.




I'm not so sure I agree with this assessment of Elric.  If anything he actually succeeds more when using drugs, sorcery or Stormbringer, it is actually his non-Melnibonean morality that causes those he cares about to be killed (and it's not because he was weaker in a fight or couldn't accomplish a skill due to said hindrance).  Case in point if he had handled his cousin Yyrkoon as a Melnibonean would have... Well let's just say the entire story would have been different. 



Aldarc said:


> In Arthurian fantasy we may see flaws like "lust" (e.g., Arthur, Lancelot, etc.) and these flaws lead to fracturing of the Round Table and leads, quite literally, to _Le Morte d'Arthur_. This is what games like Pendragon and Prince Valiant attempt to emulate. In Greek epics, "hubris" often leads to the undoing or hinderance of many of its most valiant heroes. Odysseus does eventually get back home, but his own hubris (and lust) is personally responsible for prolonging this journey: "Cyclops, if any one asks you who it was that put your eye out and spoiled your beauty, say it was the valiant warrior Odysseus, son of Laertes, who lives in Ithaca." Oops.




Yes but these aren't really the pulp and adventure fiction that D&D drew it's greatest inspirations from.  Now that said I definitely feel there is room for these types of flaws in the game but... with the wide range of sources it draws on I do not think mechanically enforcing detrimental effects for flaws would have been appropriate or appreciated.  I think giving a mechanic that can easily fade into the background or easily be given more mechanical weight by individual tables was actually a pretty good way to go.  As @prabe hinted at in one of his posts, I may want to explore my characters flaws in a session here or there but that doesn't mean I want them to always be the focus of the game, especially in D&D.  It offers a wider palate at the expense of some mechanical heft (unless the DM/players are willing to add to it).    


Aldarc said:


> Do you not agree that there may be a conflict of interest at play between at the player's rational understanding of optimal play and the irrationality of a character's in-fiction actions?



I'm not disagreeing that there may be... but with a reward system that is minimal, and controlled by the other participants of the game...does it matter?


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> This is something that comes up a lot, and I don't think is very accurate. Pretty much every game I've ever played or GMed has involved some amount of improvisation. Even the most railroady of adventures still had the players do something that made the GM have to think on their feet and narrate stuff on the fly. And all of those games worked perfectly fine in that respect.
> 
> The GM having to wing it does not cause everything to fall apart.
> 
> Now, I do think that any game needs to have some information established as a foundation. I'm not saying that GMs should start at zero input and then expect to craft a world for the players on the fly. But the amount of prep and pre-determination that is often considered "necessary" simply isn't.



You've mixed winging it with having to improv on occasion.  I think we can agree that at the edges improv has to occur to some degree.   Winging it though is making up the adventure or inventing whole groups of important NPCs on the fly.  And I very much have observed games fall apart under such conditions.


----------



## Campbell

I am of the mind that we cannot really know what is minor or what is essential prior to actually playing the game. A significant chunk of any session involves a lot of structural play and setup. Some amount of authoring needs to happen if we are going to have as rich an experience as possible. I generally want to get to the point where as little of that is happening as possible (including from the GM). If we lean solely on the GM for it than it becomes demonstrably harder to get to that point. In the midst of actually playing the game I would prefer the GM be able to be as focused as possible on playing the world with integrity.

I am generally not a minimalist when it comes to prep, either as a player or a GM. I probably spend 5-10 hours a week on prep as a GM if I'm really into the game I am running and about an hour or two as a player. It looks different depending on the game and might have more details pinned down in something like Exalted than something like Blades, but if I'm passionate about the game I am running or playing in I cannot help myself.

In most of the games I run and play in these days there is a substantial slice of life component. We place a lot of emphasis on character's families, friends, mentors, lovers, et. al. My vampire character has an estranged wife, coworkers (still works as a security consultant), clan ties, a driver, a couple apartments, a handler from Mossad, etc. He lives a full life. Getting to that level of depth and sense of history requires a lot of work / authorship. I find it best if players have a hand in helping create the things and people their characters would value because it feels a lot more natural than "Let me tell you about your brother." to me.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> We are talking PCs here not the entire world.  So no it doesn't bother me that a small group of five people does not have an addict.  I encounter such groups in the real world all the time.   I can have NPC alcoholics because I as GM are not immersed at all.  I am just playing roles.
> 
> At least with D&D, I don't think killing monsters and taking their treasure as a motive for adventurers is hard to sustain.  To the degree x.p. motivates that is about it.  My players engage in lots of other things and have all sorts of desires that don't come back to the x.p. motivation.   The x.p. will come from playing and it's not a driving force.   If I told my players "I'll just tell you when you level", it wouldn't be the end of the world.




Sure, I'm not saying that a game is only about what it rewards. It's just going to very much be about that. Anything else will be secondary, or perhaps wrapped up with the main goal of play. So in D&D, most things will somehow revolve around killing monsters and taking their stuff. Not everything, for sure, but that's going to be central to most games, I would expect.

And although alcoholism was an example, it's just one. The idea that a group of five people could be subjected to what is essentially an unending stream of violence and trauma and not pick up some serious flaws.....seems utterly preposterous. But that may be absolutely fine.....I've played in plenty of action/adventure style games where that's the focus and we're not really interested in the psychological/emotional/physical toll it would take on the characters. 

Again, it really just boils down to preference and what participants want to see in a game.



Imaro said:


> I get that others may prefer something different, but at the same time if we are doing analysis then it's important not to leave a potential possibility out that might suit others better.  Ultimately I just wanted to show another option, and one I would argue is popular enough that it should probably be mentioned as well.
> 
> I would also state that the flaw being established in this fashion does not preclude it from being central to play or from coming up and mattering.  What it does do is push that determination solely onto the player who chose the flaw as opposed to enforcing it with game rules.




Sure, I agree. I think that the option you're proposing, which as I said is similar to how D&D 5E does it, is far and away the most common approach. I don't think it needs any champions in that regard......it's the way the most popular game handles it, and by many accounts, plenty of players and DMs don't even bother with the Traits, Bonds, and Flaws anyway. 

But I do agree it is possible. I've run a very long 5E campaign and the PCs have these kinds of elements, and they're almost entirely based on us handling as a group rather than any mechanical system in place. Although I think we benefit from having played some other games that do use those kinds of sticks and carrots, and that influences our play in 5E as well.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> This is true. There's also a difference between a player wanting to turn off a hindrance so they can succeed in-game, and a player not wanting to deal with a hindrance for out-of-game reasons (they don't feel like dealing with a story about alcoholism at the game table tonight). A player who doesn't want yet another session to center around that hindrance, after some number recently, is different from both of those, but closer to the latter.
> 
> Looking at that, I guess it's pretty clear what my largest issue with such systems is ...



I hand out roleplaying experience. The award gets larger if the roleplay is a flaw that appropriately shows up at a time that is inconvenient for the players.  If that alcoholic was at the feast table of the king as a reward for service and there was lots of wine and other liquors available.  Getting overly drunk and all that comes with that would garner a pretty nice exp bonus.  As well as the possible ire of the king as determined by roleplay and other circumstances.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with this assessment of Elric.  If anything he actually succeeds more when using drugs, sorcery or Stormbringer, it is actually his non-Melnibonean morality that causes those he cares about to be killed (and it's not because he was weaker in a fight or couldn't accomplish a skill due to said hindrance).  Case in point if he had handled his cousin Yyrkoon as a Melnibonean would have... Well let's just say the entire story would have been different.



We can quibble about this assessment of Elric some other time. But that's the nature of the incentive structure in play in these stories. Elric is pushed to use sorcery, drugs, and Stormbringer because it helps him succeed, but it's also a source of his tragedy (and death). He is effectively addicted to these things for the sake of his success. If it were Dark Sun, one could say that defiling magic can help you succeed, but it's also at the cost of the world's life. 



Imaro said:


> Yes but these aren't really the pulp and adventure fiction that D&D drew it's greatest inspirations from.



I don't think that the issue is whether this is the fiction D&D drew its greatest inspiration from, because we could certainly find flawed characters in significant sources of inspiration (cf. see Elric above, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, etc.), but, rather, what formed the primary assumption of play in the nascent period of D&D: i.e., skilled play. IMHO, the issue arises in D&D when there is a conflict between the various play priorities. 



Imaro said:


> As @prabe hinted at in one of his posts, I may want to explore my characters flaws in a session here or there but that doesn't mean I want them to always be the focus of the game, especially in D&D.  It offers a wider palate at the expense of some mechanical heft (unless the DM/players are willing to add to it).



Sure, but might that also have to do with D&D having less active support or focus on dramatic protagonism in comparison with other games? 



Imaro said:


> I'm not disagreeing that there may be... but with a reward system that is minimal, and controlled by the other participants of the game...does it matter?



If it doesn't matter, then why bother? It may as well not be a flaw at all, as it's essentially a character flaw in name only. FINO?


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I might go further than that. Regardless of prep depth, it's actually really easy for players to zig when you'd thought they'd zag and end up deep in the blank spaces of your prep. Even a single city will never be completely prepped, and the best prepped keyed hex map still needs all manner of other details to actually use. It's just part of RPG play.



This. And I love when they zig like that.  It keeps me on my toes.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> You've mixed winging it with having to improv on occasion.  I think we can agree that at the edges improv has to occur to some degree.   Winging it though is making up the adventure or inventing whole groups of important NPCs on the fly.  And I very much have observed games fall apart under such conditions.




Am I mixing them, or are they just different words for the same thing? 

You've provided a distinction between the two that I don't really think is all that significant. 

And games can fall apart for any number of reasons. What matters is that whatever method you're using makes sense for the game you're playing. So if I'm going to play some Moldvay D&D, then having a stocked dungeon makes sense. In this case, winging it is likely not the preferred method because the goal of play is not roleplaying characters so much as skillfully navigating your characters through a dungeon of obstacles. 

The rules of that game are designed to deliver that experience. 

But if instead we're talking about portraying characters and having the kind of protagonist play that has come up in this discussion....where the game revolves around THESE characters specifically, and they can't just be swapped out for others and have the game remain the same......then I would think having rules designed to deliver that experience are what's important. 

So for that kind of game, like Blades in the Dark, having rules that will generate new situations in play, which will prompt the players and GM to build on what's happened, combined with rules that will connect PC-centered ideas and goals to the game in a tangible way......it's simply more suited to that kind of play. Committing too strongly beforehand to any ideas will likely see that game fall apart.

The rules of that game are designed to deliver that experience.


----------



## prabe

AnotherGuy said:


> Given that D&D campaigns can certainly last a long time - one could have more than 1 flaw or have new flaws introduced by the player which may be temporary to a particular storyline. We should not cement characters to one singular unchanging flaw for an entire campaign. Furthermore the system I recommend upthread allows the GM to call upon the flaw via token earned only after one has used their Inspiration or only with the buy-in of the player via offering an Inspiration point for the PC to play to the flaw.
> Therefore in both instances the player still controls how often the flaw comes into effect.



Ah. As I've mentioned, I don't use Inspiration or its associated character trait mechanics in my 5E games. I'm happy to observe how the characters are being played and if something seems like a flaw I can react to, react to it. If a party is being ... impulsive (and maybe a touch overconfident) I'll build a scenario where that will make things more difficult for them; if a character sets out to antagonize someone/something really powerful, I'll let him do it, then I'll make him pay for it.

More generally, I agree that D&D campaigns do tend to run long enough that either letting PCs pick more than one flaw or allowing them to resolve or otherwise change them would be preferable to doing neither.



Aldarc said:


> This is a point, were we playing Fate, that I would ask the player (1) "why did you pick this as your Trouble, if you didn't want to see it regularly come up into play?" (2) "how did you envision this Trouble would work out in play for your character?" and (3) "would you like to take the opportunity now to change your character's Trouble?" In Fate a character's Troubles can (and are even encouraged to) change. If a character's trouble involves their long lost brother, to borrow from a discussion from another heated thread, then that may Trouble will naturally change once that brother is found, whether they are living or dead.



Those would be reasonable questions. I guess I'm envisioning a player who chose that Trouble in good faith and hasn't resolved it (so changing it maybe doesn't fit the narrative) and either A) has grown at least temporarily tired of it or B) has dealt with some similar stuff in the real world recently, and just doesn't want to deal with that Trouble tonight. I guess you could agree on a temporary trouble or something, but it seems like something Fate isn't built to handle with particular grace. (Which might be my own crankiness about Fate showing.)


----------



## Campbell

I'm a personally not a fan of flaw mechanics. I like the minor rewards in something like Blades in the Dark for playing conflicted characters, but I generally view it more like cover fire. By explicitly building in a fairly minor reward you basically give a player permission to play to their character a bit rather than wholly to group success. Because the reward is not overwhelming and not repeatable it keeps relatively constrained.

I do no like Compels in FATE though. I'm not a fan of suffering now to be awesome later or basically playing out tropes. I want mechanics to align player and character perspectives as much as possible rather than to encourage what I would call portrayal or characterization. I usually strive for embodying the character. Vices in Blades, Willpower triggers in World of Darkness, Strife in L5R 5e, Intimacies in Exalted, and basically the entire way Dogs in the Vineyard works is much better than Inspiration for playing flaws or Fate Points for accepting Compels to me.


----------



## Aldarc

prabe said:


> Those would be reasonable questions. I guess I'm envisioning a player who chose that Trouble in good faith and hasn't resolved it (so changing it maybe doesn't fit the narrative) and either A) has grown at least temporarily tired of it or B) has dealt with some similar stuff in the real world recently, and just doesn't want to deal with that Trouble tonight. I guess you could agree on a temporary trouble or something, but it seems like something Fate isn't built to handle with particular grace. (Which might be my own crankiness about Fate showing.)



It doesn't seem difficult to handle gracefully in Fate at all. In Fate Condensed, you can rewrite any aspect apart from your High Concept at the end of a session as a milestone. It doesn't necessarily need resolved. If they don't want to deal with that Trouble tonight, then Fate is a game that encourages open communication and discussion between the GM and players. I'm not sure why Fate couldn't handle it with grace.


----------



## prabe

Aldarc said:


> It doesn't seem difficult to handle gracefully in Fate at all. In Fate Condensed, you can rewrite any aspect apart from your High Concept at the end of a session as a milestone. It doesn't necessarily need resolved. If they don't want to deal with that Trouble tonight, then Fate is a game that encourages open communication and discussion between the GM and players. I'm not sure why Fate couldn't handle it with grace.



My concern is that by temporarily removing an Aspect from play, one might cause problems with the Fate Point Economy (which I found to be pretty easy to break by scarcity). There's also the fact that I don't like--and never have been happy with--"session" as a mechanical unit of play. Ending an in-game narrative arc at a specific real-world time isn't something I've had any success with.


----------



## Aldarc

prabe said:


> My concern is that by temporarily removing an Aspect from play, one might cause problems with the Fate Point Economy (which I found to be pretty easy to break by scarcity). There's also the fact that I don't--and never have--been happy with "session" as a mechanical unit of play. Ending an in-game narrative arc at a specific real-world time isn't something I've had any success with.



If someone doesn't want to deal with a Trouble, then I'd let them change it to something they'd rather deal with that night. No biggie. I kinda like the idea of having several Troubles that players could switch out for game sessions. It's also not difficult to modify "session" to another mechanical unit of play (e.g., days). There are so many different versions of Fate out there. It's less of a game and more of a toolkit.



Campbell said:


> I'm a personally not a fan of flaw mechanics. I like the minor rewards in something like Blades in the Dark for playing conflicted characters, but I generally view it more like cover fire. By explicitly building in a fairly minor reward you basically give a player permission to play to their character a bit rather than wholly to group success. Because the reward is not overwhelming and not repeatable it keeps relatively constrained.
> 
> I do no like Compels in FATE though. I'm not a fan of suffering now to be awesome later or basically playing out tropes. I want mechanics to align player and character perspectives as much as possible rather than to encourage what I would call portrayal or characterization. I usually strive for embodying the character. Vices in Blades, Willpower triggers in World of Darkness, Strife in L5R 5e, Intimacies in Exalted, and basically the entire way Dogs in the Vineyard works is much better than Inspiration for playing flaws or Fate Points for accepting Compels to me.



It may seem like semantics, but Fate's Troubles aren't so much a flaw mechanic as it is a character complication mechanic. It can be a character flaw (e.g., Manners Like a Goat), but it definitely doesn't have to be (e.g., Massive Debt to Jabba the Hutt). It's mainly meant to be a character's chosen lightning rod for GM complications that they want their character to experience in play.


----------



## Imaro

Campbell said:


> I'm a personally not a fan of flaw mechanics. I like the minor rewards in something like Blades in the Dark for playing conflicted characters, but I generally view it more like cover fire. By explicitly building in a fairly minor reward you basically give a player permission to play to their character a bit rather than wholly to group success. Because the reward is not overwhelming and not repeatable it keeps relatively constrained.
> 
> I do no like Compels in FATE though. I'm not a fan of suffering now to be awesome later or basically playing out tropes. I want mechanics to align player and character perspectives as much as possible rather than to encourage what I would call portrayal or characterization. I usually strive for embodying the character. Vices in Blades, Willpower triggers in World of Darkness, Strife in L5R 5e, Intimacies in Exalted, and basically the entire way Dogs in the Vineyard works is much better than Inspiration for playing flaws or Fate Points for accepting Compels to me.



From reading your first paragraph I would have thought you would have liked Inspiration in 5e.  It is a minor reward that gives a player permission to play their character a bit rather than wholly to group success.  It's not overwhelming and you can only hold a finite amount of inspiration.  I'm curious what you don't like about it?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Campbell said:


> I'm a personally not a fan of flaw mechanics. I like the minor rewards in something like Blades in the Dark for playing conflicted characters, but I generally view it more like cover fire. By explicitly building in a fairly minor reward you basically give a player permission to play to their character a bit rather than wholly to group success. Because the reward is not overwhelming and not repeatable it keeps relatively constrained.




In my current Blades game, I'm playing a Leech named Haight and his vice is Stupor. The way I've set it up is that he has an academic view of drugs, and he finds that they help him with his crafting. He gets his best ideas when he's under the influence (or at least he thinks he does). And he looks at the spectrological/electroplasm sphere as simply another science and he wants to learn about it.

Based on this, I jump at any chance to study or interact with ghosts or other entities. This has come up a few times during play as he's taken risks in those areas that aren't necessarily connected to the Crew's goals, but which put a Score at risk. So far, he's taken a potent drug on a Social Score with the Dimmer Sisters in an attempt to impress them that he can handle himself- the risk being that he'd be too inebriated to help on the social score; on another Score he led some cohorts into an area that was currently besieged by ghosts in an attempt to learn what he could, and to use some equipment provided to him by the Sparkwrights (some of which he kept, which means they may come looking for it in the future). 

So in these cases, I've been able to mark some XP for introducing complications related to my Vice. I don't know if I'd call that a minor reward or not....it feels pretty meaningful.....but ultimately, it's more about portraying him honestly now that we know who he is. So the XP is just a nice bonus, but really it's like "Oh you know Haight can't resist this" kind of situation.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Am I mixing them, or are they just different words for the same thing?
> 
> You've provided a distinction between the two that I don't really think is all that significant.



Really?  So inventing massive amounts of information that all has to remain consistent is the same as just answering an unexpected question based upon a fully developed character.



hawkeyefan said:


> And games can fall apart for any number of reasons. What matters is that whatever method you're using makes sense for the game you're playing. So if I'm going to play some Moldvay D&D, then having a stocked dungeon makes sense. In this case, winging it is likely not the preferred method because the goal of play is not roleplaying characters so much as skillfully navigating your characters through a dungeon of obstacles.



I've found playing old school D&D is not a hindrance to roleplaying.  Mechanics are not necessary to roleplay.  Mechanics may help some roleplay and in some cases hinder others for that matter.  



hawkeyefan said:


> The rules of that game are designed to deliver that experience.



I get that the game you mention is focused on providing mechanics to achieve an experience you want.  For me though while it might assist in roleplaying it would ruin other aspects of what I like about a game so it wouldn't be a win.  And I don't need those mechanics to have a fun roleplaying game with lots of interaction between PCs and lots of immersion.



hawkeyefan said:


> But if instead we're talking about portraying characters and having the kind of protagonist play that has come up in this discussion....where the game revolves around THESE characters specifically, and they can't just be swapped out for others and have the game remain the same......then I would think having rules designed to deliver that experience are what's important.



I think your jaded, game shop AP style D&D play is affecting your judgment.  My games are not at all like that.  A dungeon is a job but my players are more than their jobs.   So I expect, my games would differ depending on which characters got played.   Now do players go completely against type?  No.  Not sure they would want to do that.  



hawkeyefan said:


> So for that kind of game, like Blades in the Dark, having rules that will generate new situations in play, which will prompt the players and GM to build on what's happened, combined with rules that will connect PC-centered ideas and goals to the game in a tangible way......it's simply more suited to that kind of play. Committing too strongly beforehand to any ideas will likely see that game fall apart.



To the style of play the game seems designed for then no arguments.  For a deeply character driven and immersive game, I'd say it's not required at all.  It perhaps goes back to the age old debate from years ago about whether you need mechanics for something to be part of the game.  I don't think you do.   

I think we both want what we like but I won't be caricatured in my own style of play as if there is little or shallow roleplaying going on in my games.   I don't see that.  I see players invested in their characters and being immersed as those characters.  They interact with the world and have a rich roleplaying experience.


----------



## Campbell

Imaro said:


> From reading your first paragraph I would have thought you would have liked Inspiration in 5e.  It is a minor reward that gives a player permission to play their character a bit rather than wholly to group success.  It's not overwhelming and you can only hold a finite amount of inspiration.  I'm curious what you don't like about it?




Mostly I think it's a reward for characterization rather than character.  You are rewarded for fitting an existing conception of a character. It feels performative to me in a way that Blade's more open ended "You expressed your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background."  and "You struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session." do not. The examples provided in backgrounds feel pretty nonconsequential to me. 

It's also a lot of overhead in the midst of play for not much payoff. I have tried using it in play when I ran 5e and we always just ended up forgetting about it.


----------



## Imaro

nd


Campbell said:


> Mostly I think it's a reward for characterization rather than character.  You are rewarded for fitting an existing conception of a character. It feels performative to me in a way that Blade's more open ended "You expressed your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background."  and "You struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session." do not. The examples provided in backgrounds feel pretty nonconsequential to me.




Okay, I am really trying to parse and understand this but I'm having some difficulty here.  First let me say I get that we like what we like and don't like what we don't like... but I am trying to understand your reasoning.  So here are some questions for clarification ifyou feel like answering them...
1. Isn't playing a character doing the things that characterize said character, if not what do you consider it? 
2. It has been a long time since I read or played BitD so to make sure I'll ask...do you decide on your beliefs, drives, heritage, background, and vices/traumas before, after or during a session?
3. What is the difference in a nonconsequential vs. consequential flaw?  I think alot of the flaws in 5e are ripe for exploration through actions.  Could you go into more depth as far as how the traits in BitD differe vs those in 5e?



Campbell said:


> It's also a lot of overhead in the midst of play for not much payoff. I have tried using it in play when I ran 5e and we always just ended up forgetting about it.




I've found the opposite to be true, for the most part my players immediately point out when their traits come into play during a session and it frees me up as DM not to have to worry about it.


----------



## Imaro

On a side note I didn't have much success or enjoyment when I ran BitD for my group but these discussions have made me curious about re-reading it again and perhaps trying another campaign.


----------



## Campbell

@Emirikol

I think talking in terms of what's required to achieve a certain result is not all that useful. We can achieve what we set out to achieve even if we are engaging in less than optimal techniques or even counter productive techniques. Also the optimal techniques for one set of individuals might be different than what works for a different group. Sometimes it can even be time sensitive.

My personal experience with the people I play with is that amount and depth of play stays relatively static across games, but in games where we have mechanical support things feel more tense, stakes are higher, and characters tend to develop in more unexpected ways. In games without mechanical support players tend to engage in lower stakes yet still interesting conversations, push for their goals less, and tend to stick more to preconceived notions of who their characters are.


----------



## Campbell

@Imaro 

Your heritage and background are somewhat defined, but your beliefs and drives are never like these defined things in Blades. Basically what the questions do is give you a chance to reflect on play and see if we learned something new about the character. The important distinction for me personally is that question asks did you express it in some way. It does not have to be living up to your heritage or what we already know about your character. 

Trauma and Vice are more defined. Your Vice is how you recover stress, Your traumas come from losing all your stress in a score and they are like one word things like Cold. I find that without thinking about because they have such prominence in play it's much easier for me to think about.

Generally I like stuff like Intimacies in Exalted, Goals in Stars Without Number or Aspirations of Chronicles of Darkness even better. You are rewarded for caring about what your character cares about.


----------



## innerdude

Campbell said:


> My personal experience with the people I play with is that amount and depth of play stays relatively static across games, but in games where we have mechanical support things feel more tense, stakes are higher, and characters tend to develop in more unexpected ways. In games without mechanical support players tend to engage in lower stakes yet still interesting conversations, push for their goals less, and *tend to stick more to preconceived notions of who their characters are.*




** innerdude checks his game room for NSA-level surveillance equipment, because clearly @Campbell has been watching his group **

** accusing stare **

In all seriousness, though, this is 100% the same with my group, especially the bolded bit. Thinking back to the Shaintar campaign in Savage Worlds (where I was a player, not the GM), this observation is surgically on-point. Character advancement in Savage Worlds is focused exclusively on the character's mechanical "schtick". Everything about it is ability/statistics driven; there's nothing in the rules to push/pull/nudge/direct character _motivations_.

I'm thinking of one character in particular, played by my best friend, who I've previously described as a talented actor who's done numerous stage productions (and even been paid for it on occasion). I bring this up, because of all the players, he was the one whose character I most expected evolve, because actor creatives are generally very prone to try and dig into _character motivation_. It's part and parcel with the skillset. 

Yet at no point in 16 months in the campaign did his character evolve beyond his initial conception. At the start of the game, his character was an irascible, impatient-but-kind-hearted brinchie (think: feline humanoid) with paladin-like spell features. 

By the end of the game, he was an irascible, impatient-but-kind-hearted brinchie with more powerful spell-like features and wicked-tough unarmed combat skills---but all character development was along an axis of "preconception." _This is who my character _*is*,_ I'm going to play to that._

Zero evolution along the character growth axis---_This is what my character _*wants*_---how is that going to play out and change how I view my character?_


----------



## Aldarc

innerdude said:


> By the end of the game, he was an irascible, impatient-but-kind-hearted brinchie with more powerful spell-like features and wicked-tough unarmed combat skills---but all character development was along an axis of "preconception." _This is who my character _*is*,_ I'm going to play to that._
> 
> Zero evolution along the character growth axis---_This is what my character _*wants*_---how is that going to play out and change how I view my character?_



"Play to find out what happens," IMHO, isn't just about the unfolding of the story; it's also about playing to find out and discover the character you're playing.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> "Play to find out what happens," IMHO, isn't just about the unfolding of the story; it's also about playing to find out and discover the character you're playing.



Why can't it be about either one?  It seems to me that would be a table decision, rather than something everyone has to conform to.


----------



## Fenris-77

_Play to find out what happens_ isn't limited one or the other, or both. It'll work just fine in any combination. It's more about not playing with preconceived ideas about how things are going to turn out.


----------



## Imaro

I think this is an interesting video, and gives a pretty good take on Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws as used by myself and probably a large number of D&D players.  It's definitely relevant to the turn the conversation has taken in the thread.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Am I mixing them, or are they just different words for the same thing?
> 
> You've provided a distinction between the two that I don't really think is all that significant.



When @Emirikol refers to "winging it" I read it as referring to where big things - entire adventures, major geographic features, etc. - are being made up on the fly.  The term "improvising" refers to smaller things - the name of the gate guard, the language(s) the captured Orc can speak, etc.

And there is a rather significant distinction, in my eyes anyway: improvisation is (in theory) building on to an already-solid setting framework, while winging it is trying to build that framework at the same time.

Errors in small-scale improv (e.g. "last week that guard's name was Joscan, now you're calling him Harry?" can be brushed off if the underlying framework is sound.  Errors in building the framework, not so much; and my guess is it's the latter type of errors that cause games to fail.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> I think that the first two examples often involves a "play to win" mentality/approach to the game where character flaws are either excised or minimized* for the sake of the player's ahem... I mean "character's" victory. Character flaws or backstory elements are "conveniently forgotten" in times when they would potentially be an impediment to personal or group victory.
> 
> * Which commonly includes, at least in this mode of thinking, lacking any form of personal character attachments (e.g., family, friends, pets, etc.) that can be "weaponized" by the GM against the player characters.



The RM game I described relied on me, as GM, to enforce the disadvantages of intoxication (I can't remember now what the penalty was) and to make the expense of it real. We used to play this game in a club setting, and I remember there was another regular play/GM in the club who would chant "hugar, hugar" when he walked past our table, as it was well-known that the player of the character was leaning into his PC's addiction.

This was the same player who would from time to time point out the need for his PC to suffer a "Depression" critical (a table from RM Companion 3) if something emotionally shattering had just taken place.

My own view is that it's a fairly small step in player attitude - though maybe a bigger step in technical game design - to move from something like what I've just described in RM, to something like Burning Wheel's approach. (Which may be why I like BW so much - it crystallises some of the tendencies that produced the most memorable moments in our old RM campaigns.)


----------



## innerdude

So if at some point I were to attempt a GM-driven, largely prefabricated "living world" sandbox, here's the big dilemma I now face.

I mentioned before, the last time I ran a "living world," about 60% of the way through (somewhere around session 18 or 19 out of 32), the main conceit of a "living world" had largely collapsed. I was still doing weekly prep, still doing extrapolations and "mental imaging" of how background events were playing out, and what was happening outside the view of the players.

But it had increasingly become impossible to give characters the kind of freedom I wanted in pursuing goals. Essentially, to keep any semblance of direction, I had to pre-populate hooks with solutions that felt very much like I was reducing player agency to "mother-may-I" style play.

And at one point sometime around session 27 or 28, one of players sort of called me on it . . . not in an unfriendly or demeaning way, but something along the lines of, "You're kind of just setting up the dominoes for us to knock them down, aren't you?"---an observation/recognition that there was a lot of string pulling going on behind the screen.

And all I could do was just shrug and sheepishly plead "guilty as charged." And it's not even that the players weren't enjoying themselves, it's that it felt unsatisfying to _me_.

The other element that broke down for me was the realization that at a certain point, it became very difficult to find appropriate extrapolations that didn't devolve into "GM witch hunt" against the characters. And this became a point of "immersion breaking" for me as a GM running my own "living world." Because after a certain point, if the villains in the world are as ruthless and relentless as I imagined them to be, eventually they're going to stop "messing around" and really, really get after the PCs.

As awesome as I wanted the party to be within the game world, at a certain point I had to ask myself, "If the party had really messed up Evil Villain X's plans as much as has transpired, wouldn't Villain X just go full assassin mode and be done with it?"

Like, at a certain point, any plausible extrapolation included something along the lines of, "Enough with sending these stupid level 3 rogue assassins. Isn't it time for Villain X to break out her cadre of a dozen level 19 rogue/assassin/bladesinger/clerics, level-adjusted +3 half-abyssal template assassins and be done with it?" (Savage Worlds doesn't have "levels" per se, but just providing a comparison for context.)

But then that feels sucky as well. Because sending those types of enemies after the players feels punitive and mean-spirited and un-fun. But without doing that, the conceit of the "living world" became straight up broken for me---I was now sacrificing "living world" integrity just to allow the players to keep playing.

*Edit---one more thing I thought of. Another problem with extrapolation became the "ever-expanding universe" dilemma, where even if I had set up a specific enemy "front," the question always kept coming up, "Well, is is the _real_ end of the line? Or is there even another, more powerful villain above them?" And this starts to play into my own GM psychology, because on a certain level, you don't want certain NPCs / factions to be the end of the road. Isn't it more interesting to have certain threads keep going? But there was no tool or technique other than just my own judgement to say, "Nope, this really is the end of the line for this thread," or, "Yep, there's another strand to this thread that goes even farther."

And I don't particularly see a solution to these problems by applying any of the "living world" techniques espoused so far.

Do even more prep.
Do even more extrapolations until you get it "just right."
Do NPC psyche/motivation "deep dives."

So I ask the proponents of "living world" play --- how do you solve these problems without turning to player-facing tools and techniques?




Separate, unrelated note:

There's definitely some bleed/overlap between the last 2 pages of this thread and the immersion/"playing as my character" thread. It may be more appropriate to say this there, but just an observation:

For "living world" sandbox play, there seems to be a tacit, unspoken line item in the group social contract that might read something like, "Though your character is free to explore the game world through any means at their disposal, there is no guarantee that any given prefabricated component / session element / quest / NPC / world event / content will directly address any particular character goal / motivation / dramatic need. Please set your expectations accordingly."


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I do think that any game needs to have some information established as a foundation. I'm not saying that GMs should start at zero input and then expect to craft a world for the players on the fly.



Thinking through this, in order of prep (as best I can rank it from most to least) for the last 5 ongoing (ie not one-shot) games I've started:

* 4e Dark Sun - we did PC build, I described a bit of the backstory established in the book, and then one of the PCs wrote a "kicker" for his PC that had him killing a foe in the arena just as the cries went up in the crowd that the tyrant (ie the sorcerer-king of Tyr) had been killed. So no prep literally authored by me, but I'd read the book and introduced some key elements to my players. We used a city map of Tyr to frame where the PCs subsequently went and what they did.​​* Cortex+ Heroic LotR/MERP - I did the PC build (an elf, a ranger, a dwarf, Gandalf) and brought along my copies of LotR and The Complete Guide to Middle Earth. The players chose their PCs and then we discussed what had brought each of them to Rivendell and why they had to head out into the wild.​​* Classic Traveller - the players rolled up their PCs, and I rolled a starting world, and we all made up some backstory around that, and then I rolled a random patron and used a few other worlds that I'd rolled up in advance as a basis to invent her mission and present it to the players (via their PCs interactions with her).​​* Burning Wheel - the had mostly rolled up their PCs in advance but we settled on Beliefs and then I started them in Hardby in the World of Greyhawk. I chose Hardby because it is ruled by a magic-using Gynarch and two of the PCs had connections to potentially sinister sorcerers; and also Hardby is in a good location in the middle of the map with a nearby place (Celene) for the elf PC to come from, with the Bright Desert and Cairn Hills nearby for ancient tombs, a port leading to possible maritime adventure, etc.​​* Cortex+ Heroic Vikings - I did the PC gen (a berserker, a swordmaster, a troll-ish type PC, a shapeshifter, a shaman/oracle-type) having deliberately made them adaptable either to Viking or Japanese fantasy. I turned up with the PCs and we took a vote and Vikings won (because some of us had already played a multi-year Japanese-themed RM campaign). We then discussed why the PCs had to leave the village on a quest together. And started from there.​
For that last one, the prep was literally nothing more than _these PCs are in a fantasy Viking world having to go on a quest_. That's not nothing, as _Vikings_ brings quite a bit with it - cold winters, rugged hills as you trudge to the north, trolls and giants, the Ragnarok, etc - but there was no map or world history or anything like that. The first session established a giants' steading in the hills (inspired by my memories of G1) and a dungeon. For later sessions I did do a bit more prep - of NPCs/creatures and coming up with Scene Distinctions for a village being attacked by Ragnarok-inspired reavers and for a high place in the mountains.

EDIT: Left out * Prince Valiant - prep there consisted in me having read the rulebook and saying "Let's try this out". The players built their knights. I flipped through the Episode Book (which I hadn't read yet) and seeing one by Kenneth Hite that looked interesting, and finding a more "procedural" one too (a tournament) and a similarly "procedural" challenge from a knight in the rulebook.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> I am generally not a minimalist when it comes to prep, either as a player or a GM. I probably spend 5-10 hours a week on prep as a GM if I'm really into the game I am running and about an hour or two as a player.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In most of the games I run and play in these days there is a substantial slice of life component. We place a lot of emphasis on character's families, friends, mentors, lovers, et. al. My vampire character has an estranged wife, coworkers (still works as a security consultant), clan ties, a driver, a couple apartments, a handler from Mossad, etc. He lives a full life. Getting to that level of depth and sense of history requires a lot of work / authorship. I find it best if players have a hand in helping create the things and people their characters would value because it feels a lot more natural than "Let me tell you about your brother." to me.



True confession: I do not do this much prep, as GM or player.

This is one reason I like a system like Cortex+ Heroic that supports low prep but vivid salient details (via Scene Distinctions).

And lean heavily into tropey-genre ideas too, like Prince Valiant or Vikings or Dark Sun's sword-and-sandals/sword-and-planet.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> I do no like Compels in FATE though. I'm not a fan of suffering now to be awesome later or basically playing out tropes. I want mechanics to align player and character perspectives as much as possible rather than to encourage what I would call portrayal or characterization. I usually strive for embodying the character. Vices in Blades, Willpower triggers in World of Darkness, Strife in L5R 5e, Intimacies in Exalted, and basically the entire way Dogs in the Vineyard works is much better than Inspiration for playing flaws or Fate Points for accepting Compels to me.



Hi @Campbell, this is another of your posts where I'd be keen to hear a bit more elaboration. Upthread @hawkeyefan told us how Vices in BitD can earn XP when leaned into by the player. How do you see this differing from a Compel in Fate?

EDIT: I read on and got some answers.


Campbell said:


> Mostly I think it's a reward for characterization rather than character.  You are rewarded for fitting an existing conception of a character. It feels performative to me in a way that Blade's more open ended "You expressed your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background."  and "You struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session." do not.





Campbell said:


> Your heritage and background are somewhat defined, but your beliefs and drives are never like these defined things in Blades. Basically what the questions do is give you a chance to reflect on play and see if we learned something new about the character. The important distinction for me personally is that question asks did you express it in some way. It does not have to be living up to your heritage or what we already know about your character.
> 
> Trauma and Vice are more defined. Your Vice is how you recover stress, Your traumas come from losing all your stress in a score and they are like one word things like Cold. I find that without thinking about because they have such prominence in play it's much easier for me to think about.



So I think Beliefs and Traits in BW would be closer to what you like, than to Compels?

But Milestones in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic might be a bit closer to Compels and hence a bit further from what you like?


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> You've mixed winging it with having to improv on occasion.  I think we can agree that at the edges improv has to occur to some degree.   Winging it though is making up the adventure or inventing whole groups of important NPCs on the fly.  And I very much have observed games fall apart under such conditions.





Lanefan said:


> When @Emirikol refers to "winging it" I read it as referring to where big things - entire adventures, major geographic features, etc. - are being made up on the fly.  The term "improvising" refers to smaller things - the name of the gate guard, the language(s) the captured Orc can speak, etc.
> 
> And there is a rather significant distinction, in my eyes anyway: improvisation is (in theory) building on to an already-solid setting framework, while winging it is trying to build that framework at the same time.
> 
> Errors in small-scale improv (e.g. "last week that guard's name was Joscan, now you're calling him Harry?" can be brushed off if the underlying framework is sound.  Errors in building the framework, not so much; and my guess is it's the latter type of errors that cause games to fail.



I'm not sure what counts as _the adventure_ here - especially in the context of a sandbox game where (as I understand it) the players can choose any goal or action for their PCs.

But putting that to one side, there seem to be unstated assumptions here about what the role of _the setting framework_ is. It would be helpful to discussion to have those brought to the surface.

Eg are we talking about maps and keys used to resolve action declarations? is a group of important NPCs defined by their motives and relationships, or their mechanical stats, or both? what work are these things doing in play that makes prep so important?

These are not rhetorical questions. I think it would be good for the discussion to hear some answers to them.


----------



## pemerton

innerdude said:


> ** innerdude checks his game room for NSA-level surveillance equipment, because clearly @Campbell has been watching his group **
> 
> ** accusing stare **
> 
> In all seriousness, though, this is 100% the same with my group
> 
> <snip>
> 
> all character development was along an axis of "preconception." _This is who my character _*is*,_ I'm going to play to that._
> 
> Zero evolution along the character growth axis---_This is what my character _*wants*_---how is that going to play out and change how I view my character?_



I think character growth in RPGing, especially from the "inhabitation" perspective that @Campbell prefers as opposed to a pre-conceived arc perspective, is very demanding on the players. And on GMs, who have to be prepared to be brutal!

In my most recent BW session, I experienced a moment of character growth when Aramina, the "henchman"/sidekick of my main character Thurgon, was present when Thurgon was able to invoke a miracle to lift the burdens from his mother:



pemerton said:


> The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.
> 
> As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that _Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!_ (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is _Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol_. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").
> 
> Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of _never meeting the gaze of a stranger_, her Instinct is to _look strangers in the eyes and Assess_. And rather than _I don't need Thurgon's pity_, her Belief is _Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol_. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").




Because I made the Faith check for Thurgon, he didn't have to grow much at all - a Belief changed, but it continues rather than alters his arc. Which was easier for me to cope with!


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Really? So inventing massive amounts of information that all has to remain consistent is the same as just answering an unexpected question based upon a fully developed character.




As I said, it depends. Does the game in question require massive amounts of information that needs to be consistent? If so, then how much of this is already established and known? 

My point is that all of this depends on the game. 



Emerikol said:


> I've found playing old school D&D is not a hindrance to roleplaying. Mechanics are not necessary to roleplay. Mechanics may help some roleplay and in some cases hinder others for that matter.




Sure. They are not necessary, I think I said that. Any group can roleplay to the extent they like. As I said, there are games that promote this through mechanics and or/processes, and there are those that don’t. 

For those games that do have such rules, it tends to be because character portrayal is more central to the play experience.



Emerikol said:


> I get that the game you mention is focused on providing mechanics to achieve an experience you want. For me though while it might assist in roleplaying it would ruin other aspects of what I like about a game so it wouldn't be a win. And I don't need those mechanics to have a fun roleplaying game with lots of interaction between PCs and lots of immersion.




Cool. Yes....nothin g I’ve said is anything I’m claiming to be objective.



Emerikol said:


> I think your jaded, game shop AP style D&D play is affecting your judgment. My games are not at all like that. A dungeon is a job but my players are more than their jobs. So I expect, my games would differ depending on which characters got played. Now do players go completely against type? No. Not sure they would want to do that.




Everything I’ve been saying is about the games and their rules. I’ve made no assumptions about your game specifically. 

So your assumptions here about mine are not only uncalled for, but are inaccurate and come across as very petty. 



Emerikol said:


> To the style of play the game seems designed for then no arguments. For a deeply character driven and immersive game, I'd say it's not required at all. It perhaps goes back to the age old debate from years ago about whether you need mechanics for something to be part of the game. I don't think you do.
> 
> I think we both want what we like but I won't be caricatured in my own style of play as if there is little or shallow roleplaying going on in my games. I don't see that. I see players invested in their characters and being immersed as those characters. They interact with the world and have a rich roleplaying experience.




Yes....different people enjoy different things and so there are different games. 

Crazy.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Given what I've written above here, do you think you could either:
> 
> * Ask questions that would give you sufficient resolution for you to work with the depicted situation then use my answers to show us the exact procedure that you would use to evolve the situation?
> 
> or
> 
> * Break down a play excerpt where you did something similar (like I mentioned above - pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a prefecture's infrastructural and personnel driven response they could martial)?  I'm particularly interested in if you use competing dice pools for something like this similar to how you deploy your Mass Combat System.




My heads been ringing since yesterday so I wanted to wait to respond to this, since it seemed to require a bit more thought. I think part of the problem with the example you gave for me is it is very involved and centered in a setting and system I am not very familiar with (like I said I have blades in the dark, and have been reading through it, but am not particularly familiar with the content). So I found myself getting very confused when I went back and tried to read through the situations you described and then draw a line from that to what it was you were asking for my input on about them.

My head is still ringing by will try my best to do the second thing from above.

I can't think of a situation off the top of my head. But I would very likely use a dice pool resolution method for something like this. For example if there were an outbreak of plague of some kind, then I might try to resolve how effectively the imperial bureaucracy handles that by a number of methods. First off, I might simply say: this is how it pans out: because the outcome seems very clear. I also might think through the situation logically and decide. But given that we are in the middle of a pandemic and we have all had more time to think about how difficult this problem really is, I would probably resort to more mechanics and rulings. I may say okay what resources do they have (in terms of money to spend on the issue, physicians, magic in the setting, martial experts who can help find or obtain cures guarded by immortals, etc). What I might then do is think about how the emperor and his council might decide to allocate those resources (and if there is some important political split on these matters, I may roll to see which faction wins the debate). Then I would probably turn those allocations into dice pools, and roll those against This to generate my outcomes. For simplicity let's just say they allocate all their resources to different prefectures but to varying degrees. And the results would probably be something like failure denotes significant number of deaths due to failure to stem the plague in region X. Success means they were able to keep deaths down. Total Success might mean actual progress fighting the plague (I would probably have this require a number of total success, over the course of months or years (just given how much a sudden miracle cure might not seem plausible to players given the present situation). 

Again, this is just me trying to provide a response. There may be something more concrete that came up in my campaigns that I can think of later. 


innerdude said:


> So if at some point I were to attempt a GM-driven, largely prefabricated "living world" sandbox, here's the big dilemma I now face.
> 
> I mentioned before, the last time I ran a "living world," about 60% of the way through (somewhere around session 18 or 19 out of 32), the main conceit of a "living world" had largely collapsed. I was still doing weekly prep, still doing extrapolations and "mental imaging" of how background events were playing out, and what was happening outside the view of the players.
> 
> But it had increasingly become impossible to give characters the kind of freedom I wanted in pursuing goals. Essentially, to keep any semblance of direction, I had to pre-populate hooks with solutions that felt very much like I was reducing player agency to "mother-may-I" style play.
> 
> And at one point sometime around session 27 or 28, one of players sort of called me on it . . . not in an unfriendly or demeaning way, but something along the lines of, "You're kind of just setting up the dominoes for us to knock them down, aren't you?"---an observation/recognition that there was a lot of string pulling going on behind the screen.
> 
> And all I could do was just shrug and sheepishly plead "guilty as charged." And it's not even that the players weren't enjoying themselves, it's that it felt unsatisfying to _me_.
> 
> The other element that broke down for me was the realization that at a certain point, it became very difficult to find appropriate extrapolations that didn't devolve into "GM witch hunt" against the characters. And this became a point of "immersion breaking" for me as a GM running my own "living world." Because after a certain point, if the villains in the world are as ruthless and relentless as I imagined them to be, eventually they're going to stop "messing around" and really, really get after the PCs.
> 
> As awesome as I wanted the party to be within the game world, at a certain point I had to ask myself, "If the party had really messed up Evil Villain X's plans as much as has transpired, wouldn't Villain X just go full assassin mode and be done with it?"
> 
> Like, at a certain point, any plausible extrapolation included something along the lines of, "Enough with sending these stupid level 3 rogue assassins. Isn't it time for Villain X to break out her cadre of a dozen level 19 rogue/assassin/bladesinger/clerics, level-adjusted +3 half-abyssal template assassins and be done with it?" (Savage Worlds doesn't have "levels" per se, but just providing a comparison for context.)
> 
> But then that feels sucky as well. Because sending those types of enemies after the players feels punitive and mean-spirited and un-fun. But without doing that, the conceit of the "living world" became straight up broken for me---I was now sacrificing "living world" integrity just to allow the players to keep playing.
> 
> *Edit---one more thing I thought of. Another problem with extrapolation became the "ever-expanding universe" dilemma, where even if I had set up a specific enemy "front," the question always kept coming up, "Well, is is the _real_ end of the line? Or is there even another, more powerful villain above them?" And this starts to play into my own GM psychology, because on a certain level, you don't want certain NPCs / factions to be the end of the road. Isn't it more interesting to have certain threads keep going? But there was no tool or technique other than just my own judgement to say, "Nope, this really is the end of the line for this thread," or, "Yep, there's another strand to this thread that goes even farther."
> 
> And I don't particularly see a solution to these problems by applying any of the "living world" techniques espoused so far.
> 
> Do even more prep.
> Do even more extrapolations until you get it "just right."
> Do NPC psyche/motivation "deep dives."
> 
> So I ask the proponents of "living world" play --- how do you solve these problems without turning to player-facing tools and techniques?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate, unrelated note:
> 
> There's definitely some bleed/overlap between the last 2 pages of this thread and the immersion/"playing as my character" thread. It may be more appropriate to say this there, but just an observation:
> 
> For "living world" sandbox play, there seems to be a tacit, unspoken line item in the group social contract that might read something like, "Though your character is free to explore the game world through any means at their disposal, there is no guarantee that any given prefabricated component / session element / quest / NPC / world event / content will directly address any particular character goal / motivation / dramatic need. Please set your expectations accordingly."




Like I said, I am not the best mouthpiece here. Giving people GM coaching tips has never really been my forte. But going to try to answer this as best I can. It is a little hard to say without knowing the setting and the specifics of the campaign. It may be living world sandbox isn't a good fit for your group's style. The players should be the ones really taking the initiative in a sandbox. I have had campaigns go over 100 sessions without a problem (in fact it should get easier not harder). But I really think truly figuring this out for you would require a conversation, not a post to post discussion (I just think it is the kind of topic where you say something, I respond, and if I am going in the wrong direction, you immediately correct me and I change course). On a forum, it is like driving an 18 wheeler on a BMX track sometimes. 

One thing I will say, just something I am kind of sensing form the post: living world sandbox assumes somewhat objective elements. Factions are pretty fleshed out. You can always make new factions as they occur to you or as you need (sometimes you just realize, oh, there should be more factions in this area, or you haven't got to a certain area yet). But when I did my wuxia setting the first thing I did was make a bunch of different sects. I established their hierarchy, their beliefs, their general involvement in things, I statted the leaders, I statted the disciples and sub chiefs, and I included their numbers. As I went forward I honed this process more. Subchiefs got more personality and fleshing out rather than just being stat blocks, I started assigning names to as many sect members as I could, etc. The point of this is yes you can always decide there is a bigger evil behind the scenes, but in a sandbox you don't usually begin by saying 'this is going to be the enemy' and this is the big bad. You let that stuff emerge naturally as the players have dealings in the world, so their choices matter (i.e. it is up to them how they handle their first interaction with the Chief of the Nature Loving Monk sect, and that may determine whether he becomes a staunch ally, an enemy or a disinterested neutral party: or maybe they just develop a working relationship with him). Like I said it is chemistry so it is a little hard to anticipate in advance all these things. But I would generally just have that sect leader using what resources he can against the party if they become enemies. Now that doesn't mean he is just going to kill them. He may just be trying to bend them to his will. It depends on the conflict. 

On character and player goals, I generally don't worry about making things players have written as goals come up. But if they are pursuing things in character, those things probably will come up. Like if a player is determined to join a criminal organization, if they look around enough they should eventually find a way into that (just like in real life if you were dead set on something like that, you'd probably find a way in). I think the thing to do here is prep as much as you can in terms of big picture stuff, but understand there will always be hidden underworlds in any setting. And the question in a sandbox is "is there a good reason for something like this not to be here?  and if not, what would this kind of thing look like in this place?". If you need to make things up on the fly, you need to make things up on the fly. Also you can always use between session time to prep things. Say the players decide after they read about some weed that grows in the northern mountains that is guarded by blood drinking giants, and it just came up in passing in some library or something, that they want to go obtain it but you have nothing prepped: it is entirely fair to say: look I don't have that area mapped yet, let's stop the session and I will have it by next week. Ideally you would have stuff like that but a living sandbox world is always capable of growing bigger than what you have written down, and you can't anticipate everything. But those kinds of riffs (where you invented the blood drinking giants guarding the weed) are something I find pretty easy to come up with in a way that jives when you have long enough familiarity with the setting (especially if there is setting cosmology that makes consistent sense: for example my setting the gods often make mountain gods to guard special things on mountain tops so it is an easy thing to extrapolate)

But not every type of setting is suited to a sandbox. I run ravenloft living adventure style, but not as a sandbox, because I don't think I could (I just wouldn't know how to do that). For me wuxia campaigns just make total sense as a sandbox. But it is a little hard to explain why beyond how the fuel of those campaigns is the various martial sects. I think also the fact that I have seen hundreds of wuxia and kung fu movies, gives me a data bank of scenarios and I may be overlooking how significant that is. 

But my advice really is don't torture yourself. If living world sandbox isn't working for you, even after reading the linked materials. There is no law that says you have to run a living world sandbox. And maybe you might need to hack the concept more so it fits with what you like and what you find easy to run. 

Another piece of advice I always give with sandbox is relax. The thing that made me reluctant to do sandbox at first (and to be honest kind of scared me a little) was fear of the game crashing. But at a certain point I just said "screw it, let's just see what happens". The more relaxed I got, the more I found  myself comfortably running sandbox games. I think sometimes, putting pressure on yourself to make it perfect can have the opposite effect. 

If you really want to give it a go, I would definitely check out Rob Conley's guide to running a fantasy sandbox if you haven't because that is the most step by step one I have seen: and he has a link to more posts on each topic at the bottom). His treatment is pretty deep and detailed. You might not need every step, but given that he covers each step in such depth, if there is something you are missing, there is a good chance it is there. 

In terms of solving this without player facing techniques, I am not sure. I don't use player facing techniques and it works fine for me. Maybe it won't work fine for you, or maybe you are trying to get something different out of sandbox than I am and we are talking past each other. 

Have you ever tried running a sandbox with evil PCs? I ask because I sometimes find that easier (evil PCs are sometimes better than good PCs at finding ways to stay entertained and have long term goals (i want to take over the city, is a pretty easy adventure to run for example, if they drop that kind of thing on you).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> When @Emirikol refers to "winging it" I read it as referring to where big things - entire adventures, major geographic features, etc. - are being made up on the fly.  The term "improvising" refers to smaller things - the name of the gate guard, the language(s) the captured Orc can speak, etc.
> 
> And there is a rather significant distinction, in my eyes anyway: improvisation is (in theory) building on to an already-solid setting framework, while winging it is trying to build that framework at the same time.
> 
> Errors in small-scale improv (e.g. "last week that guard's name was Joscan, now you're calling him Harry?" can be brushed off if the underlying framework is sound.  Errors in building the framework, not so much; and my guess is it's the latter type of errors that cause games to fail.




Again, it depends on the game. 

There are games where you absolutely do craft “adventures” as you play. And you determine a lot of setting details and other significant details during play. 

There are others that expect and/or require that the GM prepare a large amount of material ahead of time. 

We’ve been over this before though...your concerns about consistency of setting in games that require establishing setting through play aren’t really founded. 

Plenty of us that have experience with both kinds of games have repeatedly explained this. 

And I’ll add that I used to share that view. I started playing some of those games, and I learned that I was wrong.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what counts as _the adventure_ here - especially in the context of a sandbox game where (as I understand it) the players can choose any goal or action for their PCs.
> 
> But putting that to one side, there seem to be unstated assumptions here about what the role of _the setting framework_ is.



In a nutshell, it's the stage on which all the action takes place.


pemerton said:


> Eg are we talking about maps and keys used to resolve action declarations? is a group of important NPCs defined by their motives and relationships, or their mechanical stats, or both? what work are these things doing in play that makes prep so important?



The setting framework includes its maps (work done: to show how things geographically relate on whatever scale is required at the time), history (work done: to show how things/places/nations within the setting got to be what they are), cultures and species (work done: detailing what exists here, what doesn't, etc.), cosmology and deities/pantheons (work done: giving religious-based characters something to work with, potentially setting up conflicts or wars etc.), nations, kingdoms, and realms (work done: giving names to some places, setting up potential for conflicts or wars etc.), a few key NPCs and their motives/relationships* (work done: making things much easier on myself later if-when the PCs ever interact with one).

That's just the high-level overview of the setting.  For the intended "core" adventuring area there's a bit more detail on all of this.

There's no assumption that the PCs are necessarily going to ever interact with any given element presented; the mere potential for interaction with such, however, makes me want those elements somewhat in place ahead of time so I'm not floundering mid-session or talking myself into a corner via contradictions if the party pulls a sudden left turn on me.

Then, if the party in Torcha declares their next action is to travel to Karnos we can all look at the map and gauge roughly how long it'll take, what the general terrain is like, maybe how safe or risky the trip might be, and so forth.

* - and maybe stats, for any I ever think the PCs might want to fight one day.

Is this what you were after?


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Does the game in question require massive amounts of information that needs to be consistent? If so, then how much of this is already established and known?
> 
> My point is that all of this depends on the game. .



Right! So much this!

This is what I was pointing to in my posts upthread both about whether or not I need to know the layout of a starport when GMing Classic Traveller, and in my ranking of campaigns by degree of starting prep. And also what I was not just pointing to but directly addressing in my post upthread asking @Lanefan about the role of the _setting framework_.



Lanefan said:


> The setting framework includes its maps (work done: to show how things geographically relate on whatever scale is required at the time), history (work done: to show how things/places/nations within the setting got to be what they are), cultures and species (work done: detailing what exists here, what doesn't, etc.), cosmology and deities/pantheons (work done: giving religious-based characters something to work with, potentially setting up conflicts or wars etc.), nations, kingdoms, and realms (work done: giving names to some places, setting up potential for conflicts or wars etc.), a few key NPCs and their motives/relationships* (work done: making things much easier on myself later if-when the PCs ever interact with one).
> 
> That's just the high-level overview of the setting.  For the intended "core" adventuring area there's a bit more detail on all of this.
> 
> There's no assumption that the PCs are necessarily going to ever interact with any given element presented; the mere potential for interaction with such, however, makes me want those elements somewhat in place ahead of time so I'm not floundering mid-session or talking myself into a corner via contradictions if the party pulls a sudden left turn on me.
> 
> Then, if the party in Torcha declares their next action is to travel to Karnos we can all look at the map and gauge roughly how long it'll take, what the general terrain is like, maybe how safe or risky the trip might be, and so forth.
> 
> * - and maybe stats, for any I ever think the PCs might want to fight one day.
> 
> Is this what you were after?



That sort of thing, yes. I'm not surprised to see _maps_ in there, and their use to resolve travel.

Picking up on a couple of the other things - _cosmology and deities_ to give religious PCs something to work with; _history_ to show how things got to be what they are - there seems to be a heavy emphasis here on not just _what there is _but knowing, in advance, _how it got there_.

To think about how a different approach might work, consider the following:

* In the real world, the way that we establish historical facts, and even more cosmological facts, is to look at _what there is_ and to reason back from it to probably causes, with that reasoning informed and constrained by our best accounts of the relevant causal processes;​​* Sometimes we don't know;​​* Sometimes we discover new _things that are _and these force a revision of our historical conjectures, and perhaps even a revision of our accounts of the causal processes.​
None of those facts about how humans work stuff out about the world they live in gives any reason to think that the world is inconsistent. It just means its complicated and we don't know everything about it that there is to know!

Now imagine adopting a similar sort of approach in establishing a RPG setting:

* Eg a player chooses a god for his/her religious PC, based on what s/he thinks is cool or genre appropriate or whatever - now we know that that god is party of the setting;​​* Maybe another player writes up some backstory for his/her PC which refers to a time spent in exile in The Barrens, so now we know that place exists;​​* Etc, etc.​
From this information about _what is_, we gradually build up a picture of _how it came to be_. Our evidence base is pretty thin, and our reasoning isn't scientific, but these are actually complementary as the thinner the evidence base the less likely common sense is to deliver up contradictions!

JRRT did this with LotR. You can see this eg in Unfinished Tales, where we learn how he kept revising the story of Celeborn and Galadriel. That didn't stop him from writing the stuff about Lothlorien in LotR.

I'm not saying that anyone _should _adopt this sort of approach in RPGing. I'm just pointing out how it is eminently possible.

Of course it won't work if _our processes for working out what happens now_ rely upon all that background/historical stuff _as an input_. But they don't have to. Other processes are quite possible and can work quite well.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I think this is an interesting video, and gives a pretty good take on Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws as used by myself and probably a large number of D&D players.  It's definitely relevant to the turn the conversation has taken in the thread.



IMO, we should be careful about assuming our own perspective as being the one carried by "probably a large number of D&D players." If I were to take my own experience running D&D with various groups as indicative of larger trends, then I would say, in contrast, the Traits, Bonds, and Ideals rarely, if ever, come up by "a large number of D&D players" and that they are mostly forgotten. 



Bedrockgames said:


> If you really want to give it a go, I would definitely check out Rob Conley's guide to running a fantasy sandbox if you haven't because that is the most step by step one I have seen: and he has a link to more posts on each topic at the bottom). His treatment is pretty deep and detailed. You might not need every step, but given that he covers each step in such depth, if there is something you are missing, there is a good chance it is there.



That's a lot of notes creation. (Note: not a bad thing, just a LOT of notes prep.)


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> IMO, we should be careful about assuming our own perspective as being the one carried by "probably a large number of D&D players." If I were to take my own experience running D&D with various groups as indicative of larger trends, then I would say, in contrast, the Traits, Bonds, and Ideals rarely, if ever, come up by "a large number of D&D players" and that they are mostly forgotten.



Well to be fair its not just my experiences,, thats why I referenced the video. The video has had 16,000 views withinn 16 hrs of being posted and over 1,000 likes. I would assume if players weren't using these at all then so many probably wouldn't be taking the time to watch a video about them, but admitedly I could be wrong. That said I'd definitely be interested in evidence that supported the position that they are flat out ignored or discarded by a large part of the playerbase.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Well to be fair its not just my experiences,, thats why I referenced the video. The video has had 16,000 views withinn 16 hrs of being posted and over 1,000 likes. I would assume if players weren't using these at all then so many probably wouldn't be taking the time to watch a video about them, but admitedly I could be wrong. That said I'd definitely be interested in evidence that supported the position that they are flat out ignored or discarded by a large part of the playerbase.



Sure, but I think you are reading too much into too little. It's also a relatively popular D&D channel with subscribers that regularly watches their videos. Also how should we interpret the likes? "Like, because this is how I run it already" or "Like, because I wasn't doing this previously" or even "Like, thanks for making more vid content"?


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but I think you are reading too much into too little. It's also a relatively popular D&D channel with subscribers that regularly watches their videos. Also how should we interpret the likes? "Like, because this is how I run it already" or "Like, because I wasn't doing this previously" or even "Like, thanks for making more vid content"?



I don't think I'm reading too much into it.  It's an interesting video that aligns with how I use TIBF's in D&D 5e and a piece of evidence (not definitive proof which is why I was careful to use words like probably) that it is used by others in that way.  Now if there is a similar piece of evidence for the conjecture of them being disregarded by most I'm willing to take a look at it...

EDIT: In general you don't like a video just because it was made... You like it because the content was valuable in some way or enjoyable in some way to you...otherwise what do dislikes mean since the content is already made?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I don't think I'm reading too much into it.  It's an interesting video that aligns with how I use TIBF's in D&D 5e and a piece of evidence (not definitive proof which is why I was careful to use words like probably) that it is used by others in that way.  Now if there is a similar piece of evidence for the conjecture of them being disregarded by most I'm willing to take a look at it...



It's an interesting video made by two guys that aligns with how you use TIBFs, but that's hardly indicative of how most people use TIBFs. If you are curious about evidence that people don't necessarily use them, I would look for starters at a number of threads in the ENWorld forums over the past 6 years talking about TIBFs, where people said that they don't use them, ignore them, or don't find them particularly all that great. 

Also, one has to take some measure of caution regarding selection bias with the creation of such videos. D&D content creators who use TIBFs are more likely to make videos about using them. Would D&D content creators who don't use TIBFs or care for them make YouTube videos about ignoring them? IME, gaming content creators generally don't make content about things they don't use, but, rather, about things that they do use (or adjust). 



Imaro said:


> EDIT: In general you don't like a video just because it was made... You like it because the content was valuable in some way or enjoyable in some way to you...otherwise what do dislikes mean since the content is already made?



I have liked videos that I disagreed with for purposes of helping those content creators, who may otherwise create good content, and the YouTube algorithm.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> It's an interesting video made by two guys that aligns with how you use TIBFs, but that's hardly indicative of how most people use TIBFs. If you are curious about evidence that people don't necessarily use them, I would look for starters at a number of threads in the ENWorld forums over the past 6 years talking about TIBFs, where people said that they don't use them, ignore them, or don't find them particularly all that great.




Do you think the majority of new players that have been brought into 5e post on forums?  Better question do you think the majority of 5e players in general post on forums?  I don't think checking posts on enworld would be indicative at all of how the game is played by the majority in the wild. 



Aldarc said:


> Also, one has to take some measure of caution regarding selection bias with the creation of such videos. D&D content creators who use TIBFs are more likely to make videos about using them. Would D&D content creators who don't use TIBFs or care for them make YouTube videos about ignoring them? IME, gaming content creators generally don't make content about things they don't use, but, rather, about things that they do use (or adjust).




I think they'd make videos about why they don't work well, since you can find numerous videos in this vein about various TTRPG's like this all over youtube.



Aldarc said:


> I have liked videos that I disagreed with for purposes of helping those content creators, who may otherwise create good content, and the YouTube algorithm.




That's interesting... I wouldn't do that because all it does is encourage them to make more content you don't find valuable or agree with... I don't support things I don't like. But to each their own.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> That's a lot of notes creation. (Note: not a bad thing, just a LOT of notes prep.)




It is very detailed. But it is also something where you can read it and just use what works for you  (for instance, air currents are not something I ever worry about: I leave that stuff to the gods in most of my settings)


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Do you think the majority of new players that have been brought into 5e post on forums?  Better question do you think the majority of 5e players in general post on forums?  I don't think checking posts on enworld would be indicative at all of how the game is played by the majority in the wild.



I don't think so, but I'm also not arguing so. I'm saying that there is evidence that are a fair share of people don't care or use TIBFs in 5e D&D. I have also encountered similar discussions surrounding TIBFs in gaming communities on Reddit, Discord, and other forums. 

Moreover, does Matt Mercer or Critical Role use TIBFs? Does Adventure Zone use them? Or Acquisitions Incorporated? Do we even see them actually being used in the plays that WotC runs to promote the game? I don't know as I don't watch these. I don't think I have ever seen them come up in Matt Colville's video streams of his games. 

Personally, I have never seen TIBFs come up in my own games of D&D 5e, whether as a player or GM. 



Imaro said:


> I think they'd make videos about why they don't work well, since you can find numerous videos in this vein about various TTRPG's like this all over youtube.



I vaguely seem to recall Web DM talk about how TIBFs and the Inspiration tie-in mechanic are almost famously forgotten and vestigial as they have little impact. Does that count?


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I don't think so, but I'm also not arguing so. I'm saying that there is evidence that are a fair share of people don't care or use TIBFs in 5e D&D. I have also encountered similar discussions surrounding TIBFs in gaming communities on Reddit, Discord, and other forums.
> 
> Moreover, does Matt Mercer or Critical Role use TIBFs? Does Adventure Zone use them? Or Acquisitions Incorporated? Do we even see them actually being used in the plays that WotC runs to promote the game? I don't know as I don't watch these. I don't think I have ever seen them come up in Matt Colville's video streams of his games.
> 
> Personally, I have never seen TIBFs come up in my own games of D&D 5e, whether as a player or GM.
> 
> 
> I vaguely seem to recall Web DM talk about how TIBFs and the Inspiration tie-in mechanic are almost famously forgotten and vestigial as they have little impact. Does that count?



I'd love any links you have to the opposite viewpoint as I am honestly interested in learning about the other take.


----------



## prabe

Aldarc said:


> Personally, I have never seen TIBFs come up in my own games of D&D 5e, whether as a player or GM.



As I've said upthread somewhere, they're explicitly deprecated in the games I run. The people who've DMed 5E games I've played in have never even gestured at using them, but they've all been long-time D&D folks--It seems plausible that people starting with 5E would be more likely to at least try to use them.

Just adding that anecdata, here.


----------



## prabe

innerdude said:


> So I ask the proponents of "living world" play --- how do you solve these problems without turning to player-facing tools and techniques?



So, I'm not--or at least I don't feel like--one of the proponents of "living world" play, but I have a couple of campaigns going in 5E that might have taught me stuff I can pass along, if you're interested.

In case you want to see what there is for results, this is a link to the GDrive folder I share with players, with world information and houserules and stuff. You're welcome to look at anything in there you want to, but the world stuff is probably most relevant, here. Also, the setting is explicitly incomplete and a work in progress--I'm not done, and I intend to leave spaces for players (or me) to put stuff.

My *pre-campaign* process (order probably isn't super-important, here):

--Pick a Big Thing or two for the world, and maybe a knock-on-effect or three. For Erkonin, it's that the Gods have been cut off from the world (The Severance), and right after that the demons and devils fought a portion of their eternal war on Erkonin (it was not a pleasant time). The big knock-on effect is that the planar boundaries are a bit porous--and some of the rules related to the planes and planar creatures are a bit different. If you want to work out a different calendar, now seems like a good time--though really any time will probably do.

--Roughly map out like a continent.

--Place your starting point on that continent map. Work out relevant details of that starting point. For my first campaign, that was Embernook; everything else on the continent came later. I don't map cities in more details than broad neighborhoods. I have started putting specific site names in the neighborhoods, in the city info I give to players, but not defining what those sites are. You plausibly want some NPCs you can rely on the PCs interacting with, written up as much as you need them.

--Suggest that the players write up some small amount of backstory for their characters. Opinions on the right amount vary. What you want is stuff that connects them to the setting, stuff you can use later to tie them to the campaign.

--Figure out how you intend to start the campaign. I generally start with the PCs all in the same place at the same time, and then throw brown stinky stuff at a convenient fan. I plant some information at that scene, with plausible directions for them to go from there.

My *in-campaign* process (like, between sessions):

--Look at where the party stopped, the previous session. Ponder what they're likely to do next (here, it helps to know how the players are playing their characters, and to have good notes of the previous session). Prepare for what they're likely to do--so, opposition, scenery, and other incidentals. If there's something going on offscreen (which I've done) this is also when you probably want to advance that.

--Don't try to prep more than a session ahead. There may be prep that carries over--that's fine. You might have something like a BBEG with larger plans or goals, but you don't need to detail those (or the BBEG itself) out until/unless the PCs directly interact with them. Sometimes stuff you prep for one session won't matter in play until a session or three later than you thought--as with prep that carries more directly over, that's fine.

--Occasionally, drop stuff in that's not entirely related to what they're working on. Some of this should tie to PC backstories, but not necessarily all of it. In my first campaign, I dropped the first hints of the Hunger Between Worlds in the fourth session, and the first interactions with the Tundra Queen in the fifth; the first mess the PCs interacted with was still kinda ongoing. Both of those threads are still ongoing, nearly seventy sessions later. One of those was specifically inspired by a backstory; the other was not.

--Things about the world will emerge as the campaign progresses--both in play and in prep. This is good. Add those things to the world.

These days, my prep is like maybe a couple of hours per session, and it seems to be getting shorter as the campaigns progress--though part of that may be that when we were gaming in person, I transcribed monsters onto index cards, because we weren't gaming at my place and I didn't want to lug my monster books around. Obviously, what works for me isn't at all guaranteed to work for someone else, or anyone else, or everyone else; but I hope this is helpful.


----------



## Emerikol

Campbell said:


> @Emirikol
> 
> I think talking in terms of what's required to achieve a certain result is not all that useful. We can achieve what we set out to achieve even if we are engaging in less than optimal techniques or even counter productive techniques. Also the optimal techniques for one set of individuals might be different than what works for a different group. Sometimes it can even be time sensitive.



Well it is at least debatable whether mechanical support in a given situation furthers the success of that goal.  It goes back to the many debates about the intersection between player involvement and what a character can do.   If the group encounters a puzzle, do you expect the players to solve it or do you make an intelligence check for figuring it out.   An intelligence check may be more realistic but for fun it may not be best.



Campbell said:


> My personal experience with the people I play with is that amount and depth of play stays relatively static across games, but in games where we have mechanical support things feel more tense, stakes are higher, and characters tend to develop in more unexpected ways. In games without mechanical support players tend to engage in lower stakes yet still interesting conversations, push for their goals less, and tend to stick more to preconceived notions of who their characters are.



I'm not sure what you mean by "the stakes are higher".  I feel my groups are plenty committed to their in game goals.  The stakes often come from the surrounding setting engagement.  But again, feelings are subjective and I am not disputing your experience.  Just wondering how far it will go for me.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Eg are we talking about maps and keys used to resolve action declarations? is a group of important NPCs defined by their motives and relationships, or their mechanical stats, or both? what work are these things doing in play that makes prep so important?
> 
> These are not rhetorical questions. I think it would be good for the discussion to hear some answers to them.



Both.   I develop these things for most NPCs.  Obviously, it's very simplistic or near non-existent for a nobody but well developed for a significant NPC.   It would not just be mechanical stats.   In fact for some NPCs I don't do the mechanical stats at all.  They are not leveled.


----------



## estar

Aldarc said:


> That's a lot of notes creation. (Note: not a bad thing, just a LOT of notes prep.)



From my post

I find fully fleshing out an area the size of my Blackmarsh setting (a letter sized map) takes


> This will probably run to about 10,000 words. You can do this in about 2 weeks spending about 2 hours an evening at a 1,000 words a evening and time drawing maps. Or consider it about 24 hours of work.




The smaller the area or the fewer the personal interconnections the less time it takes. The work increases by the square of the size of the map or number of personal interconnections. A map double the size will take four times the work.

What it took to publish Blackmarsh

Now that based on taking thing to the point of sharing commercially. For a hobbyist considerable time is saved by the fact you are just writing for yourself. So you only need enough to "remember" what it is you want to do about the setting.

For example I ran my first playtests of Scourge of the Demon Wolf (72 page book) based on these notes and a map. Those notes and the maps were a mnemonic aide for much of what into the book.


----------



## Manbearcat

Something for the notes thread.

Started the game I'm running for @prabe and his wife last evening.  I'm attaching that map and @darkbard 's map so (a) you can see my incredible MSPaint skills, (b) you can see how much more the map gets fleshed out as play progresses (the top one is many, many sessions in vs the bottom one that just started), and (c) so you can play the puzzle solving game of sussing out my particular peccadillos (spoilers at the bottom and I SWEAR this isn't true for any other Dungeon World game I've ever run...I have no idea why this turned out like it did):










SPOILER ALERT

Apparently my 2021 Dungeon World Tender Profile would contain:

* I like latitudinal rivers, mountain ranges in the top left, and home steadings at the base of those mountains.


----------



## Campbell

@Manbearcat

Geography tends to be much less of a concern in most of the games we play, but relationship maps are essential. I have attached the relationship map I made as a player to help me and the rest of the players in our game keep track of what was going on in our Giovanni Chronicles Vampire game. I also attached an early one I used to keep track of just my character's personal connections in a Blades in the Dark game.

As a GM I usually utilize a private wiki with a lot of cross linking. I do not have a good way to share that without providing access to a private server.


----------



## Manbearcat

@Campbell

Very cool.  I'm not surprised you would have something like this (and more) given what my exposure to your gaming proclivities.

Unlike you and @pemerton , my games (except for games that fundamentally don't play with it; eg Sorcerer or MLwM) absolutely feature terrain (in situation framing, in decision-point framing, in complication deployment, etc) so topography is pretty vital.  Even though my games feature low-res maps (or none entirely), having something nascent serves as a "situation provacateur" (in terms of getting my mind rolling/anchored).  I work very hard at creating interesting topographical conflicts with a compelling and well-rendered menu of decision-points and engaging complications.  Its no surprise that I love good Journey mechanics.

In regards to relationships, I keep a notebook for my games where I just write down new (and relevant) NPCs as they come up and I write a pithy sentence or two about them.

Its nothing like your Relationship Map above.  I tend to just keep all of the extra stuff in my head.  Writing stuff down (as I mentioned elsewhere) is overwhelmingly just a cognitive exercise for me to cement things in my brain for later access. Now and again, I'll need to take a look at it to remember a name or something (but not particularly often).

I'd take a photo and upload it but oh my god is my shorthand terrifying to behold.  Entirely illegible and the "penmanship" looks like a serial killer glued random letters to stationary and send it into the Times sort of chicken scratch.


----------



## Manbearcat

FYI for users in this thread.  

This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General.  It looks absolutely great to me.

I'm in pretty robust agreement.  My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.

I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson ,  would classify their games using that taxonomy.

My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):

*BRG and estar* - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad

*Emerikol* - 2 parts Classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, 1 part OSR

*Lanefan* - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic

*Imaro and Max* - 2 parts Neo-Trad, 2 parts Trad

For reference when I run D&D (and derivatives) its basically:

*Modvay Dungeon Crawls *- 4 parts Classic

*BECMI/RC Hexcrawl* - 2 parts Classic, 2 parts OSR

*4e* - 2 parts Story Now, 2 parts Classic (though 4e-ified)

*Dungeon World* - 3 parts Story Now, 1 part Classic (though DW-ified)

*Torchbearer *- 2 parts Classic (though TB-ified), 2 parts Story Now


----------



## Campbell

@Manbearcat 

It absolutely does vary from game to game, but the cultures of play that speak to me the most are Story Now / Indie, Nordic LARP and OSR. I really like making the distinction between Classic and OSR play cultures. I'm definitely far more OSR influenced. I guess that really makes me a tragic hipster. If anything dominates the most it would be Nordic LARP most likely.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> @Manbearcat
> 
> It absolutely does vary from game to game, but the cultures of play that speak to me the most are Story Now / Indie, Nordic LARP and OSR. I really like making the distinction between Classic and OSR play cultures. I'm definitely far more OSR influenced. I guess that really makes me a tragic hipster. If anything dominates the most it would be Nordic LARP most likely.




Yup.  Its interesting.  I'm confident that most people on here intuitively lump you and I together, and while we certainly have a decent chunk of overlap in many things gaming, there is a pretty sizable divergence between us in terms of aesthetics and genre preferences (there is 0 % Nordic Larp in any aspect of any part of my play).


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> Have you ever tried running a sandbox with evil PCs? I ask because I sometimes find that easier (evil PCs are sometimes better than good PCs at finding ways to stay entertained and have long term goals (i want to take over the city, is a pretty easy adventure to run for example, if they drop that kind of thing on you).




4 of the 7 Blades in the Dark Sandbox games I've run have featured a Crew of sufficiently wicked PCs (1 * Assassins, 1 * Bravos, 1 * Cult, 1 * Hawkers).  The Shadows, Smugglers, and now Grifters are the only Crews that are nominally neutral.

Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, and Dogs are all emergent sandboxes so I don't know if they would qualify.  Apocalypse World - yes to "evil" (per se).  DW and Dogs - no.

My BECMI/RC Hexcrawl games have historically either been (a) neutral-leaning adventuring/mercenary companies or (b) a mish-mash of High Fantasy trope goodly companions or (c) a Sengoku Era Fantasy Japan troupe of Ronin/Ninja/Sohei in the service of a daimyo or a village pushing back against a warlord.


----------



## Fenris-77

I don't LARP at all, but some interesting analysis and writing has come out of the Nordic LARP scene that I have found influential on my thinking about RPGs, most notably some stuff from Markus Montola. Not all of his stuff, but some of the articles where he looks at the basic moving parts of RPGs and RPG play.


----------



## Aldarc

Manbearcat said:


> This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General.  It looks absolutely great to me.
> 
> I'm in pretty robust agreement.  My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.



I don't think that the author really describes Story (Now) Games all that well, as they devote considerable time simply quibbling about the Forge (e.g., terminology), the Big Model, and Ron Edwards rather than elucidating on the creative focus of Story Games.


----------



## estar

Manbearcat said:


> I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson ,  would classify their games using that taxonomy.
> 
> My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):
> 
> *BRG and estar* - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad




I create a place, a situation, and some characters.
I show it to some friends and other hobbyist
I ask "Is this someplace interesting you would like to adventure in?"
If yes then we proceed on what kind of character they would like to play.
If no, I show them something I have.
When it comes to a session

I describe what they see or hear as their character.
They tell me what it is they do as if they are.
I either roleplay or outline the mechanics we will be using.
If the mechanics or the situation is involved sometime we discuss options until folk are comfortable with their understanding of the choices.  Keep in mind one of the primary problems with the structure of RPG campaigns that everything is filtered through the human referee so situational awareness is only as good as the information the referee provides. So I tend to be generous about answering questions. Having played and ran LARP events for over a decade, I am keenly aware of what folks would be and wouldn't be aware of if there were actually in the situation as their character. This includes social cues as well the physical situation.
Then we make the rolls.
Most of the time this happens quickly. In general what I aim for is describing enough of a picture so the players can respond as if they are there as their character.

Note this not equivalent to immersion, or acting. It happens but not required. More than a few will roleplay a version of themselves with the abilities the character. All that I require that everything is done from a first person perspective.

I haven't seen any popular taxonomy fit completely what I do. Sandbox campaigns is the closest but there are several ways of enabling players to "trash" the setting or drive how campaign unfolds. What I do above is just one of them. I definitely don't any type of storygaming or use narrative mechanics. Players in my campaigns are limited to what their character can do as if they existing the setting.

@Bedrockgames has experienced this several times with games I  ran for the group we are part of with different settings, he can supply how it felt from  a player's perspective.

I had a player keep very detailed journal of a 5e campaign I ran.
Gaming Ballistic - Majestic Wilderlands

For the record I don't mind people trying to "classify" me. But the nuances are such that when I have a chance to respond I write an explanation of what it is I do. The point isn't that I have THE way of running things, only A way. One thing that does set me apart from most is that I thought lot about why I do things as well as tried and tested alternative to see if they work better or worse for what I do in my campaigns.

But goal today is the same it was when I first realized the potential of tabletop roleplaying circa 1980. That it is fun to see how players can "trash" your setting.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> FYI for users in this thread.
> 
> This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General.  It looks absolutely great to me.
> 
> I'm in pretty robust agreement.  My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.
> 
> I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson ,  would classify their games using that taxonomy.
> 
> My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):
> 
> *BRG and estar* - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad
> 
> *Emerikol* - 2 parts Classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, 1 part OSR
> 
> *Lanefan* - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic
> 
> *Imaro and Max* - 2 parts Neo-Trad, 2 parts Trad
> 
> For reference when I run D&D (and derivatives) its basically:
> 
> *Modvay Dungeon Crawls *- 4 parts Classic
> 
> *BECMI/RC Hexcrawl* - 2 parts Classic, 2 parts OSR
> 
> *4e* - 2 parts Story Now, 2 parts Classic (though 4e-ified)
> 
> *Dungeon World* - 3 parts Story Now, 1 part Classic (though DW-ified)
> 
> *Torchbearer *- 2 parts Classic (though TB-ified), 2 parts Story Now



If we're only using 4 parts, then I would say my game is more 2 parts Trad/1 part Nordic Larp/1 part Neo-Trad.  Immersion is also important to me and my players.


----------



## Manbearcat

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that the author really describes Story (Now) Games all that well, as they devote considerable time simply quibbling about the Forge (e.g., terminology), the Big Model, and Ron Edwards rather than elucidating on the creative focus of Story Games.



Yeah, I was trying to be as charitable as I could because the piece as a whole is excellent.

Calling it “Storygaming” and not stressing the “Story Now” aspect of the project doesn’t even qualify as missing forest for trees. It’s closer to “Took a wrong turn at Albaquerque.”

In my mind “Story Now” and “Force” are the two most potent concepts from the Forge (that can’t possibly be quibbled over).  Coherence and focus on premise is what the blog focused on. That is absolutely fundamental to Forge Narrative ethos so I probably think they did a better job than you, but missing the “Story Now” vs “Story Before” (Trad in their formulation) angle is a pretty significant missing piece (which makes you wonder if this may exclusively a research project rather than a 1st hand account).


----------



## Manbearcat

estar said:


> I create a place, a situation, and some characters.
> I show it to some friends and other hobbyist
> I ask "Is this someplace interesting you would like to adventure in?"
> If yes then we proceed on what kind of character they would like to play.
> If no, I show them something I have.
> When it comes to a session
> 
> I describe what they see or hear as their character.
> They tell me what it is they do as if they are.
> I either roleplay or outline the mechanics we will be using.
> If the mechanics or the situation is involved sometime we discuss options until folk are comfortable with their understanding of the choices.  Keep in mind one of the primary problems with the structure of RPG campaigns that everything is filtered through the human referee so situational awareness is only as good as the information the referee provides. So I tend to be generous about answering questions. Having played and ran LARP events for over a decade, I am keenly aware of what folks would be and wouldn't be aware of if there were actually in the situation as their character. This includes social cues as well the physical situation.
> Then we make the rolls.
> Most of the time this happens quickly. In general what I aim for is describing enough of a picture so the players can respond as if they are there as their character.
> 
> Note this not equivalent to immersion, or acting. It happens but not required. More than a few will roleplay a version of themselves with the abilities the character. All that I require that everything is done from a first person perspective.
> 
> I haven't seen any popular taxonomy fit completely what I do. Sandbox campaigns is the closest but there are several ways of enabling players to "trash" the setting or drive how campaign unfolds. What I do above is just one of them. I definitely don't any type of storygaming or use narrative mechanics. Players in my campaigns are limited to what their character can do as if they existing the setting.
> 
> @Bedrockgames has experienced this several times with games I  ran for the group we are part of with different settings, he can supply how it felt from  a player's perspective.
> 
> I had a player keep very detailed journal of a 5e campaign I ran.
> Gaming Ballistic - Majestic Wilderlands




Thank you for the full response.

What do you think that blog post’s taxonomy of Culture’s of Play?

Do you think it captures your play (if you had 4 parts)?

@Maxperson , thanks for the response.


----------



## Aldarc

Perusing through the Six Cultures blog, it's likely that the Story Games is elucidated so poorly and the OSR one is articulated more sympathetically because the author seems to be mostly an OSR oriented gamer.


----------



## Arilyn

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that the author really describes Story (Now) Games all that well, as they devote considerable time simply quibbling about the Forge (e.g., terminology), the Big Model, and Ron Edwards rather than elucidating on the creative focus of Story Games.



I really like the article but agree with you on the Story Games. My understanding of story games is that they are not Story Now, and in fact play quite differently from role playing games, though share DNA. In a story game, players often know the end result and are playing to see how this happened. The mechanics of the game revolve around players "competing" or claiming narrative control, and then depending on the system, this can be allowed to become part of the fiction or not. There is roleplaying, but it's often timed and characters in the drama can be shared around. There may be time jumps, as players might decide to role play out a scene from centuries past that impact the current situation, as an example.

So in a story game:

Ned: I'm interested in the moment when the king sold his soul. Anyone want to zero in on that?

Chris: I'll take on the role of the king!

Ned: Awesome, I'll be the emissary from Hell.

Sharon: From what has been already established, we know the king's sister is key. I'll take on that role.

Carrie: Okay, so 15 minutes be enough time? 

This is one example and not universal depending on system, but definitely think Story Now should not be labelled as Story Games because there will be confusion.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> *BRG and estar* - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad



I follow that blog. It was an interesting breakdown. I am not sure I have fully internalized all of his groupings yet (finding I get a little hung up on his choice of labels). It is very tough to say. Definitely OSR and classic are an influence. Ravenloft is a big influence and shows up in odd ways. I don't know about neo-trad. There are elements I share with it, but I think it might be on a slightly different track. I would say what I bring is a sense of the players actions leading to the story (but bound by their in game abilities), and a kind of embrace of chaos---I love evil parties who want to take over, and while it isn't a cake walk, I don't make that stuff impossible. I love campaigns where players identify some area they want to ascend in (an institution, a region, etc). I do tend to be very by the book. I don't think that is necessary for every GM. But I like going by the book so when lives are on the line it is a more natural proceeding. I have been known to slow down play more in those moments to check rules, to make sure I am applying them exactly as written. Again not to rules lawyer but to be fair when important things are being handled. I also tend to go into accountant mode: my voice becomes very neutral. I am simply tabulating and checking. Players have commented on this enough I know it is something I do (I remember one player barely noticing I told him he was almost dead, because my tone didn't change)


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> FYI for users in this thread.
> 
> This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General.  It looks absolutely great to me.
> 
> I'm in pretty robust agreement.  My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.
> 
> I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson ,  would classify their games using that taxonomy.
> 
> My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):
> 
> *BRG and estar* - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad
> 
> *Emerikol* - 2 parts Classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, 1 part OSR
> 
> *Lanefan* - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic
> 
> *Imaro and Max* - 2 parts Neo-Trad, 2 parts Trad
> 
> For reference when I run D&D (and derivatives) its basically:
> 
> *Modvay Dungeon Crawls *- 4 parts Classic
> 
> *BECMI/RC Hexcrawl* - 2 parts Classic, 2 parts OSR
> 
> *4e* - 2 parts Story Now, 2 parts Classic (though 4e-ified)
> 
> *Dungeon World* - 3 parts Story Now, 1 part Classic (though DW-ified)
> 
> *Torchbearer *- 2 parts Classic (though TB-ified), 2 parts Story Now




I feel like 2 parts trad might be too much as I'm not necessarily concerned with creating a "story" in isolation per se but I do want my games to create an "experience" by proposing situations based on the goals of my players that they can choose to act on through their PC's... I am a proponent of the players (who want to) contributing to the fiction in my games and of player agency in my games.  So with 4 parts I would probably have to say

1 part OSR - I tend towards sandboxes when I play fantasy because player agency is important to me and if not running a sandbox I prefer games with a strong leaning towards player goal orientation, like Unknown Armies 3e Or Sine Nomine games where it's almost a requirement of play that the players have goals for their characters and the campaign I run revolves around achieving them.

1 part Trad - I'm not sure if I would fall into Trad with a different group... but the group I've been playing with for years has only a select few that have ever been interested in authoring fiction or stepping outside of their characters.  Though often I am able to get them to author things through backstory and Q&A during session zero it rarely if ever will take place during play. 

2 part Neo - Trad - I am totally open to player authoring of fiction and input, but in my games it tends to take place outside the narrative of gameplay.  In other words we discuss, usually in session zero but it has happened between sessions on rare occasions, and come to a consensus or agreement OOC as opposed to a player authoring on the fly or playing games that use metagame currency to create fiction during gameplay.  That said I really enjoy and run my best games when I have strong motivations, goals and desires from my players that I can build my sandbox around or to hang the narrative on.

Hope this helps a little with grasping the style I enjoy running. And thanks for bringing this blog post to my attention it's and interest read that's not hard to parse, I really enjoyed it.


----------



## estar

Manbearcat said:


> Thank you for the full response.



Appreciate it, hope it useful in some small way.


Manbearcat said:


> What do you think that blog post’s taxonomy of Culture’s of Play?



I think is it well written and well considered and it like other similar well written and well written posts misses what I consider to be an important point.


Manbearcat said:


> Do you think it captures your play (if you had 4 parts)?



So first off, I am well aware that my views on the nature of tabletop RPGs not shared by many in the hobby or industry.  Also my strong opinion that any general description should be useful for hobbyists trying to figure out something fun to do.

What the overall picture? It about focus.  It hard to see that because with 100s of new games released each day often the question for a group is what game we play today? Then the game gotten off the shelf and used. 

What if a different process is used? One with origins in the 60s and early 70s when published games were few and far between.  In a nutshell the group thinks of something fun to play and then assembles the rules and other stuff to make it happen.

If you do that like back in the day, you will see pattern emerge centered around a general focus.

If the focus is on opponents trying to achieve victory conditions (cooperatively or competitive) then you likely wind up making a board or wargame.
If the focus is on folks playing characters having adventures in a setting then likely you wind up with a tabletop roleplaying game
If the focus is on folks collaborating on creating a story or narrative with a game then likely wind up with a storygame. 
Focuses even the broad ones I just listed are nuanced. Because of that hybrids are not only possible but actually comprise the fact majority of what hobbyist do.  The fact I have three categories doesn't mean that all there especially if we go beyond pen & paper and into things CRPGs and Live Action. 

The consequence of this is that playing a system is not the point of what the hobby does. The point is do whatever the fun thing we are focusing on. That the secret sauce of what happened circa 1970. Back then mostly they didn't have a choice because of the lack of published resources. Today it is obscured by the thousands of available published resources.

Also tabletop roleplaying games (and storytelling) far more prone to hybridization than boardgames. Boardgames are often tied to physical items: cards, boards, pieces, etc. In contrast roleplaying games and storygames about how we talk to each other. For a roleplaying game, the player describe what it is they do as their character, the referee describes what happens. Storygames are even more diverse in who describes what and when. This makes it easy for the group to change up with they do from session to session or even within a session. Even when there something physical involved, like dwarven forge, it still primarily verbal.

So what about the blog post. If you reread it you will see that the authors is actually talking about different folks focuses. Some observations the post has seems on point other I would disagree with. But the overall thesis of categories I think missed the mark. The problem is that hobbyists are not one note wonders, their interest varies from campaign to campaign, and session to session. Combined with the easy hybridization of roleplaying (and storygames) How many are classic gamers for very long, traditional games, OSR gamers, and so on? 

But it doesn't mean it all chaos, most groups I observed are centered around a focus that the group agreed to use. To find out what anybody is at a particular moment you need to find out what they are focusing on. 

Because it so easy to modify things, instead of figuring out what categories exist and who is in what category or in this thread case what percentage folks are of the different categories. Explain what you are about, and how what you do or say is useful for that purpose or focus. Refrain from overly broad claims

I think most hobbyist can figure it out from there. 

So what the consequences of what I just said.

Think of something fun you and the group want to try. 
Assemble the rules and material to make it happen.
Don't worry about categories use what make sense. If it happen to be all form a single system so be it.
Use rules and materials you and your group enjoy using.
Keep in mind it is ongoing thing. Tastes will change, your "toolkit" to make fun things happen will expand.
As for me,

I focus on letting players "trash" my setting. I do this by focusing first on getting players comfortable with acting as their character as if they are there in the setting. I focus on letting players do anything they can their character abilities allow them to do as defined by the setting. The rules to me are just a useful tools to use and to tell players how things happen. 

I tend to focus on systems that answer things in a form of "If a character does this specific thing, how do I adjudicate ". But I will compromise when doing that is tedious or not fun. For example I will use some type of wargame or mass combat system rather than setup thousands of minis to playout a better. Although my favorites for a RPG campaign tie directly back to the how characters are defined. AD&D Battlesystem 1e and GURPS Mass Combat are two good examples.

A consequence of my approach and focus is that when it comes to groups of player often it plays out is it would in life. The group discusses, considers, and cooperate in helping everybody get to their individual goals. There are limits to this as there is only one of me, and there are things I and the players rather not touch on in a campaign. 

Another consequence is that aside from the first person roleplaying that what my campaign is about depend on the setting and initial situatin the players created for themselves. TOR/AiME was great that I finally got how to run a Middle Earth campaign and not have it feel like my Majestic Wilderlands. Despite me using a lot of Tolkienisms in MW.

Hope this answers your question.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> That sort of thing, yes. I'm not surprised to see _maps_ in there, and their use to resolve travel.
> 
> Picking up on a couple of the other things - _cosmology and deities_ to give religious PCs something to work with; _history_ to show how things got to be what they are - there seems to be a heavy emphasis here on not just _what there is _but knowing, in advance, _how it got there_.
> 
> To think about how a different approach might work, consider the following:
> 
> * In the real world, the way that we establish historical facts, and even more cosmological facts, is to look at _what there is_ and to reason back from it to probably causes, with that reasoning informed and constrained by our best accounts of the relevant causal processes;​​* Sometimes we don't know;​​* Sometimes we discover new _things that are _and these force a revision of our historical conjectures, and perhaps even a revision of our accounts of the causal processes.​



Yep, and the same can hold true in the game world.

Just 'cause something's noted in the player-side setting history doesn't necessarily mean it's true; the discovery of the actual truth (or a different wrong version!) is something I can later mine for adventure ideas if needed.

For example: (spoilered in case any of my players wander by)


Spoiler



In the player-side history in my setting, a volcano erupted 90 years ago not far east of the "core" adventuring area, concurrent with some other significant events elsewhere in the region.

In the DM-side, that was no volcano.  It was a spaceship crash-landing in the mountains and exploding.  The other concurrent events were pre-planned by the aliens (a.k.a. Mind Flayers) and their on-world allies to coincide with this; with the intent being a near-instant takeover of a large swath of territory (and this could get into a very long story, which I'l leave off for brevity).  It all failed.

During the campaign a couple of parties have come closer than they realized to figuring this all out but still haven't put the pieces together, meaning I can still mine some more adventuring out of it as time goes on. 





pemerton said:


> None of those facts about how humans work stuff out about the world they live in gives any reason to think that the world is inconsistent. It just means its complicated and we don't know everything about it that there is to know!



Agreed, and this is easy enough to reflect in the setting history as well.


pemerton said:


> Now imagine adopting a similar sort of approach in establishing a RPG setting:
> 
> * Eg a player chooses a god for his/her religious PC, based on what s/he thinks is cool or genre appropriate or whatever - now we know that that god is party of the setting;​​* Maybe another player writes up some backstory for his/her PC which refers to a time spent in exile in The Barrens, so now we know that place exists;​​* Etc, etc.​



A player making up a deity on the fly won't happen here; deities (other than very minor local variants) are something I lock down in advance as I've designed a plug-and-play universal cosmology for use across all my games.  Work done once that never needs doing again - my favourite kind. 

Also, I design the setting, in general terms at least, long before any players get involved or I even know who they're going to be.  Thus, if a player/PC wants to say she's from The Barrens but there's no The Barrens on the map, all that tells me is a) she's most likely from somewhere off the map or b) The Barrens is a rather small and insignificant place somewhere on the map.  Which is fine - I don't map out the entire world ahead of time; I tend to stop at the continent and surrounds where the campaign is likely to take place, and leave the rest blank for future use/expansion/etc.


pemerton said:


> Of course it won't work if _our processes for working out what happens now_ rely upon all that background/historical stuff _as an input_. But they don't have to. Other processes are quite possible and can work quite well.



What I've found - much to my joy - is that having a DM-side history at least somewhat nailed down can quickly and easily become a near-bottomless mine for adventure and-or story ideas, should I need them.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> SPOILER ALERT
> 
> Apparently my 2021 Dungeon World Tender Profile would contain:
> 
> * I like latitudinal rivers, mountain ranges in the top left, and home steadings at the base of those mountains.



No big deal.

Look at how many - and I mean there's loads of 'em - fantasy novels where the map at the front has mountains to the north-ish, ocean to the south-ish, and the area where most of the action occurs is in between.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General.  It looks absolutely great to me.



Interesting article, for sure.  Thanks for the link!


Manbearcat said:


> *Lanefan* - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic



Er...maybe?  On reading the article I see my/our games somewhat relating to four out of six of the categories, largely eschewing those the writer calls Story Gaming and OC/Neo-trad.

That said, we don't really fit neatly into any of the categories presented.  We have some elements of OSR as the writer defines it, but not others.  Ditto Nordic Larp, Trad, and Classic.  So if four parts are needed for a definition, maybe one part each, but it'd be more like a pick-and-choose amalgam of these rather than whole-cloth adoption of each or any one.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> No big deal.
> 
> Look at how many - and I mean there's loads of 'em - fantasy novels where the map at the front has mountains to the north-ish, ocean to the south-ish, and the area where most of the action occurs is in between.



Just for giggles I made my most recent campaign map a southern hemisphere one. So ocean then desert in the north and mountains in the south. The action still happens in the middle though.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> Just for giggles I made my most recent campaign map a southern hemisphere one.



The southern hemisphere is no doubt a pretty strange place.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> No big deal.
> 
> Look at how many - and I mean there's loads of 'em - fantasy novels where the map at the front has mountains to the north-ish, ocean to the south-ish, and the area where most of the action occurs is in between.




You're not playing the game right.

This is not the part where you console me.  This is the part where you point at me and laugh.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> You're not playing the game right.
> 
> This is not the part where you console me.  This is the part where you point at me and laugh.



But we already did that with Dungeons in the Vineyard. To do it again would verge on bullying!


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> The southern hemisphere is no doubt a pretty strange place.



Yeah - everything down there wants to kill you.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> You're not playing the game right.
> 
> This is not the part where you console me.  This is the part where you point at me and laugh.



Not me.

I mean, have you seen my attempts at digital mapping?  You have my every sympathy!


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> FYI for users in this thread.
> 
> This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General.  It looks absolutely great to me.
> 
> I'm in pretty robust agreement.  My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.
> 
> I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson ,  would classify their games using that taxonomy.
> 
> My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):
> 
> *BRG and estar* - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad
> 
> *Emerikol* - 2 parts Classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, 1 part OSR
> 
> *Lanefan* - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic
> 
> *Imaro and Max* - 2 parts Neo-Trad, 2 parts Trad
> 
> For reference when I run D&D (and derivatives) its basically:
> 
> *Modvay Dungeon Crawls *- 4 parts Classic
> 
> *BECMI/RC Hexcrawl* - 2 parts Classic, 2 parts OSR
> 
> *4e* - 2 parts Story Now, 2 parts Classic (though 4e-ified)
> 
> *Dungeon World* - 3 parts Story Now, 1 part Classic (though DW-ified)
> 
> *Torchbearer *- 2 parts Classic (though TB-ified), 2 parts Story Now



I think you are close for me.   

I'd probably put 2 parts classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, and 2 parts OSR.   I believe though that there is some overlap between OSR and Nordic larp and my groups land there often.

For example,
1. My groups do adventure and those adventures are challenging to the players.
2. My groups have often started businesses.  They've also started charities, built domains, etc...
3. My clerics are always strong advocates of their religions and interested in the affairs of the Gods.
4. I've had Wizards say they wanted to craft a particular type of magic item and spend game years pursuing that goal.
5. My PCs develop relationships with NPCs.  Both allies and enemies.  They will often go to the aid of an ally and just as often oppose the ambitions of an enemy.  

So my games are not just a series of dungeon adventures disconnected from the world.  Everything is very connected.  I don't tend to build meaningless dungeons that have no connection to the world.  Why build a detailed world with a rich history and not use it?


----------



## Emerikol

So, I was reading a book on world building for fantasy & sci-fi authors and I noticed an interesting point that I thought goes to what I am saying.

"Don't think that you will be including every ounce of what you have worked on.  You won't.  You shouldn't.  I know.  I know.  You worked hard on it but it wasn't wasted even if it never makes it into your book.   It helped you to understand you world, so that you can write about it in an informed, attached, and immersive way.  So that you can make it all the more real for your readers" -- Angeline Trevena in the book "From Sanctity to Sorcery, An Author's Guide to Building Belief Structures"

In my style of roleplaying, this point is important.  When a DM inevitably has to improv some detail of his world, he acts from a vast and detailed knowledge of that world and thus does a better job.  So even the parts the PCs never encounter is still useful stuff.  It will inform NPC actions and reactions.  It will add to the verisimilitude.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> So, I was reading a book on world building for fantasy & sci-fi authors and I noticed an interesting point that I thought goes to what I am saying.
> 
> "Don't think that you will be including every ounce of what you have worked on.  You won't.  You shouldn't.  I know.  I know.  You worked hard on it but it wasn't wasted even if it never makes it into your book.   It helped you to understand you world, so that you can write about it in an informed, attached, and immersive way.  So that you can make it all the more real for your readers" -- Angeline Trevena in the book "From Sanctity to Sorcery, An Author's Guide to Building Belief Structures"
> 
> In my style of roleplaying, this point is important.  When a DM inevitably has to improv some detail of his world, he acts from a vast and detailed knowledge of that world and thus does a better job.  So even the parts the PCs never encounter is still useful stuff.  It will inform NPC actions and reactions.  It will add to the verisimilitude.



I think most other posters in this thread understand what you're saying here: the GM develops a "feel" for his/her world and extrapolates to new scenarios and situations in virtue of that.

What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is _learn the GM's conception of his/her world_.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> I think most other posters in this thread understand what you're saying here: the GM develops a "feel" for his/her world and extrapolates to new scenarios and situations in virtue of that.
> 
> What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is _learn the GM's conception of his/her world_.



Yes.  I find this absolutely to be what's happening when I run certain games (like now, in 5e).  I think the issue is that this blunt description is being taken as dismissive or insulting to this approach -- it's not that it's not true, it's that it feels bad, so therefore it must not be true.  I don't see the bad -- my players are very much enjoying my conception of the world, and that's the only thing that really matters.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is _learn the GM's conception of his/her world_.




People are not denying that the GM is making creative decisions. I think what we are objecting to is the narrow focus on it as "fiction" and "scenarios" because a big part of sandbox play is to not prep plots but prep NPCs, Factions, Locations, etc. Further no one is denying the players learn about the GM's setting, what we reject is the idea that then heart of this play and this interaction is players learning what the GM made up. The Players are active participants through their characters. We've covered this ground. Yes the GM's conception of his or her world is crucial. That much is obvious. But what makes this work is live players in the setting forcing the GM to think on his her or feet, forcing him to move the pieces around, think of how the NPCs would respond, and, very, very importantly, the dice and mechanics of the game helping to shape that interaction. It is that your description feels very reductive to us and you can't use that description to actually guide someone to run and prepare this sort of campaign. It doesn't really seem to serve any function


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is _learn the GM's conception of his/her world_.



Whether your position has moderated, or whether it's the wording, I find this much less objectionable (as in almost not at all) than your prior way of putting it, which A) focused on the GM's _notes_ and B) at least _seemed_ to imply that finding out what was in the GM's notes was almost the entirety of play.

EDIT: And I know exactly why that other phrasing bothered me so greatly: It sounds an awful lot like playing through an AP-style campaign, where the point--the only reason for play the style really supports--is to find out where the AP's story goes. Nothing any character brings to the game matters at all.

I _loathe_ AP-style play, as a player. Even shorter published adventures intended as one-shots almost inevitably get on my nerves by the end. I make a concerted effort not to run an AP-style campaign--that's most of why I don't prep more than the current session.


----------



## Fenris-77

Once the players are doing stuff, even in a sandbox, words like fiction and scenario work just fine. It's not like sandboxes completely lack connective tissue between events, or consequences, they just aren't determined before hand.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is _learn the GM's conception of his/her world_.




I like to think of it as having a correlation to the real world.  Yes, I am interested in finding out truths about this world that I live in but that is not my only focus or even necessarily the primary one.  

The GM plays two roles and to a degree they are separated.  One is the creation of the world.  In chess this would be the initial placement of the pieces, the size of the board, and the general rules of play.   The second is acting as a judge as the players carry out their agendas.   Those agendas cover many things, only one of which would be figuring out the GM's notes etc...  

So I guess it seems to me that you overemphasize the point about "learn the GM's conception of his/her world".   I mean if God appeared and offered to run a game in a real world that he'd create that allowed for magic, I don't think necessarily our only purpose in life would be learning what he had created.  We'd have other agendas.  We'd still fall in love, try to make money, and seek ways of prospering.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Once the players are doing stuff, even in a sandbox, words like fiction and scenario work just fine. It's not like sandboxes completely lack connective tissue between events, or consequences, they just aren't determined before hand.



Well in my sandboxes, and correct me if I'm not understanding you, there are some things determined ahead of time BUT they are not locked in stone.  So perhaps determined is the operative word.  I may have an NPC that is plotting a murder.  If the PCs do not become involved then the murder will happen.   If they do the murder might not happen.   It's the calendar idea I've mentioned.  Most things predetermined before hand happen because the PCs are not getting involved with everything coming and going.   They do though affect the things they choose to affect.   So it's not foreordained I guess.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Once the players are doing stuff, even in a sandbox, words like fiction and scenario work just fine. It's not like sandboxes completely lack connective tissue between events, or consequences, *they just aren't determined before hand.*




My problem with the term fiction, is its a loaded term. The issue with scenario isn't an objection to the term itself. There are things in sandboxes one can easily describe as scenarios. My issue with the approach Pemerton has been taking to describing sandbox play is it kind of suggests all a sandbox really is, is a bunch of paths or adventures waiting to be triggered. There are sandboxes that can be run that way, but a living world sandbox is absolutely not that. You have pieces on the board, that are in motion, and you don't know how those pieces will interact with the players once they start doing things. You also have things like locations that are firmly rooted. But you don't know how those will come into play until the players begin interacting with them. Something that might appear as one GM to be a simple site for a dungeon crawl, could get used by a party as a way of trapping and killing an enemy faction. That bolded bit is important. And what's more, it isn't like the GM has that much control over how the events play out because it is a back and forth between the players. Unless the GM is failing to seriously consider the things the players are trying to do, ignoring the rules system, and just barreling a plot down their throats, it isn't really about the players discovering what the GM has prepared, what adventure he or she has in mind, etc. It is about finding out as a group, through that player and GM interaction, where all these things lead to.


----------



## Imaro

prabe said:


> Whether your position has moderated, or whether it's the wording, I find this much less objectionable (as in almost not at all) than your prior way of putting it, which A) focused on the GM's _notes_ and B) at least _seemed_ to imply that finding out what was in the GM's notes was almost the entirety of play.
> 
> EDIT: And I know exactly why that other phrasing bothered me so greatly: It sounds an awful lot like playing through an AP-style campaign, where the point--the only reason for play the style really supports--is to find out where the AP's story goes. Nothing any character brings to the game matters at all.
> 
> I _loathe_ AP-style play, as a player. Even shorter published adventures intended as one-shots almost inevitably get on my nerves by the end. I make a concerted effort not to run an AP-style campaign--that's most of why I don't prep more than the current session.



I think you hit on something here.  In fact I'd be curious to hear what if any differences @pemerton and others who feel the descriptor of "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is apt... see between that style and pure AP play.  Is it just a matter of book vs. GM creation?


----------



## Campbell

Shared fiction is not meant to be diminishing. I mean it's how I think about and describe my own play in various styles. It's just pointing to our shared experience of play. The here and the now that we all experience together. The Magic Circle of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> EDIT: And I know exactly why that other phrasing bothered me so greatly: It sounds an awful lot like playing through an AP-style campaign, where the point--the only reason for play the style really supports--is to find out where the AP's story goes. Nothing any character brings to the game matters at all.
> 
> I _loathe_ AP-style play, as a player. Even shorter published adventures intended as one-shots almost inevitably get on my nerves by the end. I make a concerted effort not to run an AP-style campaign--that's most of why I don't prep more than the current session.




A point I made earlier in the thread is when I was at my wits end with the adventure path structure, I used to complain "I might as well just show my players my notes and call it a day". Now that is not really a fair characterization of adventure paths either, but it show this is basically a negative framing, and its also important because it was a frustration with feeling like the game was just discovering the GM's notes, that led me to seek, explore, and blend structures like sandbox and living world.


----------



## Imaro

Emerikol said:


> I like to think of it as having a correlation to the real world.  Yes, I am interested in finding out truths about this world that I live in but that is not my only focus or even necessarily the primary one.
> 
> The GM plays two roles and to a degree they are separated.  One is the creation of the world.  In chess this would be the initial placement of the pieces, the size of the board, and the general rules of play.   The second is acting as a judge as the players carry out their agendas.   Those agendas cover many things, only one of which would be figuring out the GM's notes etc...
> 
> So I guess it seems to me that you overemphasize the point about "learn the GM's conception of his/her world".   I mean if God appeared and offered to run a game in a real world that he'd create that allowed for magic, I don't think necessarily our only purpose in life would be learning what he had created.  We'd have other agendas.  We'd still fall in love, try to make money, and seek ways of prospering.




Good post.  I feel like in my games, the purpose of play is much closer to "Playing to exert agency in an independently (for the most part) GM generated/run world.".  I'm not sure my game is so much about them learning about the world as exerting their will in it through the actions of their PC's with the learning of the world being either a tool to exert said agency or secondary to this focus... at least for me.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> You're not playing the game right.
> 
> This is not the part where you console me.  This is the part where you point at me and laugh.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Shared fiction is not meant to be diminishing. I mean it's how I think about and describe my own play in various styles. It's just pointing to our shared experience of play. The here and the now that we all experience together. The Magic Circle of play.




I don't think it is diminishing. I think it is one that can be used to equivocate and one that tends to get you lost in the metaphor of fiction (I'd rather get lost in the metaphor of living world )


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is _learn the GM's conception of his/her world_.



Because with (i) it's co-authoring, since what I do is in large part dependent on and constrained by what the players are doing, and with (ii) I can't recall anyone actually saying that.  We're saying that the players do not play to find out what is in the DM's notes.  They play for other reasons, regardless of how much or little they are discovering notes that are purely the DM's and are not the co-authored notes.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is diminishing. I think it is one that can be used to equivocate and one that tends to get you lost in the metaphor of fiction (I'd rather get lost in the metaphor of living world )




Does Shared Imagined Space work better? For me personally (as someone who would rather not get lost in metaphor) the emphasis on our *shared* experience of play with all the mess that often entails is my primary concern in these conversations. Acknowledging the craft, the work, the art of it all is important so we can actually start doing the work of trying to understand our real differences in terms of agenda and play technique instead of just differences in our mental models.

Basically the important part of shared fiction is *shared* rather than *fiction*. Fiction just means it's imagined. Created through artifice. That it is *shared by and owned by all of us together* that is what matters most to me personally.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The Players are active participants through their characters. We've covered this ground. Yes the GM's conception of his or her world is crucial. That much is obvious. But what makes this work is *live players in the setting forcing the GM to think on his her or feet, forcing him to move the pieces around, think of how the NPCs would respond*, and, very, very importantly, the dice and mechanics of the game helping to shape that interaction.



I've bolded the bit which does not contradict my assertion that _a significant part of play is the players learning the GM's conception of the world that s/he is imagining_.



Bedrockgames said:


> It is that your description feels very reductive to us and you can't use that description to actually guide someone to run and prepare this sort of campaign. It doesn't really seem to serve any function



It's not intended to be a guide. It's intended to be a description. Like "story now" or "no myth". These don't tell anyone how to GM a session of BW or a PbtA game, but they are still useful descriptions of some important features of the play of those systems.


----------



## Fenris-77

Fine, use emerging diegesis if it makes you feel better, its the same thing though. These internecine arguments about word  use arent moving us forward here.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> Does Shared Imagined Space work better? For me personally (as someone who would rather not get lost in metaphor) the emphasis on our *shared* experience of play with all the mess that often entails is my primary concern in these conversations. Acknowledging the craft, the work, the art of it all is important so we can actually start doing the work of trying to understand our real differences in terms of agenda and play technique instead of just differences in our mental models.
> 
> Basically the important part of shared fiction is *shared* rather than *fiction*. Fiction just means it's imagined. Created through artifice. That it is *shared by and owned by all of us together* that is what matters most to me personally.



Yes. The game belongs to all the participants, not just the GM, and even if an element is authored by the GM, working as a co-author is different than working as an author. The parts of the setting I wrote before there were any campaigns in the world are purely out of my head, but the parts after I was running in the world, it seems, must have been shaped by prior play in that world: Either I wrote it because it seemed to be something the players would find fun/interesting/relevant, or it was something I wrote because I thought the players had put me in a position where the world needed it.


----------



## pemerton

_Fiction _in this context is not a metaphor. It's literal!

When I Google "define fiction" here are the first and second meanings that are given:

_literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people.

something that is invented or untrue._​
The "worlds" of RPGs are invented or untrue; and the form they take is descriptions of imaginary events and people. We could add _places_ to that. And in the current context of discussion the focus is on GM-authored descriptions.

This is why @Emerikol's comparison of a GM running a sandbox game to God "run[ning] a game in a real world that he'd create that allowed for magic" doesn't get off the ground. The GM hasn't created a real world. They've imagined a pretend one. The players have no cognitive access to what the GM has thought of except by the GM telling them. How is this still controversial over 100 pages in?


----------



## pemerton

On APs vs sandbox, I don't think it's my job to explain how they use different techniques: it's not a comparison or contrast I'm terribly interested in.

If I had to start I would say that a sandbox consists of events on a trajectory, like @Emerikol's example upthread of the murder, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that prompt the GM to change the trajectory.

Whereas an AP consists of events on a trajectory, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that conform to the established trajectory.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Does Shared Imagined Space work better?



yes because it centralizes setting and the stuff that happens rather than plot (which fiction can suggest)


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> On APs vs sandbox, I don't think it's my job to explain how they use different techniques: it's not a comparison or contrast I'm terribly interested in.
> 
> If I had to start I would say that a sandbox consists of events on a trajectory, like @Emerikol's example upthread of the murder, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that prompt the GM to change the trajectory.
> 
> Whereas an AP consists of events on a trajectory, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that conform to the established trajectory.




You totally side stepped the real question so maybe I wasn't clear, I'll try again... why is "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" an apt descriptor of sandbox play but not of AP play... and if it actually is an apt description of both then isn't it probably better to use a different descriptor for one, the other or both?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Fine, use emerging diegesis if it makes you feel better, its the same thing though. These internecine arguments about word  use arent moving us forward here.



The words used to describe a style of play matter. There is a reason several posters have pushed back on a lot of this language. Like I said to Campbell ‘shared imaginary space’ sounds a lot more accurate to me than shared fiction


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> You totally side stepped the real question so maybe I wasn't clear, I'll try again... why is "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" an apt descriptor of sandbox play but not of AP play... and if it actually is an apt description of both then isn't it probably better to use a different descriptor for one, the other or both?



It's not different, and no, not really.  This is because we can use other descriptors for differences.  It's like saying that cats and dogs are four legged animals -- you're not going to change this description because cats and dogs differ in other ways.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> So, I was reading a book on world building for fantasy & sci-fi authors and I noticed an interesting point that I thought goes to what I am saying.
> 
> "Don't think that you will be including every ounce of what you have worked on.  You won't.  You shouldn't.  I know.  I know.  You worked hard on it but it wasn't wasted even if it never makes it into your book.   It helped you to understand you world, so that you can write about it in an informed, attached, and immersive way.  So that you can make it all the more real for your readers" -- Angeline Trevena in the book "From Sanctity to Sorcery, An Author's Guide to Building Belief Structures"
> 
> In my style of roleplaying, this point is important.  When a DM inevitably has to improv some detail of his world, he acts from a vast and detailed knowledge of that world and thus does a better job.  So even the parts the PCs never encounter is still useful stuff.  It will inform NPC actions and reactions.  It will add to the verisimilitude.




This really boils down to preference and comfort level on the part of the GM. Having a "vast and detailed knowledge" of a fictional world does not in and of itself enhance verisimilitude. It may for a specific GM, and that is fine.

But for others, it can be the opposite. Being free to establish details as needed or desired rather than as predetermined, or as how they may be shaped by predetermined events, can also add to verisimilitude.

It really just boils down to what works for the GM and players. I used to think that I needed to have as much information as possible to do the job of a GM and that the world would seem made up if I didn't do all that work beforehand. But then I realized that running an RPG is not the same as writing a novel, and that when it comes to the moment of play, a detail that is made up on the spot is very often just as good as one that is prepared ahead of time.

The question really is about all that time spent preparing and if memorizing a vast and detailed knowledge of a fictional setting is the best way to spend that time.



prabe said:


> Whether your position has moderated, or whether it's the wording, I find this much less objectionable (as in almost not at all) than your prior way of putting it, which A) focused on the GM's _notes_ and B) at least _seemed_ to imply that finding out what was in the GM's notes was almost the entirety of play.
> 
> EDIT: And I know exactly why that other phrasing bothered me so greatly: It sounds an awful lot like playing through an AP-style campaign, where the point--the only reason for play the style really supports--is to find out where the AP's story goes. Nothing any character brings to the game matters at all.
> 
> I _loathe_ AP-style play, as a player. Even shorter published adventures intended as one-shots almost inevitably get on my nerves by the end. I make a concerted effort not to run an AP-style campaign--that's most of why I don't prep more than the current session.




Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.

Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?

I've played plenty of AP games. I've run them, too. They absolutely can be fun. I don't take offense that you have criticisms of that play style, nor do I think your criticisms are without merit. I am able to look at that kind of game and see what is actually happening, and then approach the discussion accordingly. And if we're going to discuss that style, I can do so without you needing to tip toe around my feelings.

I honestly think that a lot of the conflict in this discussion is that "learning what's in the GM's notes" is a pretty accurate description of any RPG that has the GM as the primary source of the fiction. I mean, how could it not be? It's kind of baked in, no?




Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think it is diminishing. I think it is one that can be used to equivocate and one that tends to get you lost in the metaphor of fiction (I'd rather get lost in the metaphor of living world )




The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.

You point out a lot how you do not like equivocation, and that's understandable, but then you prefer vague words over specific ones.

Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.


----------



## Fenris-77

Fiction is simply prose or narration that describes imaginary people and events. Plot is both a way to describe the structure of completed fiction and also a possible tool used to help to create it, but it isn't inherent to the definition. That's something you're bringing to the table. Whatever word works though.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> It's not different, and no, not really.  This is because we can use other descriptors for differences.  It's like saying that cats and dogs are four legged animals -- you're not going to change this description because cats and dogs differ in other ways.



Ok just to be clear... are you now stating that AP play and sandbox play are not different??  Just looking for clarification here.

Aren't we discussing the differences in these playstyles, so how does it serve clarity, understanding or foster conversation to use such a generic classification if the point is to discuss and analyze these different playstyles?  It adds no value to the conversation and is fostering confusion and misunderstanding because it draws no appreciable distinction.

EDIT: And just to be clear I don't agree they are the same but even given that argument... using a descriptor that doesn't differentiate still serves no purpose in the conversation.


----------



## Campbell

It's funny. It never occurred to me that someone would have that issue with *the fiction* as a sub in for *shared imagined space* mostly because the communities  and most of the people who make regular use of it tend not to be the biggest fans of _plot_ as like a thing in RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Ok just to be clear... are you now stating that AP play and sandbox play are not different??  Just looking for clarification here.
> 
> Aren't we discussing the differences in these playstyles, so how does it serve clarity, understanding or foster conversation to use such a generic classification if the point is to discuss and analyze these different playstyles?  It adds no value to the conversation and is fostering confusion and misunderstanding because it draws no appreciable distinction.
> 
> EDIT: And just to be clear I don't agree they are the same but even given that argument... using a descriptor that doesn't differentiate still serves no purpose in the conversation.




How do you find them to be different? 

There are differences. There are also similarities. Providing an example of one is not denying the other. 

So if you want to talk about how they're different, then share some examples of why you think so. Maybe you can make a compelling argument for why the differences are more important than a similarity. 

Then the conversation will actually progress accordingly.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> The words used to describe a style of play matter. There is a reason several posters have pushed back on a lot of this language. Like I said to Campbell ‘shared imaginary space’ sounds a lot more accurate to me than shared fiction



Sure, like I said, whatever works. I was just pointing out that the baggage carried by 'fiction' is mostly an accretion of opinion and improper use, not anything inherent to the actual word.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Ok just to be clear... are you now stating that AP play and sandbox play are not different??  Just looking for clarification here.



They are as not different as cats and dogs are not different.


Imaro said:


> Aren't we discussing the differences in these playstyles, so how does it serve clarity, understanding or foster conversation to use such a generic classification if the point is to discuss and analyze these different playstyles?  It adds no value to the conversation and is fostering confusion and misunderstanding because it draws no appreciable distinction.



We are discussing what GM notes are for.  To that end, the differences between AP and sandbox GM notes exist, in that one will usually include notes on required outcomes while the other will not, but in the aspect of a major aspect of play being to learn about the GM's concept of the world (informed by the GM's notes but not limited to) there's not really any difference.

You seem to think that saying cats and dogs are both four legged animals removes any ability to otherwise distinguish them.  I'm not sure why this is.


Imaro said:


> EDIT: And just to be clear I don't agree they are the same but even given that argument... using a descriptor that doesn't differentiate still serves no purpose in the conversation.



When you do comparisons, or analysis, of different approaches, you are not limited to only discussing differences. Similarities are also very important.  Otherwise, saying a dog is a four legged animal is serves no purpose because it's a shared trait with cats, which seems to ignore that it's still an important descriptor of dogs.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> How do you find them to be different?
> 
> There are differences. There are also similarities. Providing an example of one is not denying the other.
> 
> So if you want to talk about how they're different, then share some examples of why you think so. Maybe you can make a compelling argument for why the differences are more important than a similarity.
> 
> Then the conversation will actually progress accordingly.




You do realize that reasons they are different, especially as it pertains to that particular descriptor have been posted throughout this thread for pages now, right?


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.



Yeah. I suppose putting my description of why I don't like the style before my statement of strongly not liking the style could make it seem as though I'm slagging people for liking the style. That certainly wasn't my intent.


hawkeyefan said:


> Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?



As I said before, I could probably make it clearer I'm describing my own experiences of a playstyle I haven't ever enjoyed.


hawkeyefan said:


> I've played plenty of AP games. I've run them, too. They absolutely can be fun. I don't take offense that you have criticisms of that play style, nor do I think your criticisms are without merit. I am able to look at that kind of game and see what is actually happening, and then approach the discussion accordingly. And if we're going to discuss that style, I can do so without you needing to tip toe around my feelings.



That's fair, but if I were to get a lot of pushback about my description/s of AP-style play, I might consider that there's some problem with my description/s, not the people pushing back.


hawkeyefan said:


> I honestly think that a lot of the conflict in this discussion is that "learning what's in the GM's notes" is a pretty accurate description of any RPG that has the GM as the primary source of the fiction. I mean, how could it not be? It's kind of baked in, no?



I don't think it's wildly inaccurate, but I think it undersells A) the extent to which the GM has any interest in finding out about either the characters or the world and B) the extent to which authoring something at the table is different from doing so at one's desk (it's the difference between being the sole author and being a co-author).


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> They are as not different as cats and dogs are not different.
> 
> We are discussing what GM notes are for.  To that end, the differences between AP and sandbox GM notes exist, in that one will usually include notes on required outcomes while the other will not, but in the aspect of a major aspect of play being to learn about the GM's concept of the world (informed by the GM's notes but not limited to) there's not really any difference.
> 
> You seem to think that saying cats and dogs are both four legged animals removes any ability to otherwise distinguish them.  I'm not sure why this is.




Nope. I'm saying that if we choose to refer to both groups as "four-legged animals" as opposed to cats and dogs... it hinders discussion.



Ovinomancer said:


> When you do comparisons, or analysis, of different approaches, you are not limited to only discussing differences. Similarities are also very important.  Otherwise, saying a dog is a four legged animal is serves no purpose because it's a shared trait with cats, which seems to ignore that it's still an important descriptor of dogs.



No one claimed you did. but in a general discussion of comparison between  cats and dogs... you refer to them as cats and dogs (difference) not the four legged animals in comparison to the four legged animals.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> You do realize that reasons they are different, especially as it pertains to that particular descriptor have been posted throughout this thread for pages now, right?




I don't recall a comparison between Sandbox play and Adventure Path play, to be honest. Was that comparison specifically already discussed?

But overall, sure, there has been a ton of repetition. Like complaining about the phrase "GM's notes" which seems to be okay to bring up without end.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Nope. I'm saying that if we choose to refer to both groups as "four-legged animals" as opposed to cats and dogs... it hinders discussion.



In what way?  If we ONLY allow that descriptor, then, sure, you have a point, but that's not at all what's happening.  Instead, the descriptor deployed does accurately categorize a shared element of play between these approaches.  It doesn't, at all, prevent anyone from pointing out differences.  Heck, I did that quite easily in the post you just quoted.


Imaro said:


> No one claimed you did. but in a general discussion of comparison between  cats and dogs... you refer to them as cats and dogs (difference) not the four legged animals in comparison to the four legged animals.



So, I cannot ever point out similarities between cats and dogs in a comparison of cats and dogs?  What an odd assertation!


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't recall a comparison between Sandbox play and Adventure Path play, to be honest. Was that comparison specifically already discussed?
> 
> But overall, sure, there has been a ton of repetition. Like complaining about the phrase "GM's notes" which seems to be okay to bring up without end.




So really your point was to imply I should accept what I feel is an incorrect/confusing/inaccurate descriptor and just get on with it.  Thanks, noted.


----------



## Ovinomancer

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't recall a comparison between Sandbox play and Adventure Path play, to be honest. Was that comparison specifically already discussed?
> 
> But overall, sure, there has been a ton of repetition. Like complaining about the phrase "GM's notes" which seems to be okay to bring up without end.



I mean, the thread topic is about GM notes, so this isn't weird, right?  When did the thread become a comparison of only AP and sandbox play?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> In what way?  If we ONLY allow that descriptor, then, sure, you have a point, but that's not at all what's happening.  Instead, the descriptor deployed does accurately categorize a shared element of play between these approaches.  It doesn't, at all, prevent anyone from pointing out differences.  Heck, I did that quite easily in the post you just quoted.




It's being used as a reference/characterization for the entire playstyle... not as one of many descriptors...



Ovinomancer said:


> So, I cannot ever point out similarities between cats and dogs in a comparison of cats and dogs?  What an odd assertation!




Sure you can but again using that similarity as the main term/phrase to characterize something in a general manner runs into the four-legged animal issue I talked about previously.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> Yeah. I suppose putting my description of why I don't like the style before my statement of strongly not liking the style could make it seem as though I'm slagging people for liking the style. That certainly wasn't my intent.
> 
> As I said before, I could probably make it clearer I'm describing my own experiences of a playstyle I haven't ever enjoyed.




No, that's fine. I don't think that you should tailor your view on AP style play to match the opinion of others. It should reflect your opinion. If you feel that such adventures are largely railroads, you shoudl say so. If others feel differently, then they should explain how APs are not railroads, not ask you to stop using the term railroad and instead use "sequential scenario depiction" just so they feel better about themselves. 




prabe said:


> That's fair, but if I were to get a lot of pushback about my description/s of AP-style play, I might consider that there's some problem with my description/s, not the people pushing back.




Perhaps. My point is that there isn't really a problem. You will have made your opinion known. I can now engage with it and discuss my opinion, and we can compare and contrast. 

Or I can question your use of one specific phrase for dozens of pages. 

I prefer the former. There have been some bright spots in this discussion. None of them have been about the challenge of that phrase.



prabe said:


> I don't think it's wildly inaccurate, but I think it undersells A) the extent to which the GM has any interest in finding out about either the characters or the world and B) the extent to which authoring something at the table is different from doing so at one's desk (it's the difference between being the sole author and being a co-author).




I don't think anyone took "GM's Notes" to be all done before play and then never added to or revised based on play. It's an ongoing process.

I think you've described your play as never prepping more than one session ahead. I largely do that myself when I run 5E D&D; I have a good idea of what will be next, and I make sure I'm ready for that. Those are how I use notes to help run the game. 

Do my players sometimes surprise me? Do they sometimes end one session with a plan "here's what we'll do next week" and then we get to next week and they scrap that idea and go with something else entirely? Of course. 

It doesn't change the fact that a large part of play is about what I as GM have crafted, right?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> It's being used as a reference/characterization for the entire playstyle... not as one of many descriptors...



Not by anyone using it, I assure you.


Imaro said:


> Sure you can but again using that similarity as the main term/phrase to characterize something in a general manner runs into the four-legged animal issue I talked about previously.



This is a thread about how GM notes are used.  As such, it is a theme in describing games.  At no point is this a primary or sole descriptor -- it's only talking about how GM notes are used.  You have a misconception about the topic and scope of this discussion.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Not by anyone using it, I assure you.
> 
> This is a thread about how GM notes are used.  As such, it is a theme in describing games.  At no point is this a primary or sole descriptor -- it's only talking about how GM notes are used.  You have a misconception about the topic and scope of this discussion.




So then why does it start..."Playing to find out..."  Seems what we are really doing is defining the purpose of play not GM notes with the descriptor.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> So really your point was to imply I should accept what I feel is an incorrect/confusing/inaccurate descriptor and just get on with it.  Thanks, noted.




No, my point is that @pemerton has used that phrase. It has been challenged. You and several others don't like the connotations. @pemerton has even offered several different alternatives to the phrase. 

This has all been established. 

I was asking about notes in Adventure Path games versus Sandbox because it seemed like you might have something to say there. I'd rather have a conversation about gaming than to endlessly have a conversation about a conversation about gaming.



Ovinomancer said:


> I mean, the thread topic is about GM notes, so this isn't weird, right?  When did the thread become a comparison of only AP and sandbox play?




Well, how a GM's notes are used in one style versus another would seem to be up for discussion in the thread, no?  Especially since the "play to find out what's in the GM's notes" horse has not just been beaten to death, but it's been burned, hanged, stomped, and then nuked from effing orbit.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So then why does it start..."Playing to find out..."  Seems what we are really doing is defining the purpose of play not GM notes with the descriptor.



Why do what start?  Not the OP -- those words aren't even in the OP.  Which "it" are you talking about?


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Ok just to be clear... are you now stating that AP play and sandbox play are not different??  Just looking for clarification here.
> 
> Aren't we discussing the differences in these playstyles, so how does it serve clarity, understanding or foster conversation to use such a generic classification if the point is to discuss and analyze these different playstyles?  It adds no value to the conversation and is fostering confusion and misunderstanding because it draws no appreciable distinction.
> 
> EDIT: And just to be clear I don't agree they are the same but even given that argument... using a descriptor that doesn't differentiate still serves no purpose in the conversation.




Look at the below exchange the other day in the "Culture Blog" thread.  I think this should shed light on what @Ovinomancer is saying:



pemerton said:


> Do you think this sort of thing puts any pressure on the blogger's categories? Or is it more like someone who enjoys B/X but finds T&T a bit silly? That's probably not a reason to split the "Classic" category into two.




I don’t think so no.

In any taxonomic hierarchy you need to capture the most breadth at the top before your classifications narrow as you move down (eg Kingdom down to Species).

I think really what we’re seeing is that Story Now has more breadth (classification diversity beneath) than it’s likely given credit for and that it “plays nice” with Classic and OSR and can encompass many varieties of Skilled Play priorities (contrast 4e with Torchbearer).



Put another way, at the highest level of the taxonomical hierarchy, (compare to Kingdom) might be "play to find out what's in the GM notes/to discover the GM's prepared material".  However, Sandbox and AP would then diverge in a number of significant ways as you move down the hierarchy.  For instance, at Phylum, they might diverge with "dynamic setting primacy" vs "metaplot primacy."


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> No, that's fine. I don't think that you should tailor your view on AP style play to match the opinion of others. It should reflect your opinion. If you feel that such adventures are largely railroads, you shoudl say so. If others feel differently, then they should explain how APs are not railroads, not ask you to stop using the term railroad and instead use "sequential scenario depiction" just so they feel better about themselves.



I think there's a difference in responsiveness between "APs aren't railroads" and "I don't like the word _railroad_." I also think that if I'm discussing AP-style play, it probably serves discussion better if I'm up-front about how I feel about it before I launch into any analysis. It's the same reason why when reading an opinion piece in a newspaper I skip down to the author bio to see if there's an obvious agenda there.


hawkeyefan said:


> Perhaps. My point is that there isn't really a problem. You will have made your opinion known. I can now engage with it and discuss my opinion, and we can compare and contrast.
> 
> Or I can question your use of one specific phrase for dozens of pages.
> 
> I prefer the former. There have been some bright spots in this discussion. None of them have been about the challenge of that phrase.



I agree.


hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think anyone took "GM's Notes" to be all done before play and then never added to or revised based on play. It's an ongoing process.



I think @pemerton changed the phrasing to something like "discovering the GM's conception of the world" as an allowance for something more improvised but still coming from the GM's mind.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think you've described your play as never prepping more than one session ahead. I largely do that myself when I run 5E D&D; I have a good idea of what will be next, and I make sure I'm ready for that. Those are how I use notes to help run the game.
> 
> Do my players sometimes surprise me? Do they sometimes end one session with a plan "here's what we'll do next week" and then we get to next week and they scrap that idea and go with something else entirely? Of course.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that a large part of play is about what I as GM have crafted, right?



I think that what has happened at the table is something we around the table have crafted. I have brought the setting and whatever obstacles/antagonists seem fitting; the players have brought their characters and described their actions. The fiction isn't complete if it's just me.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Why do what start?  Not the OP -- those words aren't even in the OP.  Which "it" are you talking about?




I'm not talking about the OP.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ovinomancer said:


> Why do what start?  Not the OP -- those words aren't even in the OP.  Which "it" are you talking about?



@Imaro,  @hawkeyefan's post provided the antecedent to the "it", or at least I think it does.  You're asking about the "play to find out what's in the GM's notes/conception/head" bit, and thinking this is a sole or primary definition of a style.  It's not.  We play for many reasons.  In my 5e AP game right now, players are playing to find out what's in the notes, playing to see if they can skillfully defeat challenges, playing to explore their character builds, and playing to have fun.  There's nothing in the formulation that exclusive of any other play goal.

EDIT:  however, a given play goal might be exclusive to other play goals -- the formulation "playing to" is not exclusive to any, though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, like I said, whatever works. I was just pointing out that the baggage carried by 'fiction' is mostly an accretion of opinion and improper use, not anything inherent to the actual word.






hawkeyefan said:


> This really boils down to preference and comfort level on the part of the GM. Having a "vast and detailed knowledge" of a fictional world does not in and of itself enhance verisimilitude. It may for a specific GM, and that is fine.
> 
> But for others, it can be the opposite. Being free to establish details as needed or desired rather than as predetermined, or as how they may be shaped by predetermined events, can also add to verisimilitude.
> 
> It really just boils down to what works for the GM and players. I used to think that I needed to have as much information as possible to do the job of a GM and that the world would seem made up if I didn't do all that work beforehand. But then I realized that running an RPG is not the same as writing a novel, and that when it comes to the moment of play, a detail that is made up on the spot is very often just as good as one that is prepared ahead of time.
> 
> The question really is about all that time spent preparing and if memorizing a vast and detailed knowledge of a fictional setting is the best way to spend that time.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?
> 
> I've played plenty of AP games. I've run them, too. They absolutely can be fun. I don't take offense that you have criticisms of that play style, nor do I think your criticisms are without merit. I am able to look at that kind of game and see what is actually happening, and then approach the discussion accordingly. And if we're going to discuss that style, I can do so without you needing to tip toe around my feelings.
> 
> I honestly think that a lot of the conflict in this discussion is that "learning what's in the GM's notes" is a pretty accurate description of any RPG that has the GM as the primary source of the fiction. I mean, how could it not be? It's kind of baked in, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.
> 
> You point out a lot how you do not like equivocation, and that's understandable, but then you prefer vague words over specific ones.
> 
> Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.



Fiction can mean ‘made up’ but it can also mean ‘a story’ or ‘a novel’. The problem of equivocation with this term is very real in these discussions


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> @Imaro,  @hawkeyefan's post provided the antecedent to the "it", or at least I think it does.  You're asking about the "play to find out what's in the GM's notes/conception/head" bit, and thinking this is a sole or primary definition of a style.  It's not.  We play for many reasons.  In my 5e AP game right now, players are playing to find out what's in the notes, playing to see if they can skillfully defeat challenges, playing to explore their character builds, and playing to have fun.  There's nothing in the formulation that exclusive of any other play goal.
> 
> EDIT:  however, a given play goal might be exclusive to other play goals -- the formulation "playing to" is not exclusive to any, though.




And my point is that it has been used (IMO incorrectly) in this discussion as a primary definition of a style... that is why there has been such pushback by many.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I think there's a difference in responsiveness between "APs aren't railroads" and "I don't like the word _railroad_." I also think that if I'm discussing AP-style play, it probably serves discussion better if I'm up-front about how I feel about it before I launch into any analysis. It's the same reason why when reading an opinion piece in a newspaper I skip down to the author bio to see if there's an obvious agenda there.




Yes, I agree. I think in this case, pemerton gave his idea of what this style of play seems to be. This is a conclusion, I expect, that he's come to as a result of playing that kind of game. He's boiling it down to it's basic parts and looking at it, and saying "this is how this seems to me". 

The thread topic is about GM notes and the purpose they serve. We know what purpose pemerton seems to think they serve in games that have been describd as sandbox. To be honest, it still seems pretty accurate in my book, although I agree that yes, there is more to it. 




prabe said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think @pemerton changed the phrasing to something like "discovering the GM's conception of the world" as an allowance for something more improvised but still coming from the GM's mind.




Sure. Isn't that largely what the players, via their characters, do? In my 5E D&D game, it simply is. Is there more to it? Yes, of course.....my notes (as they are) consist of lots of input from the players. So it's not solely my creation. But I am the one that acts as the kind of filter for everything. It all comes through me, for the most part. The players in D&D are not really free to establish details in play or the thrust of play without me making it so.



prabe said:


> I think that what has happened at the table is something we around the table have crafted. I have brought the setting and whatever obstacles/antagonists seem fitting; the players have brought their characters and described their actions. The fiction isn't complete if it's just me.




Yes, I absolutely agree. But the GM is absolutely vital to the process more so than any individual player. Again, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Many games have the GM as the primary source of the fiction, with the players only contributing through the actions they declare for their characters, and how those may influence the GM's ideas. 

The kicker to me seems to be that the folks who balk at permerton's idea of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes are also folks who will acknowledge that the GM is the primary contributor to the fiction. Or the imagined shared idea space. 

These two things seem to largely be the same thing, to me.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Fiction can mean ‘made up’ but it can also mean ‘a story’ or ‘a novel’. The problem of equivocation with this term is very real in these discussions




It can mean a lie, too. Or anything that is made up. Fiction does have multiple definitions, this is true, but that doesn't make it somehow impossible to understand what people mean when they use it in gaming.

Living world is far more open to interpretation and therefore equivocation. 

I mean, when asked to define how I mean fiction, I can reply with "make believe", right? Pretty clear and no attempt at equivocation.

Give me your equally concise description of Living World. Hell, I'd say take an entire sentence rather than two words.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> And my point is that it has been used (IMO incorrectly) in this discussion as a primary definition of a style... that is why there has been such pushback by many.



And, again, I assure you it has not.  It has been used primarily in the context of how GM Notes are used, because that's the topic of the thread.

You're imagining a slight that doesn't actually exist.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, I agree. I think in this case, pemerton gave his idea of what this style of play seems to be. This is a conclusion, I expect, that he's come to as a result of playing that kind of game. He's boiling it down to it's basic parts and looking at it, and saying "this is how this seems to me".
> 
> The thread topic is about GM notes and the purpose they serve. We know what purpose pemerton seems to think they serve in games that have been describd as sandbox. To be honest, it still seems pretty accurate in my book, although I agree that yes, there is more to it.



I think @pemerton has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).


hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. Isn't that largely what the players, via their characters, do? In my 5E D&D game, it simply is. Is there more to it? Yes, of course.....my notes (as they are) consist of lots of input from the players. So it's not solely my creation. But I am the one that acts as the kind of filter for everything. It all comes through me, for the most part. The players in D&D are not really free to establish details in play or the thrust of play without me making it so.



I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.

How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.


hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, I absolutely agree. But the GM is absolutely vital to the process more so than any individual player. Again, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Many games have the GM as the primary source of the fiction, with the players only contributing through the actions they declare for their characters, and how those may influence the GM's ideas.



I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.


hawkeyefan said:


> The kicker to me seems to be that the folks who balk at permerton's idea of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes are also folks who will acknowledge that the GM is the primary contributor to the fiction. Or the imagined shared idea space.
> 
> These two things seem to largely be the same thing, to me.



I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I think @pemerton has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).
> 
> I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.
> 
> How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.
> 
> I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.
> 
> I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.



This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not?  I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is.  This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.

I'll agree this is a step past "notes" and more into who has authorities over the fiction.  In the style of play partially, but not completely, characterized by @pemerton's "play to find out what's the GM's conception of the world" this is more easily framed as the GM has agreed sole authority over this.  A benevolent GM will, of course, adapt to player inputs, but this doesn't move this locus of authority.  I'm absolutely a benevolent dictator when it comes to how I run these games -- I'll take lots of player suggestions and inputs, and adapt things to fit what's going on in a way that encourages player input, but, fundamentally, what happens is because I've adopted it as my conception of the world and if I don't take a player input, that's that.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not?  I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is.  This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.
> 
> I'll agree this is a step past "notes" and more into who has authorities over the fiction.  In the style of play partially, but not completely, characterized by @pemerton's "play to find out what's the GM's conception of the world" this is more easily framed as the GM has agreed sole authority over this.  A benevolent GM will, of course, adapt to player inputs, but this doesn't move this locus of authority.  I'm absolutely a benevolent dictator when it comes to how I run these games -- I'll take lots of player suggestions and inputs, and adapt things to fit what's going on in a way that encourages player input, but, fundamentally, what happens is because I've adopted it as my conception of the world and if I don't take a player input, that's that.




What you're describing is the difference between Neo-trad cited in the Culture blog and No Myth Story Now.

And they're extremely different.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> This really boils down to preference and comfort level on the part of the GM. Having a "vast and detailed knowledge" of a fictional world does not in and of itself enhance verisimilitude. It may for a specific GM, and that is fine.



Well in anything we are talking averages.  I definitely think, for the same reason given by the author of that book, that on average having more detail is going to improve the game.  I agree there are other factors and that is not the exclusive property of a good game.

My experience with DMs/GMs is that those that ad lib a lot are not very good.  So as soon as I figure out that there is nothing under that DM's hat, I tend to move on and leave that game.  I've gotten better at figuring out this stuff ahead of time than when I was in college.  



hawkeyefan said:


> But for others, it can be the opposite. Being free to establish details as needed or desired rather than as predetermined, or as how they may be shaped by predetermined events, can also add to verisimilitude.



My reaction is that generally ten authors can't write as good a story as one author can but I'm sure some author could be found that is worse than some selection of ten authors.   So I view it as a typical truth and not absolute for every single situation ever.   Just like authors who bother to build a world tend to write better worlds than authors who don't.   I'm sure there are exceptions to everything.



hawkeyefan said:


> It really just boils down to what works for the GM and players. I used to think that I needed to have as much information as possible to do the job of a GM and that the world would seem made up if I didn't do all that work beforehand. But then I realized that running an RPG is not the same as writing a novel, and that when it comes to the moment of play, a detail that is made up on the spot is very often just as good as one that is prepared ahead of time.



I do agree that whatever enhanced the fun of the game is a good thing for that game.  No argument there.  I just wonder if perhaps the benefits of the "opposite" of my style are in other areas and not verisimilitude.



hawkeyefan said:


> The question really is about all that time spent preparing and if memorizing a vast and detailed knowledge of a fictional setting is the best way to spend that time.



In my opinion it is time well spent but then I enjoy it and I enjoy making my players happy with a good world that they enjoy.



hawkeyefan said:


> Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.



I don't care for the style though I have no issue with a series of adventures set in a well designed world with a sandbox.  The players can choose to follow that path or not.  




hawkeyefan said:


> Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?



You should never have to pretend.  Just say what you like.  I don't mind what anyone's preference is.  My opposition only comes when I think my own style is being mischaracterized or maligned.



hawkeyefan said:


> The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.



Well by your own definition, the fiction is only what emerges from play and does not include the entirety of the living world.



hawkeyefan said:


> Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.



Well stories are emergent from almost any hobby.  I have stories of great chess games I've won or lost.  Maybe my time ran out and I had a winning position.   That doesn't mean the game is ABOUT creating a story.  If so then did I make the clock run out on purpose to make the loss more memorable and dramatic?  Absolutely not.  I was playing to win.


So in my own style of roleplaying the players are trying to advance their agendas.  They develop their agendas from experiencing the world and creatively thinking about their character.  That a story emerges on occasion is a side effect and by no means the purpose.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> And, again, I assure you it has not.  It has been used primarily in the context of how GM Notes are used, because that's the topic of the thread.
> 
> You're imagining a slight that doesn't actually exist.




Please go back and re-read the thread.  It's been the crux of pushback because it has.

EDIT: Honestly our discussion around this can probably end here.  It's becoming a pointless back and forth and honestly the thread has veered off and transcended the topic so many times that to keep using the OP as some sort of fallback at this point feels like you are choosing to willfully ignore parts of the conversation.  Which is your choice but also tends to make me think we won't get anywhere on this line of discussion.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> What you're describing is the difference between Neo-trad cited in the Culture blog and No Myth Story Now.
> 
> And they're extremely different.



I had a question and your mention of No Myth and Story Now together has reminded me to ask it.

Are they the same idea?  Is Story Now something new that grew out of No Myth?


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not?  I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is.  This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.



I think that to the extent the GM is playing to discover the players' conceptions of their characters, the players have say over that; seems to mean the players are deciding what is emerging. I'll grant that's probably not a common GMing approach in D&D--but it's part of mine.

I also think it is, perhaps, continuing to conflate "setting" and "fiction." The former is a subset of the latter, and everything the players have their characters *do* changes the fiction. At least, it should--and the fact it really doesn't much in AP-style play is probably my biggest gripe with that playstyle.


Ovinomancer said:


> I'll agree this is a step past "notes" and more into who has authorities over the fiction.  In the style of play partially, but not completely, characterized by @pemerton's "play to find out what's the GM's conception of the world" this is more easily framed as the GM has agreed sole authority over this.  A benevolent GM will, of course, adapt to player inputs, but this doesn't move this locus of authority.  I'm absolutely a benevolent dictator when it comes to how I run these games -- I'll take lots of player suggestions and inputs, and adapt things to fit what's going on in a way that encourages player input, but, fundamentally, what happens is because I've adopted it as my conception of the world and if I don't take a player input, that's that.



The players can change my world--and have done so. Granted, in play that's been entirely through character action/s, but there've been changes based around backstories as well. But yes, I have far more authority over the setting than the players do, and I have far less authority over their characters than they do.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I had a question and your mention of No Myth and Story Now together has reminded me to ask it.
> 
> Are they the same idea?  Is Story Now something new that grew out of No Myth?




Myth is just level of prep of backstory/setting.  No Myth just means very little prep (there is always going to be some prep, but its often communal such as creating the villain in My Life with Master or making the map in Dungeon World or players proposing their background initiation scene in Dogs in the Vineyard).  Story Now games come in different levels of prep, but overwhelmingly feature low but very focused prep which features provocative (relative to the game's premise and the espoused PC themes/dramatic needs) situations.  Setting fills out/firms up and Story generates during play as a product of the PCs colliding with those provocative situations.  That is the Now part.

Contrast with Story Before where much (or at least most of the most important parts) or all story generation (this would be AP Railroads) happen before play:

* Setting is high resolution and happens almost exclusively before play.

* Situations that come up in play are overwhelmingly PC-neutral in their framing.  That doesn't mean players can't pick their own plot hooks out of the Setting's menu (like a Pick Your Own Adventure book), but it does mean that the Setting and Situation material isn't intentionally framed around the PCs thematic/dramatic needs in order to provoke them (like a Town is in Dogs in the Vineyard).


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not?  I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is.  This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.



Not really.  If the player tells me what his PC does, I don't have the option to decide if it's part of the shared fiction.  It IS part of the shared fiction at the moment the player told me what his PC did.  The only way the DM can do otherwise is to violate the social contract.  What the player does is not about what the DM thinks it is.  It's a collaboration of DM and player inputs that is just narrated by the DM, possibly with some rules adjudications if necessary.

The players don't need the DM's agreement.  That "agreement" is guaranteed by the social contract.  It's not that other systems allow the players the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the the DM's agreement and D&D doesn't.  Both do that.  It's that the player facing games allow the players to introduce things into the shared fiction without the DM.  He's simply not a part of it at all in some cases.

D&D allows the following.

1) DM contribution to the shared fiction without any players.
2) DM and player collaborative contribution to the shared fiction.(You don't need the DM to agree to this.)

Player facing games allow the following.

1) DM and player collaborative contribution to the shared fiction.
2) Player contribution to the shared fiction without the DM.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I think @pemerton has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).




Yeah, I expect that's the case, too....or close to it. 



prabe said:


> I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.




Yeah, I agree with all of this. I think this is all happening, or at least potentially happening, as we play. It will vary of course, as many examples in this thread have shown. 

Would you say that the purpose of the GM's notes in this kind of game is to offer something for which the GM/players to interact with in order to facilitate your A through C?



prabe said:


> How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.




I can't really say how your game goes, but I imagine it is similar to mine in this regard. I feel that my 5E D&D game allows much more player freedom than the default 5E expectations, and most other similar games. This is not always 100% true at all times.....in my campaign I've incorporated some published materials, and they do constrain this somewhat. But overall and in general, I think that my approach to 5E grants them a lot more ability to determine how play will go. 

But even then, it's largely shaped by my input. Not entirely of course....but a significant portion such that I would say it's still the majority.



prabe said:


> I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.




Sure. There's also influence in the other direction. The players make decisions that are influenced by the GM. It's a loop, for sure, and the GM's influence on that loop is significant. 

Which would you say is greater? Player influence on GM's ideas of the fiction, or GM's influence on players' ideas of the fiction? 

It's a genuine question.....one I don't think has an objective answer, but I think it is kind of central to the idea here.



prabe said:


> I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.




I get the connotations and why people have an issue with the first. But mostly this thread has just confirmed for me that it's a pretty accurate description. I don't think it must be a pejorative, even if that's how it may seem or may have been intended (although I think it was meant more to provoke a response than to really put a style down). 

Does it undersell the importance of the players? I don't know. I get what you're saying, but it talks about the players role as "discovering" so that's in there. I feel like maybe it undersells the fictional world, since that's what's being discovered and that's what's actually in the GM's notes. 

But that then brings us to the original question, what are the GM's notes for. If you wanted to say "To help construct a fictional world in a collaborative manner with the players, where we are free to discover things about the world and the characters through play" then I think that's a more complete picture.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Well in anything we are talking averages. I definitely think, for the same reason given by the author of that book, that on average having more detail is going to improve the game. I agree there are other factors and that is not the exclusive property of a good game.
> 
> My experience with DMs/GMs is that those that ad lib a lot are not very good. So as soon as I figure out that there is nothing under that DM's hat, I tend to move on and leave that game. I've gotten better at figuring out this stuff ahead of time than when I was in college.




But what does that even mean about the DM's hat? I mean, it's all made up...does it matter when? 

I mean, I can understand how it can be done poorly, sure. Or that certain kinds of games would not be the best fit for this.....something like a classic dungeon delve is probably best served by having a map and tracked resources and random encounters charts and the like, but that's more about this kind of game being about player skill. 

There's no reason that a dungeon delve style of scenario could not be crafted by a GM in a game that doesn't rely so heavily on GM prep. I've done it myself, so I know it's possible. 



Emerikol said:


> My reaction is that generally ten authors can't write as good a story as one author can but I'm sure some author could be found that is worse than some selection of ten authors. So I view it as a typical truth and not absolute for every single situation ever. Just like authors who bother to build a world tend to write better worlds than authors who don't. I'm sure there are exceptions to everything.




I think the difference here is that writers benefit from having the chance to edit and to rework things, and to revise and retroactively fix things before publication, and all of this is without having to consider any kind of interactive quality with their audience. The audience will either like their work or not, but the audience will not shape an individual work with their own actions. 

Gaming is different. If the whole point of play is for players to experience a novel that's been crafted by the GM with some points of input, then sure, I would think advice on writing novels and worldbuilding for novels becomes more relevant. 




Emerikol said:


> I do agree that whatever enhanced the fun of the game is a good thing for that game. No argument there. I just wonder if perhaps the benefits of the "opposite" of my style are in other areas and not verisimilitude.
> 
> In my opinion it is time well spent but then I enjoy it and I enjoy making my players happy with a good world that they enjoy.




The benefit for me is that I don't need to spend so much time preparing for a game. I don't need to have a vast and detailed knowledge of anything prior to play. And I as GM am discovering a lot during play. I'm learning about the setting right along with the players a lot of the time. 

I also find sharing the creative process with the players tends to invest them more in the game and the setting. They feel more involved, which usually enhances play. Things matter more, they feel more immersed, they care about what's happening. 

In a lot of my earliest games that I GMed, I as GM cared a lot more about the setting than the players did. They just wanted a setting to enable play more than learning about as an interesting place.



Emerikol said:


> Well by your own definition, the fiction is only what emerges from play and does not include the entirety of the living world.




Well it's all fiction. But as far as what is "the fiction" of a specific game, then I think it is limited to what's been established. Prior to it being established, it can change.



Emerikol said:


> Well stories are emergent from almost any hobby. I have stories of great chess games I've won or lost. Maybe my time ran out and I had a winning position. That doesn't mean the game is ABOUT creating a story. If so then did I make the clock run out on purpose to make the loss more memorable and dramatic? Absolutely not. I was playing to win.
> 
> 
> So in my own style of roleplaying the players are trying to advance their agendas. They develop their agendas from experiencing the world and creatively thinking about their character. That a story emerges on occasion is a side effect and by no means the purpose.




This is my point. The goal isn't to craft a story, even if we can kind of describe the events of play as a "story" after the fact. But it's not constructed as such with the kinds of dramatic considerations that authors typically use to craft stories. 

But it's still fiction. It's make believe. I feel like this is one of the few things that EVERY game each of us has mentioned in this thread has in common.....they all create some kind of make believe.

I feel like denying that removes one of the central commonalities that all RPGs have, from Sandbox to Adventure Path to Story Now and anything in between.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Please go back and re-read the thread.  It's been the crux of pushback because it has.



YES!  I 100% agree that the crux of the pushback has been a misinterpretation of the point -- that no one is saying that the only, sole, or even primary purpose of playing is to learn what is the GM's notes, but rather that quite a lot of play revolves around this.  And that's fine -- I listed a number of things my players play for in my current game, and quite a lot of them feature finding out what I think the fiction is -- skill play relies on this being done fairly and clearly, the railroad plot absolutely relies on it, a good bit of the fun comes from how I describe my conceptions.  This isn't a problem -- it's a vector to enable the other things we play for.  Yet, you, and others, seem to lock down and misattribute this to somehow claiming that all play is just sitting around listening to the GM tell you things.  This hasn't been anyone's point in this thread, except may you when you argue against this phantom.


Imaro said:


> EDIT: Honestly our discussion around this can probably end here.  It's becoming a pointless back and forth and honestly the thread has veered off and transcended the topic so many times that to keep using the OP as some sort of fallback at this point feels like you are choosing to willfully ignore parts of the conversation.  Which is your choice but also tends to make me think we won't get anywhere on this line of discussion.



S'Ok, feel free to disengage.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Would you say that the purpose of the GM's notes in this kind of game is to offer something for which the GM/players to interact with in order to facilitate your A through C?



That's part of it. It's also kinda an aide de memoire, so I can keep things consistent with what's gone before. My wife takes excellent notes, but I can and to distill those down so the relevant bits stay in my head.

Also, anything that I'm specifically framing in probably come out of my prep for a given session.


hawkeyefan said:


> I can't really say how your game goes, but I imagine it is similar to mine in this regard. I feel that my 5E D&D game allows much more player freedom than the default 5E expectations, and most other similar games. This is not always 100% true at all times.....in my campaign I've incorporated some published materials, and they do constrain this somewhat. But overall and in general, I think that my approach to 5E grants them a lot more ability to determine how play will go.
> 
> But even then, it's largely shaped by my input. Not entirely of course....but a significant portion such that I would say it's still the majority.



Other than not using published stuff (because I can never make the kind of sense I need to, to run it) I concur that our games are probably similar. There are certainly instances when I have no idea what the party will next pursue, or how, or where. I improvise *a lot* those times.


hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. There's also influence in the other direction. The players make decisions that are influenced by the GM. It's a loop, for sure, and the GM's influence on that loop is significant.
> 
> Which would you say is greater? Player influence on GM's ideas of the fiction, or GM's influence on players' ideas of the fiction?
> 
> It's a genuine question.....one I don't think has an objective answer, but I think it is kind of central to the idea here.



There's certainly at least one feedback loop.

The players have some influence on the setting, both as they write stuff in as backstory and as they do stuff. I think some of the stuff they've done has been more or less directly responding to the setting as presented to them. I think a lot of the stuff they've done has been mostly pursuing their own desires and needs.

I think it's possible that their influence over the setting and my influence over their actions is roughly equal: They only get to influence the setting by backstory and by character action, and I only get to influence their actions by framing events in (and to an extent by defining the setting, which I think of as outside any individual campaign, if that makes sense).


hawkeyefan said:


> I get the connotations and why people have an issue with the first. But mostly this thread has just confirmed for me that it's a pretty accurate description. I don't think it must be a pejorative, even if that's how it may seem or may have been intended (although I think it was meant more to provoke a response than to really put a style down).



I definitely think the description was ... provocatively phrased. It's interesting that it's gotten maybe a little less provocative (at least for some of us (or for me anyway)).


hawkeyefan said:


> Does it undersell the importance of the players? I don't know. I get what you're saying, but it talks about the players role as "discovering" so that's in there. I feel like maybe it undersells the fictional world, since that's what's being discovered and that's what's actually in the GM's notes.
> 
> But that then brings us to the original question, what are the GM's notes for. If you wanted to say "To help construct a fictional world in a collaborative manner with the players, where we are free to discover things about the world and the characters through play" then I think that's a more complete picture.



So ... I think I have to answer that question twice.

The setting notes are to give me (and the players, if they bother to look at them) a sense of place. Maybe better phrased as a sense of context for the place the characters are in. They're on Urnod, which is part of Erkonin; here's where the biggest cities on Urnod are, and the biggest geographical features. They're in Embernook; here's where the neighborhoods are, and kinda what's in them, and here's an overview of the city. These are some of the oddities of Erkonin, overall. This is how clerics are organized on a world without gods.

The session notes are there to help me keep straight what's going on right now. This is a situation which the PCs might encounter.  This is where the PCs are now in whatever they're doing. This is the opposition and what they're doing. These are the creatures and/or geographical oddities they might encounter along their travels. This is the treasure an enemy has.

That's probably dividing the idea of "GM's notes" up more than you intended.

I won't deny being less collaborative about creating the setting than ... someone running Dungeon World, so I'd probably phrase it in a way that didn't imply there was active collaborative worldbuilding going on, but there's definitely collaboration on a fiction happening, and I'd say my input as a GM is probably roughly equal to the players', overall.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Fiction can mean ‘made up’ but it can also mean ‘a story’ or ‘a novel’. The problem of equivocation with this term is very real in these discussions



First, no, it doesnt mean that. Those are types of or specific examples of forms of fiction, which is something else entirely. Second, I am beginning to doubt your use of 'equivocation' in these discussions.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I think that to the extent the GM is playing to discover the players' conceptions of their characters, the players have say over that; seems to mean the players are deciding what is emerging. I'll grant that's probably not a common GMing approach in D&D--but it's part of mine.
> 
> I also think it is, perhaps, continuing to conflate "setting" and "fiction." The former is a subset of the latter, and everything the players have their characters *do* changes the fiction. At least, it should--and the fact it really doesn't much in AP-style play is probably my biggest gripe with that playstyle.
> 
> The players can change my world--and have done so. Granted, in play that's been entirely through character action/s, but there've been changes based around backstories as well. But yes, I have far more authority over the setting than the players do, and I have far less authority over their characters than they do.



Right, my point isn't that players don't have input, but rather than you have to agree to and incorporate that input -- there's nothing that doesn't pass through your filter first.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> YES!  I 100% agree that the crux of the pushback has been a misinterpretation of the point -- that no one is saying that the only, sole, or even primary purpose of playing is to learn what is the GM's notes, but rather that quite a lot of play revolves around this.  And that's fine -- I listed a number of things my players play for in my current game, and quite a lot of them feature finding out what I think the fiction is -- skill play relies on this being done fairly and clearly, the railroad plot absolutely relies on it, a good bit of the fun comes from how I describe my conceptions.  This isn't a problem -- it's a vector to enable the other things we play for.  Yet, you, and others, seem to lock down and misattribute this to somehow claiming that all play is just sitting around listening to the GM tell you things.  This hasn't been anyone's point in this thread, except may you when you argue against this phantom.
> 
> S'Ok, feel free to disengage.



It's the "play for" that's the problem.  I don't play to find out what's in the DM's notes.  Like at all.  Zero.  DM's notes are an important part of the game, but they are not any thing that I play for.  I drive a hybrid car.  Gas is a very important part of my driving experience.  No gas.  No go.  I don't drive for gas.  I don't drive to find gas.  I drive for other reasons. 

You guys are trying to make an aspect of the game into something we play for, and you're getting the pushback because we don't do that.  It's an inaccurate statement on your part, not a misinterpretation on our part.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, my point isn't that players don't have input, but rather than you have to agree to and incorporate that input -- there's nothing that doesn't pass through your filter first.



There is no "agreement."  It's automatically incorporated, because that's how the game works.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Manbearcat said:


> What you're describing is the difference between Neo-trad cited in the Culture blog and No Myth Story Now.
> 
> And they're extremely different.



I'm not so sure about this.  It seems more like this is a shared feature of Trad, and Classic, as those feature strong GM control over what can be introduced into the fiction.  Neotrad seems more focused on RAW and 3rd party setting canon acting as constraints on this GM control.  What I've described above is very Trad play -- I'm the GM in charge and here's the play -- and less about NeoTrad -- I'm running strictly according to


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> But what does that even mean about the DM's hat? I mean, it's all made up...does it matter when?



Sorry I was meandering briefly into a Texasism.  I guess I could have said he wasn't holding anything in his poker hand.



hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, I can understand how it can be done poorly, sure. Or that certain kinds of games would not be the best fit for this.....something like a classic dungeon delve is probably best served by having a map and tracked resources and random encounters charts and the like, but that's more about this kind of game being about player skill.



I think this is a key insight about player skill.  I would say player agency maybe on top of that.  For example, in some games getting the group "in trouble" is built into the game and pretty hard to avoid.  The dice will lead their eventually.   Whereas, in theory at least, with careful planning and strategy, the group might accomplish their mission without getting into serious trouble.   Then they have that "I love it when a plan comes together" feeling.  A feeling of having overcome real obstacles.  



hawkeyefan said:


> There's no reason that a dungeon delve style of scenario could not be crafted by a GM in a game that doesn't rely so heavily on GM prep. I've done it myself, so I know it's possible.



I would agree if you mean my level of prep but I think a game with little prep is not going to go very well.  So there is a vast amount of prep between my level and very little.   I admit I base that only upon my own experience but I do have a lot of experience.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think the difference here is that writers benefit from having the chance to edit and to rework things, and to revise and retroactively fix things before publication, and all of this is without having to consider any kind of interactive quality with their audience. The audience will either like their work or not, but the audience will not shape an individual work with their own actions.
> 
> Gaming is different. If the whole point of play is for players to experience a novel that's been crafted by the GM with some points of input, then sure, I would think advice on writing novels and worldbuilding for novels becomes more relevant.



I think the impact of the prep on verisimilitude and character immersion (as opposed to just regular immersion) is impacted by these same techniques.  I recognize that having to be ready to infuse the game with new world details as a player can keep you focused.  So that sort of immersion seems likely.



hawkeyefan said:


> The benefit for me is that I don't need to spend so much time preparing for a game. I don't need to have a vast and detailed knowledge of anything prior to play. And I as GM am discovering a lot during play. I'm learning about the setting right along with the players a lot of the time.



And that is the key division.  It's either a blessing or a curse depending on the person.



hawkeyefan said:


> I also find sharing the creative process with the players tends to invest them more in the game and the setting. They feel more involved, which usually enhances play. Things matter more, they feel more immersed, they care about what's happening.



I don't think it's obvious to me they would be more invested in the setting.  It's not my experience.  I think there are aspects of the game in that style which would garner a lot of focus on the game.



hawkeyefan said:


> In a lot of my earliest games that I GMed, I as GM cared a lot more about the setting than the players did. They just wanted a setting to enable play more than learning about as an interesting place.



I find there are techniques to draw them into the game and make them care more about the setting.  Of course it varies by individual but my groups tended to care about the setting.   I also tend to detail things that tend to be of interest to PCs.




hawkeyefan said:


> Well it's all fiction. But as far as what is "the fiction" of a specific game, then I think it is limited to what's been established. Prior to it being established, it can change.



Is that a game rule?  A practice?  I've seen this stated many times but if like me you tend to view the setting as established it doesn't happen.   



hawkeyefan said:


> This is my point. The goal isn't to craft a story, even if we can kind of describe the events of play as a "story" after the fact. But it's not constructed as such with the kinds of dramatic considerations that authors typically use to craft stories.
> 
> But it's still fiction. It's make believe. I feel like this is one of the few things that EVERY game each of us has mentioned in this thread has in common.....they all create some kind of make believe.
> 
> I feel like denying that removes one of the central commonalities that all RPGs have, from Sandbox to Adventure Path to Story Now and anything in between.



I would agree that it's all make believe.  I think when you establish facts about the setting matters.   I like to keep DM the creator apart from DM the judge.   Both are important roles but I see it best to keep them apart as much as you can.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> I would agree if you mean my level of prep but* I think a game with little prep is not going to go very well*.  So there is a vast amount of prep between my level and very little.   I admit I base that only upon my own experience but I do have a lot of experience.



I'm not sure why you keep dragging this out like it's true. Lots of games, games played successfully and enjoyed immensely by people in this very thread, do *exactly that*. They just aren't games you've played or have experience with. So, in short, you are incorrect. Please stop insinuating that your way is the only way to play in this regard, whether you mean to or not, it's been the cause of no little friction in this thread.


----------



## Imaro

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not sure why you keep dragging this out like it's true. Lots of games, games played successfully and enjoyed immensely by people in this very thread, do *exactly that*. They just aren't games you've played or have experience with. So, in short, you are incorrect. Please stop insinuating that your way is the only way to play in this regard, whether you mean to or not, it's been the cause of no little friction in this thread.



I think he made it pretty clear he was drawing only on his own experiences and not making a general statement.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> It can mean a lie, too. Or anything that is made up. Fiction does have multiple definitions, this is true, but that doesn't make it somehow impossible to understand what people mean when they use it in gaming.
> 
> Living world is far more open to interpretation and therefore equivocation.
> 
> I mean, when asked to define how I mean fiction, I can reply with "make believe", right? Pretty clear and no attempt at equivocation.
> 
> Give me your equally concise description of Living World. Hell, I'd say take an entire sentence rather than two words.




The problem is the equivocation with fiction often aligns with particular play styles. And it is particularly troublesome in discussions about sandboxes. Again most sandbox GMs don't object to living world as a description (and I think shared imagined space also would go down well). Terms like fiction introduce issues (and we've seen those issues play out in these discussions here)


----------



## Fenris-77

Terms like fiction only cause issues when people use fiction when they actually mean something else. I don't think it's a matter of equivocation as much as a lack of precision in terms generally, which is a feature of our hobby. Some of it comes from a lack of understanding of what the word fiction actually entails, specifically things like plot, or more specifically pre-plotted material. That would be an incorrect use of the term. When I say fiction I mean what it actually means - narration of imaginary people and events. Plot isn't involved. When the idea of plot isn't involved, i.e. when it's used properly, it's a very generally useful term to describe the output at the table in pretty much any RPG.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> First, no, it doesnt mean that. Those are types of or specific examples of forms of fiction, which is something else entirely. Second, I am beginning to doubt your use of 'equivocation' in these discussions.



What are you talking about? That is what equivocation is (shifting from particular meanings of a word to other meanings: i.e. Fiction as Literature to Fiction as Imagined Stuff, to Fiction as a novel). Look below (formatting is a mess, but those are all meanings of the term. But a notion like imagined stuff, is a lot broader than literature. In RPG discussions you see this all the time with the word story for example. Someone says RPGs are about collecting storytelling, telling stories, therefore the mechanics should facilitate the telling of a good story or do things you see in good stories. And this isn't about storygames or GNS to be clear: this is a very mainstream use of equivocation. And my use of equivocation is fine. But to show I am not misusing it here is the philosophical dictionaries definition of it: 



> *equivocation*
> The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument.
> 
> Example: _"Odd things arouse human suspicion. But seventeen is an odd number. Therefore, seventeen arouses human suspicion."_



That is clearly what I am talking about when I say shifting from one meaning of the term fiction to another in a discussion (and that ambiguity encompasses shifting from particular forms of fiction as well)

Here is the def of Fiction: 


> *1 A: *something invented by the imagination or feigned. specifically  *: *an invented story
> *b: *fictitious literature (such as novels or short stories)
> *c: *a work of fiction especially *: *NOVELHer latest work is a fiction set during the Civil War.
> 
> 2
> *A: *an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth. a legal fiction
> b*: *a useful illusion or pretense
> 
> *3: *the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Terms like fiction only cause issues when people use fiction when they actually mean something else. I don't think it's a matter of equivocation as much as a lack of precision in terms generally, which is a feature of our hobby. Some of it comes from a lack of understanding of what the word fiction actually entails, specifically things like plot, or more specifically pre-plotted material. That would be an incorrect use of the term. When I say fiction I mean what it actually means - narration of imaginary people and events. Plot isn't involved. When the idea of plot isn't involved, i.e. when it's used properly, it's a very generally useful term to describe the output at the table in pretty much any RPG.




I understand this is what you mean. The problem is: fiction carries a strong suggestion of the novel and of the crafted story. And we've seen this play out all the time with the term story in relation to RPGs. I see it constantly as a way of advocating for GM as storyteller for example. And since the purpose of a sandbox is largely to eschew any kind of directed story by the GM, I think that is why folks like me push back on the term "the fiction" and "fiction" (at least in online discussions; I don't care when it is used casually at the table). Also I think it is a cloudy term, the way it gets implemented because it often seems to blur setting and events that happen in the setting involving the PCs. I like to keep a pretty strong distinction between those things.


----------



## Fenris-77

Fiction isn't literature, neither is it a novel. Those two things are examples of specific _sorts_ of fiction, or to be more specific, fiction with particular structures and characteristics. So if you want to talk about those structures and characteristics you need to use those other words. What happens at an RPG table is also a specific example of fiction, but that doesn't mean it has any structures or features in common with a novel or literature. Those three examples have in common the definition of fiction, i.e. the description of imaginary people and events. This isn't a complicated idea -  those aren't different meanings of fiction, nor is fiction an ambiguous word, it has a short an precise meaning.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Fiction isn't literature, neither is it a novel. Those two things are examples of specific _sorts_ of fiction, or to be more specific, fiction with particular structures and characteristics. So if you want to talk about those structures and characteristics you need to use those other words. What happens at an RPG table is also a specific example of fiction, but that doesn't mean it has any structures or features in common with a novel or literature. Those three examples have in common the definition of fiction, i.e. the description of imaginary people and events. This isn't a complicated idea -  those aren't different meanings of fiction, nor is fiction an ambiguous word, it has a short an precise meaning.



Yes. I think that TRPGs are specifically in #3 from Merriam-Webster, as @Bedrockgames cited above. It's nothing with any sort of structure--it's not a novel or anything. _Fiction_ is everything imagined; it doesn't connote or denote any specific form or structure.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Fiction isn't literature, neither is it a novel. Those two things are examples of specific _sorts_ of fiction, or to be more specific, fiction with particular structures and characteristics. So if you want to talk about those structures and characteristics you need to use those other words. What happens at an RPG table is also a specific example of fiction, but that doesn't mean it has any structures or features in common with a novel or literature. Those three examples have in common the definition of fiction, i.e. the description of imaginary people and events. This isn't a complicated idea -  those aren't different meanings of fiction, nor is fiction an ambiguous word, it has a short an precise meaning.



I don’t think I agree with your conclusion here. We use the term fiction to refer to novels all the time. The first definition of fiction is specifically an invented story (that isn’t the same as imagined stuff). And those all aren’t just instances of fiction, those are potential meanings of the word. Fiction can refer to literature or a novel. The ambiguity arises from taking the broad meaning of fiction and equivocating on specific instances, but also on equivocating between definition 1 and 3


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Yes. I think that TRPGs are specifically in #3 from Merriam-Webster, as @Bedrockgames cited above. It's nothing with any sort of structure--it's not a novel or anything. _Fiction_ is everything imagined; it doesn't connote or denote any specific form or structure.



It is but it is easy to slide into definition 1 (and one is very ambiguous so ripe for equivocation)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Fiction isn't literature, neither is it a novel.



no but ‘something imagined’ and ‘a story’ are two different meanings of fiction. And fiction can refer to a novel or literature. There is ambiguity there and you see people use that kind of ambiguity all the time in discussions about RPGs and playstyles, and that matters when you are dealing with a low/no story like sandbox


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> It is but it is easy to slide into definition 1 (and one is very ambiguous so ripe for equivocation)



I don't think people who use _fiction_ when they're talking about _setting_ are doing the English language any favors as far as its reputation for clarity goes, but_ fiction_ neither connotes nor denotes anything about form, unless there's something in the context to say otherwise. No one describing what emerges from TRPG play as _fiction_ is automatically talking about a _story_ someone might have prepared.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I think he made it pretty clear he was drawing only on his own experiences and not making a general statement.



@Emerikol doesn't have any experience with this approach, though, by his own admission.  He only has conjecture.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> no but ‘something imagined’ and ‘a story’ are two different meanings of fiction. And fiction can refer to a novel or literature. There is ambiguity there and you see people use that kind of ambiguity all the time in discussions about RPGs and playstyles, and that matters when you are dealing with a low/no story like sandbox



Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable. There's no abiguity in the terms at all, except I suppose, on your part.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> No one describing what emerges from TRPG play as _fiction_ is automatically talking about a _story_ someone might have prepared.



it isn’t automatic but it is very easy to shift to the meaning as story (not necessarily one prepared but still story and having the elements you expect.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable. There's no abiguity in the terms at all, except I suppose, on your part.



It is very ambiguous. The first definition means both something imagined but more specifically a story. And it suggests both literature and novels. There is plenty of room for equivocation there. Fiction has a strong connotation of a fictional novel or something literary. That’s why those forms are part of Def 1 (and why the core definition is so ambiguous)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable. There's no abiguity in the terms at all, except I suppose, on your part.



Try "make believe" and "pretend elf stuff."  See if that gets any better traction.  I bet it won't, because I think the problem isn't the terms used, but the feeling that it's demystifying what's actually done, and that makes it feel less special.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Dude, literature and novels are types of fiction. The terms are not interchangeable.



then not bring interchangeable is why equivocation is an issue. If they were interchangeable then leaning on one meaning then another would not present an issue


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> It is very ambiguous. The first definition means both something imagined but more specifically a story



It isn't ambiguous at all, and it doesn't actually mean story with any of the baggage you're imagining, and certainly not 'more specifically as story'.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> then not bring interchangeable is why equivocation is an issue



Good lord, no. They aren't interchangeable because they mean different things. What is your boggle here?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> It isn't ambiguous at all, and it doesn't actually mean story with any of the baggage you're imagining, and certainly not 'more specifically as story'.



Yes it does and that is the problem. It is ambiguous because def one included both imagined stuff and story, then it goes on to include literature and novels. Story itself is a highly ambiguous word. The reason I am so wary of the term fiction is because I have seen people equivocate do much on the term story when talking about RPGs (story can just mean ‘stuff that happened’ but it can also mean something much more structured with lots of expectations)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Good lord, no. They aren't interchangeable because they mean different things. What is your boggle here?



My point is they are not interchangeable things, yet they are all contained in the word fiction. Therefore then not being interchangeable but part of that word, creates the ambiguity that allows for equivocation


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Sorry I was meandering briefly into a Texasism.  I guess I could have said he wasn't holding anything in his poker hand.




Much less Texas!



Emerikol said:


> I think this is a key insight about player skill.  I would say player agency maybe on top of that.  For example, in some games getting the group "in trouble" is built into the game and pretty hard to avoid.  The dice will lead their eventually.   Whereas, in theory at least, with careful planning and strategy, the group might accomplish their mission without getting into serious trouble.   Then they have that "I love it when a plan comes together" feeling.  A feeling of having overcome real obstacles.




Sure, this is one of the appeals of skilled play. And I don't think this kind of play is specific to old school dungeon delve type scenarios....I imagine a lot of the sandbox play style that's been advocated for in this thread would also yield this kind of result. 




Emerikol said:


> I would agree if you mean my level of prep but I think a game with little prep is not going to go very well.  So there is a vast amount of prep between my level and very little.   I admit I base that only upon my own experience but I do have a lot of experience.




I have no doubt you have years of experience with D&D and similar games based on your statements and your choice in avatar!

But what about with games that play differently than D&D?



Emerikol said:


> I think the impact of the prep on verisimilitude and character immersion (as opposed to just regular immersion) is impacted by these same techniques.  I recognize that having to be ready to infuse the game with new world details as a player can keep you focused.  So that sort of immersion seems likely.
> 
> 
> And that is the key division.  It's either a blessing or a curse depending on the person.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's obvious to me they would be more invested in the setting.  It's not my experience.  I think there are aspects of the game in that style which would garner a lot of focus on the game.
> 
> 
> I find there are techniques to draw them into the game and make them care more about the setting.  Of course it varies by individual but my groups tended to care about the setting.   I also tend to detail things that tend to be of interest to PCs.




Sure, this is all I mean.....it's all a matter of preference. 



Emerikol said:


> Is that a game rule?  A practice?  I've seen this stated many times but if like me you tend to view the setting as established it doesn't happen.




No, it's not a rule. I suppose I would say it's more of a fact? I mean, if you design a dungeon....let's call it the Maze of Madness.....and plan to introduce it into your campaign, it's an idea, right? It's fiction that you've created. You may think of it as part of the game, and I absolutely understand why. 

But.....if you got hit by a bus before the Maze of Madness was introduced, or if one of your players said offhandedly "man, I really wish we cuold do something besides delve into dungeons" and so you ditch the Maze of Madness, or any number of other things......then is it part of the fiction of that game? No, it's not. 

If we think of the game as a shared thing, then it's only the things that are shared that are actually part of the fiction. Until then, anything else is just possibility.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem is the equivocation with fiction often aligns with particular play styles. And it is particularly troublesome in discussions about sandboxes. Again most sandbox GMs don't object to living world as a description (and I think shared imagined space also would go down well). Terms like fiction introduce issues (and we've seen those issues play out in these discussions here)




But if you say to me "What do you mean by fiction?" I can very easily explain by "The make believe parts of the game". Am i equivocating? 

If I say to you "What do you mean by Living World?" can you give me anywhere near as clear an answer? I already asked once, so I'm asking again. What's your most concise definition you can provide for the concept of Living World?

Maybe most sandbox GMs don't object to the living world descriptor. Most people don't object to fiction as a description of things that are made up.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> But if you say to me "What do you mean by fiction?" I can very easily explain by "The make believe parts of the game". Am i equivocating?
> 
> If I say to you "What do you mean by Living World?" can you give me anywhere near as clear an answer? I already asked once, so I'm asking again. What's your most concise definition you can provide for the concept of Living World?
> 
> Maybe most sandbox GMs don't object to the living world descriptor. Most people don't object to fiction as a description of things that are made up.



Sorry I already defined living world many times over Hawkeye


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Maybe most sandbox GMs don't object to the living world descriptor. Most people don't object to fiction as a description of things that are made up.



I think a lot of gamers dislike the term the fiction to describe stuff that happens in an rpg (I know I dislike it)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Sorry I already defined living world many times over Hawkeye




If you can't clarify what it means as succinctly as I clarified what "fiction" means, then there we go. 

Your attempts to define living world are byzantine and non-specific, presented in giant walls of text. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I think a lot of gamers dislike the term the fiction to describe stuff that happens in an rpg (I know I dislike it)




Sure, and I think I get why. Because you don't want your game to be about making a story in the same sense that an author crafts a story. And I can understand that. 

But so what? I don't like the term living world......are you gonna stop using it? No. Should you? No, not if you don't want.

But please don't tell me that others are attempting to equivocate by describing made up things as "fiction" and then use something that you can't even define succinctly. 

Living world is like an equivocator's dream.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Your attempts to define living world are byzantine and non-specific, presented in giant walls of text.




I offered a very concise definition of it during the thread. but I never claimed living world was a concise concept. It was meant to encompass a lot. You could equivocate on it for sure (I just don't think it is as prone to the particular kinds of issues you see with concepts like story in RPGs as 'fiction')


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> My point is they are not interchangeable things, yet they are all contained in the word fiction. Therefore then not being interchangeable but part of that word, creates the ambiguity that allows for equivocation



No, they arent 'contained' in the word fiction, you have that on backward. With additional specific structures, things not contained in the basic definition, you get the novel, or whatever. The movement is the opposite of what you're implying.


----------



## Manbearcat

I said “dynamic setting” upthread rather than “living, breathing world”.

Is there a reason why the latter depiction is more efficient/functional than the former?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> No, they arent 'contained' in the word fiction, you have that on backward. With additional specific structures, things not contained in the basic definition, you the novel, or whatever. The movement is the opposite of what you're implying.



They are contained in Def 1, yes. Like mug is contained in the word cup. But perhaps even more so because when I hear the word fiction, the first thing that leaps to mind is a book of fiction (and I suspect that is true for many people). Fiction is a broad category meaning invented imaginary thing right? That would include all manner of invented imaginary things, such as novels and literature. They are therefore contained in the word fiction. And like I said more than that: they are the notable examples listed in the dictionary definition 1. 

And that is just that particular dictionary. I grabbed it because it was the first one. But here is what Dictionary.com offers (again I think the room for equivocation is obvious....not saying you are equivocating, but this is pretty straight forward): 


See synonyms for: fiction / fictional on Thesaurus.com

noun​1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
3 the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
4 an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
5 Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> I said “dynamic setting” upthread rather than “living, breathing world”.
> 
> Is there a reason why the latter depiction is more efficient/functional than the former?



Dynamic setting is fine. I would view that largely as a synonym for living world (I personally prefer living world because the 'living' part is  really what helps me grasp the idea of how NPCs and factions are moving parts in this dynamic setting).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> What is your boggle here?



We'll you've helped me decide what movie to watch tonight. But I have no boggle. We just disagree over how equivocal fiction is. I am not mad or anything. And I am not trying to upset you. I am just very convinced that terms like fiction and story tend to lead to issues in discussions of RPGs because I have seen so much trouble with the term story (and again just to be clear, I am not talking about narrative games or story games or anything like that, I am talking about dumb arguments over mainstream game mechanics and how emulative they should be of things like different genres; and I am talking about how story often gets used in that way, in order to push for GM as storyteller approaches to the game: i.e. RPGs are about the story, and the role of the GM is to tell a good story). To be clear here, in casual use its totally fine. I use plot, story, all the time in table discussions. My concern in these kinds of conversations is I think those types of words, when they have heavy connotations of story or novel (and I think there is a very strong argument to be made that fiction does have that connotation), it can be a problem.


----------



## Manbearcat

Bedrockgames said:


> Dynamic setting is fine. I would view that largely as a synonym for living world (I personally prefer living world because the 'living' part is  really what helps me grasp the idea of how NPCs and factions are moving parts in this dynamic setting).




Now *that* is interesting to me and I feel like I may be getting somewhere (or not...let’s see how you answer below). 2 questions:

1) So the word “dynamic” does less work for you than “living” when describing how stuff is “in motion” in your setting?

2) Would you say that this is all/mostly a “mind hack” for you akin to a “positive swing thought” or a singular technical focus in a sparring session (say that your hook is inefficient and you’re working on increasing its volume and productivity in your combinations).

Is it that? This collection of words is a good mind hack for you and you feel like maybe it’s a better universal mind hack than another set of words?

Let me be clear...I’m not remotely denigrating mind hacks. I live by them.


----------



## Fenris-77

Fiction is a thing in addition to a category, those are two different uses of the word. Honestly, I couldn't have been more clear and I'm done beating this horse to death. This ridiculous emphasis on slippery definitions where none exist is fruitless. You're obviously going to insist that your wonky postmodern take on definitions is correct no matter what anyone else says. Im out.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, and I think I get why. Because you don't want your game to be about making a story in the same sense that an author crafts a story. And I can understand that.
> 
> But so what? I don't like the term living world......are you gonna stop using it? No. Should you? No, not if you don't want.
> 
> But please don't tell me that others are attempting to equivocate by describing made up things as "fiction" and then use something that you can't even define succinctly.
> 
> Living world is like an equivocator's dream.




Yes, I will from now on forsake use of the term "living world"....no obviously not. And obviously you are probably not going to stop using the term fiction. I can't make you do anything you don't want to do, and you shouldn't do anything you don't want to do. But I can argue with you about the validity of the term fiction. And I think it is more important than my use of living world because living world is a concept being invoked to help paint a picture of a suit of GMing techniques and a philosophy of GMing. It is only being used in reference to that one style of play and to styles that decide to embrace the 'living concept'. But here The Fiction is a term being used to describe something fundamental to all RPG experiences: the stuff that happens in the game world as you play the game. What I am positing is a term that only really applies to mostly sandbox GMs. What the Fiction is is a term we all are going to be dealing with when we try to talk about what our respective styles are doing in play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Fiction is a thing in addition to a category, those are two different uses of the word. Honestly, I



But that is the nature of equivocation. A word has multiple meanings and one can invoke different meanings of it in the same discussion. I can invoke fiction to mean 'imagined stuff' but I can also invoke it to mean 'a story' and I can also invoke it to mean stuff like 'novels'.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> You're obviously going to insist that your wonky postmodern take on definitions is correct no matter what anyone else says. Im out.



This isn't post modernism. I am not a postmodernist. Equivocation is a concept in logic and it is actually pretty useful. Here I think it has utility. You don't and that's fine. But I am not taking this track to annoy you. I genuinely think equivocation with these kinds of terms can be a big issue in RPG discussion (this is probably the one thing I've been consistent on going back at least 8 years on the internet)


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> This isn't post modernism. I am not a postmodernist. Equivocation is a concept in logic and it is actually pretty useful. Here I think it has utility. You don't and that's fine. But I am not taking this track to annoy you. I genuinely think equivocation with these kinds of terms can be a big issue in RPG discussion (this is probably the one thing I've been consistent on going back at least 8 years on the internet)



Oh piss off. I know exactly what equivocation is,  and you're looking for it where none exists in thos case. And yes, your approach to definitions is decidedly post modern whether you like it or not.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Manbearcat said:


> Now *that* is interesting to me and I feel like I may be getting somewhere (or not...let’s see how you answer below). 2 questions:
> 
> 1) So the word “dynamic” does less work for you than “living” when describing how stuff is “in motion” in your setting?
> 
> 2) Would you say that this is all/mostly a “mind hack” for you akin to a “positive swing thought” or a singular technical focus in a sparring session (say that your hook is inefficient and you’re working on increasing its volume and productivity in your combinations).
> 
> Is it that? This collection of words is a good mind hack for you and you feel like maybe it’s a better universal mind hack than another set of words?
> 
> Let me be clear...I’m not remotely denigrating mind hacks. I live by them.




My mind is a little mushy today so I will attempt to answer this clearly. I am not familiar with the term positive swing thought. But I think I get what you are saying: 

1) Dynamic is totally fine. If you wrote a guide to sandbox and included a section called Dynamic Setting, that would be fine (it might be good to say something like "some call this a living world" just so you are connecting it to that idea for anyone more accustomed to that term, but it works on its own. I just think living world resonates more with me personally. Also I can detach the Living from world and apply it to anything I need. I used to talk about Living Adventures before I even attempted living worlds. I could also talk of a living dungeon (and not in the living wall sense of the term). So I find it a really versatile concept as well. 

2) I would say possibly. The rest of my answer to 1 was going to be something like "It resonates with me and it also helps inspire me". I think the key is when I saw the line "They live!" however corny sounding it was, the notion of how to run games like this instantly crystalized in my mind. So just thinking of them as a living world filled with living characters helps keep me running things properly. It is sort of like a reminder that 'this NPC needs to go where he wants to go, not where I think it will be convenient for plot purposes or pacing. This character has agenda, and the agenda, in a way, is independent of me once established. And this character can grow and change.". Somehow, Dynamic, even though it would encompass that, doesn't quite energize my mind as much. Again, I think you have a very engineer-like mind. I have a much more artistic mind (I was originally going to be a musician and used to write lots of music, then I decided I wanted to be a writer, took a detour getting a history degree, and my creative outlet now is gaming). I don't get excited to game, or to run a style of game, because someone breaks it down into clear parts or comes up with functional terms to describe each step: that just isn't how my brain works. Living world, as a concept, excites me and conveys so much more to me than dynamic world. And I think there is a reason it has gained traction (because there is something very inspiring about the term, but people also seem to know what you mean when its invoked: obviously, as this discussion shows, it is not obvious to everyone, but to the corners of the hobby where sandbox was talked about, it communicated what it needed to.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Oh piss off. I know exactly what equivocation is,  and you're looking for it where none exists in thos case. And yes, your approach to definitions is decidedly post modern whether you like it or not.




I don't understand why you are so upset Fenris. I am just trying to clarify what I mean (I didn't know if you knew or not, but I was trying to explain that I am not being a postmodernist). I don't have any problem with you. Usually I find you easy to get along with. I can definitely accept the possibility I am wrong. But I can assure you my motivation here isn't that I am looking for something where it doesn't exist. Equivocation around story is something I have genuinely encountered a lot of in RPG discussions. Fiction seems ripe for that too. Plus, like I said, it really seems to cloud the line between 'stuff that happened' and the setting (which for some play styles is going to present an issue in these discussions). I see a lot of room for equivocation with fiction. I have a feeling if you asked a more general audience you would see a lot more confusion around the term. Like I said to Hawkeye, I don't get to decide whether it gets used. But I can give my concern. And for the past several pages, it isn't that I am trying to harp on things. I am just responding to posts taking me to task for bringing up equivocation. 

I would reject that i am being a postmodernist here. My worldview is very far from postmodernist. But if we are talking about terms and language, getting into a concept like equivocation is fair in my view. Fiction referring to novels and stories is not a very outlandish thing. And it isn't like I am denying the meaning of fiction. but I do have issues with it being the term for the imagined stuff in a campaign.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> I said “dynamic setting” upthread rather than “living, breathing world”.
> 
> Is there a reason why the latter depiction is more efficient/functional than the former?



Works for me. I just make an effort to have the PCs not encounter the same place twice, even if they go back to a location. And, if the narrative has planted a timeline, I keep track of it. Other than that I don't do background stuff.


----------



## Fenris-77

If you want to talk about it go ahead, but stop quoting my posts above and expecting me to respond. I'm done with the definitions. If I wanted to shout into an empty room I'd sing in the bathroom.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> *[1] *I know exactly what equivocation is,  and you're looking for it where none exists in thos case. *[2] *And yes, your approach to definitions is decidedly post modern whether you like it or not.




1- It is entirely possible we just both honestly disagree on this. It is very easy for two people to see something like that and reach different conclusions. And who is right is not always clear (especially when you are talking about language: I once had a 24 hour argument with my best friend in highschool about the pronunciation of genre. It turned out I was pronouncing it the American way, he was pronouncing it the French way (and it was pre-internet so our knowledge was pretty limited at the time). 

2- I almost never bring up definitions. The only reason I did was because when I brought up the multiple meanings of fiction, and how that can lead to equivocation, you challenged the idea that my meanings were accurate. So I thought bringing in dictionary definitions would be helpful (especially since you also challenged my understanding of equivocation). I hate prescriptive uses of language in debates, and I hate when people do something like break down a term like RPG into its individual parts and argue from the definitions of those parts. But if someone says to me that my use of a word is incorrect, wouldn't that be the time to bring in the dictionary?


----------



## Fenris-77

Fenris-77 said:


> If you want to talk about it go ahead, but stop quoting my posts above and expecting me to respond. I'm done with the definitions. If I wanted to shout into an empty room I'd sing in the bathroom.


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I said “dynamic setting” upthread rather than “living, breathing world”.
> 
> Is there a reason why the latter depiction is more efficient/functional than the former?




I missed this but I think it's a good term.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I missed this but I think it's a good term.



Cool, what does it mean, in terms of actual game processes?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Cool, what does it mean, in terms of actual game processes?




Maybe I'm mis-reading this but you seem a little aggressive with your posting towards me.  I have no problem discussing this but I noticed two others said it was a good term and you didn't ask them to define the play processes for the term.  So like I said, I could be mis-reading here, and let me know if I am, but I am getting a semi-confrontational vibe from you right now and with our most recent posting back and forth in this thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Maybe I'm mis-reading this but you seem a little aggressive with your posting towards me.



You are.


Imaro said:


> I have no problem discussing this but I noticed two others said it was a good term and you didn't ask them to define the play processes for the term.  So like I said, I could be mis-reading here, and let me know if I am, but I am getting a semi-confrontational vibe from you right now and with our most recent posting back and forth in this thread.



One is most probably blocking me or on my block list.  The other, @prabe, explained that he felt it meant avoiding having the PCs revisit places when possible, keeping a timeline of important GM events, and otherwise ignoring background stuff.  Does this sufficiently define "dynamic setting" for you?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, I will from now on forsake use of the term "living world"....no obviously not. And obviously you are probably not going to stop using the term fiction. I can't make you do anything you don't want to do, and you shouldn't do anything you don't want to do. But I can argue with you about the validity of the term fiction. And I think it is more important than my use of living world because living world is a concept being invoked to help paint a picture of a suit of GMing techniques and a philosophy of GMing. It is only being used in reference to that one style of play and to styles that decide to embrace the 'living concept'. But here The Fiction is a term being used to describe something fundamental to all RPG experiences: the stuff that happens in the game world as you play the game. What I am positing is a term that only really applies to mostly sandbox GMs. What the Fiction is is a term we all are going to be dealing with when we try to talk about what our respective styles are doing in play.




Sure, it’s foundational because we literally are all making believe when we play. 

So no one’s equivocating by using the word fiction to describe the stuff we make up when we play.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> You are.
> 
> One is most probably blocking me or on my block list.  The other, @prabe, explained that he felt it meant avoiding having the PCs revisit places when possible, keeping a timeline of important GM events, and otherwise ignoring background stuff.  Does this sufficiently define "dynamic setting" for you?



Cool I just wanted to make sure. I can't answer right now but ill answer once I get a moment.


----------



## Ovinomancer

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, it’s foundational because we literally are all making believe when we play.
> 
> *So no one’s equivocating by using the word fiction to describe the stuff we make up when we play.*



And the bolded statement is why this isn't an equivocation -- it's unequivocally explained what is meant.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, it’s foundational because we literally are all making believe when we play.
> 
> So no one’s equivocating by using the word fiction to describe the stuff we make up when we play.



I agree make believe is foundational, and I agree using fiction to just mean stuff we make up isn’t equivocation, but I think if you use fiction or story to describe making stuff up, it leads to problems inevitably the other connotations get mixed in and equivocation arises.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fenris-77 said:


> Oh piss off. I know exactly what equivocation is,  and you're looking for it where none exists in thos case. And yes, your approach to definitions is decidedly post modern whether you like it or not.



Careful with the confrontational rhetoric, please- don’t make it personal.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> You are.
> 
> One is most probably blocking me or on my block list.  The other, @prabe, explained that he felt it meant avoiding having the PCs revisit places when possible, keeping a timeline of important GM events, and otherwise ignoring background stuff.  Does this sufficiently define "dynamic setting" for you?



What I meant about revisiting places was in the sense of "you can't step in the same river twice." If the PCs visit a city twice, it's different the second time. I see nothing objectionable in describing the setting in my games as dynamic, but I'm also not one who's been talking about a "living world," so maybe my opinion doesn't apply to that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> What I meant about revisiting places was in the sense of "you can't step in the same river twice." If the PCs visit a city twice, it's different the second time. I see nothing objectionable in describing the setting in my games as dynamic, but I'm also not one who's been talking about a "living world," so maybe my opinion doesn't apply to that.



Much better phrased this time around.

I think my only problem with these formulations is that they are very generic -- as in unspecific to process -- and are achieved by any number of approaches.  It's like saying your RPGing has dwarves -- okay, cool, but why is that something special or different from any other RPGing with dwarves?  Not really aimed at you, but rather randomly shot out into the darkness.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> _Fiction _in this context is not a metaphor. It's literal!
> 
> When I Google "define fiction" here are the first and second meanings that are given:
> 
> _literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people._​​_something that is invented or untrue._​
> The "worlds" of RPGs are invented or untrue; and the form they take is descriptions of imaginary events and people. We could add _places_ to that. And in the current context of discussion the focus is on GM-authored descriptions.
> 
> This is why @Emerikol's comparison of a GM running a sandbox game to God "run[ning] a game in a real world that he'd create that allowed for magic" doesn't get off the ground. The GM hasn't created a real world. They've imagined a pretend one. The players have no cognitive access to what the GM has thought of except by the GM telling them. How is this still controversial over 100 pages in?





hawkeyefan said:


> The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.
> 
> You point out a lot how you do not like equivocation, and that's understandable, but then you prefer vague words over specific ones.
> 
> Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.



I personally prefer the term "fiction" because IMHO it's clearly descriptive of what it literally is. TTRPGs are about fiction, whether they are fictional settings or fictional characters or fictional scenarios or fictional plot hooks. It's all fiction. It's make believe. That literalness makes it both precise and apt as a term. Stoking imaginary fears about how someone equivocating on its possible meaning "story" (and even then, its sense as a pre-authored one rather than an emerging one) from the range of possible meanings for "fiction" does not make "fiction" less apt of a term. 



Fenris-77 said:


> First, no, it doesnt mean that. Those are types of or specific examples of forms of fiction, which is something else entirely. Second, I am beginning to doubt your use of 'equivocation' in these discussions.



And also his use of 'ambiguity' for that matter. 



Bedrockgames said:


> My problem with the term fiction, is its a loaded term.



And yet "Living World" _*is*_ a loaded term (particularly as a positively-infused 'language persuasive technique') that you insist upon using without you raising any where near the sort of personal qualms or objections that you do for something as innocuous as "fiction." I hope the particular irony is not lost on you. 

That said, "fiction," IMHO, is not a loaded term. A word having multiple, interconnected meanings in its semantic field does not mean that it's "loaded." It doesn't even necessarily prove the "polysemy" of a word. The word "fiction" is certainly no more loaded than any other word in the English language like "game," "world," "book," "dog," "death," or "mother." Furthermore, simply because ambiguity and/or vagueness between meanings can exist from imprecise use does not mean that it's a loaded term. This in general misunderstands what is meant by "loaded language." 



Bedrockgames said:


> I understand this is what you mean. The problem is: fiction carries a strong suggestion of the novel and of the crafted story. And we've seen this play out all the time with the term story in relation to RPGs. I see it constantly as a way of advocating for GM as storyteller for example. And since the purpose of a sandbox is largely to eschew any kind of directed story by the GM, I think that is why folks like me push back on the term "the fiction" and "fiction" (at least in online discussions; I don't care when it is used casually at the table). Also I think it is a cloudy term, the way it gets implemented because it often seems to blur setting and events that happen in the setting involving the PCs. I like to keep a pretty strong distinction between those things.



@Bedrockgames, simply because "crafted story" is included in the semantic field for the word "fiction," I don't think that "fiction carries a strong suggestion of the novel and of the crafted story" in this particular utterance. Even if it's possible, it's a weak suggestion at most. Instead, I think that it carries a more plausible suggestion of "fictional" (as in imagined, inventive, unreal) as a descriptive attribute. I would wager that the basic thesis that the TTRPGs involve "fictional" characters, settings, and scenarios is far from controversial. This is what is simply and plainly meant by the "fiction" of the game. 

Also please take a step back for a moment and look at the wider conversation and its participants. Take a moment to consider the fact that the people you are arguing against about "fiction" are also _highly resistant_ in their own games against imposed, pre-authored stories, "story before," railroading, etc. and yet are clearly eager with applying the term "fiction." But if "fiction" was as loaded or equivocation-heavy as you claim for the reasons you gave, then these should be the very same people who should be equally objecting to the term "fiction," but they are clearly not disturbed by this vaguely threatening possibility. Their probable objections to the possible equivocation of the term "fiction" as something antithetical to their obvious personal gaming preferences are dead silent. 

So this may reflect your own personal hang-ups rather than any actual, pragmatic problem with the term "fiction" to describe the imagined game space for TTRPGs. I am fairly confident saying this because, honestly, apart from the few isolated people here like you on this thread, I have _*NEVER*_ encountered people having any problem with the term "fiction" applied to TTRPGs. I am not exaggerating when I make that assertion. However, if you would like, since you occasionally do like appealing to anecdotal conversations associated with fictive statistics, I can even give you a fictive percentage and say that 97% of people I talk to understand what I mean by my use of "fiction" when I use it to talk about TTRPGs and don't share your hang-ups with the term "fiction." (I would wager further that most people don't care one iota.) 

I even ran this by my partner who knows next to nothing about TTRPGs (and even then, tends to prefer more trad/neo-trad games), and I asked them "what do you think I mean by the term 'fiction' when applied to tabletop roleplaying games?" That's all I said. No further context was given. They immediately responded that they thought that it meant that it was "unreal" or "imagined." The word "story" actually wasn't mentioned at all. 

I honestly don't know how else to communicate earnestly to you in good faith that this problem with the term "fiction" seems to be _mostly_ a you thing that you _want_ to be a much bigger, slippery slope semantic problem than it actually is. 



Bedrockgames said:


> It is very ambiguous. The first definition means both something imagined but more specifically a story. And it suggests both literature and novels. There is plenty of room for equivocation there. Fiction has a strong connotation of a fictional novel or something literary. That’s why those forms are part of Def 1 (and why the core definition is so ambiguous)





Bedrockgames said:


> Yes it does and that is the problem. It is ambiguous because def one included both imagined stuff and story, then it goes on to include literature and novels. Story itself is a highly ambiguous word. The reason I am so wary of the term fiction is because I have seen people equivocate do much on the term story when talking about RPGs (story can just mean ‘stuff that happened’ but it can also mean something much more structured with lots of expectations)



Lexical ambiguity (in all its forms linguists have distinguished) tend to come from more isolated statements where context does not provide additional insight we can draw upon to clarify/narrow the (range of) meaning. For example, in the utterance "That's a cool cat." Are we talking here about (a) the thermal state of a feline or (b) a hip person? Both 'cat' and 'cool' have a range of overlapping, yet divergent, set of cognitive domains* that we draw upon or "tap" when we are attempting to discern meaning of an utterance. But if we are, for example, encountering this utterance in a jazz club vs. a zoo during winter that would likely provide the additional context for mentally deciphering the intended meaning without further utterances. 

That a word includes multiple senses of meaning as part of its semantic field (as is_ ubiquitously_ the case) doesn't mean that it will always suggest all of them in each utterance. Realistically that's not the case. Some meanings are more apparent than others, particularly when applied to certain contexts. This is because ambiguity tends to resolve itself naturally in speech acts with further utterances that clarify or reinforce that meaning in context. Our brain tends to decipher a lot of this naturally due to the various mental frameworks we use for categorizing and contextualizing the meaning of speech acts. Our minds also tend to gloss over a lot of ambiguity when we encounter it (e.g., uses of the word "over"). 

There's not a good reason to fear potential ambiguity because you are worried that someone will equivocate on one of the possible meanings. How do you manage to even narrate things in your game if you are this worried about the existence of ambiguity? Are you this ridiculously terrified of calling a meteorological breeze in your fictional game world "wind" just because the word "wind" can also be used to describe a "fart" and are afraid of people equivocating the term? Or when you say that there is "plenty of space" are you worried that people will equivocate on ambiguous meaning and think that you are referring to "outer space"? I think that your fear of ambiguity and equivocation around the word "fiction" is greatly exaggerated, if not hyperbolically so.

 This is also true of "fiction," which involves chasing a particular series of possible meanings (i.e., fiction -> story -> pre-authored -> railroaded content [or whatever]). Even then, the possibility of argumentative equivocation of a semantic unit is not the same as the natural result of equivocation as your argument implies is the case. That's too much of a slippery slope argument to make persuasively IMO. I think that the reasonable thing to do is not fear using accurately descriptive terms because people can equivocate on them (requiring them to make a series of steps), but, rather, to ask for clarification or to call out fallacies of equivocation when they do occur. 

* Think of cognitive domains as a mental framework or semantic field of interrelated meanings we construct in our mind for a semantic unit. Or to borrow from cognitive linguist Ronald Langacker it is "a context for the characterization of the semantic unit." 

For the record, @Bedrockgames, I am writing my dissertation on a singular Hebrew word in a subset genre of biblical literature, a genre that includes both "fiction" and "non-fiction," and applying cognitive linguistic approaches to discuss its discursive meaning(s). The word has a diverse range of distinct, yet interrelated meanings as part of its semantic field. Understanding what is meant by (and distinguishing between) lexical definitions, ambiguity, vagueness, polysemy, and cognitive domains are fundamental linguistic concepts for purposes of my own work. So my own criticisms of your argument, which draws heavily upon notions of semantic ambiguity and equivocation, do have a more substantial basis than simple differences of our respective game preferences. 

Even if knowing this added piece of personal background is not likely to persuade you either way, I do have a bit more working familiarity on the subject matter than Joe Average. I just hope that confessing my background to this subject matter here doesn't become yet another piece of cognitive bias "evidence" you use to make further ad hominem accusations of academic elitism or intellectual bullying about others and me. 

Overall, I definitely agree with @Fenris-77 that you are not so much worried about others equivocating on the term "fiction," but, rather, you are actively hunting to equivocate on the term yourself. Respectfully, you may want to reconsider your position on the term "fiction." From my own background familiarity on these matters, again whatever little it may be worth to you knowing, I don't think that your position is well grounded or reasoned. I can definitely see why Fenris-77 would be aggravated by your discussion. 



Bedrockgames said:


> My point is they are not interchangeable things, yet they are all contained in the word fiction. Therefore then not being interchangeable but part of that word, creates the ambiguity that allows for equivocation



You are not so much speaking of "ambiguity," but, rather, the simple state of a word having multiple meanings. Ambiguity exists when multiple distinct interpretations are plausible in a given utterance, which is certainly possible if you isolate that utterance from its surrounding context. While they are distinct in the case of "fiction," they are also clearly interrelated as part of its semantic field: i.e., pertaining to the imagined, unreal, fabricated, fictive, etc. These meanings have more in common between each other than, for example, than the ambiguity that exists between the meanings of the lexeme 'bank': i.e., "financial institution" vs. "edge of a river." (But in the case of this example, that ambiguity can be attributed to _homonymy_.) 



Bedrockgames said:


> I think a lot of gamers dislike the term the fiction to describe stuff that happens in an rpg (I know I dislike it)



I think that you often tend to appeal to what "a lot of gamers dislike" (or like, are, think, etc.) when you are using them as a amorphous shield for your own personal biases and perspectives. This is definitely not the first time you have made such unsubstantiated appeals. I think that your arguments would be far more persuasive if you didn't keep appealing to what "a lot of gamers" think and stuck to what _*you*_ like or dislike. I know you say you dislike it here. That's fine; however, your use of a "lot of gamers" here is immaterial and inconsequential. As I said before, I have not encountered the aversion to the term "fiction" from the nebulous, faceless, insubstantial "lot of gamers" that you hiding behind here. "A lot of gamers" I have encountered don't share your opinion. Whose "a lot of gamers" matters more? 



Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, I will from now on forsake use of the term "living world"....no obviously not. And obviously you are probably not going to stop using the term fiction. I can't make you do anything you don't want to do, and you shouldn't do anything you don't want to do. But I can argue with you about the validity of the term fiction.



Just because you _can_ argue against the validity of the term "fiction" through the virtue of having an opinion doesn't mean (a) you are doing a good job of it, (b) that you're persuasive, or (c) that your opinion/argument is equally valid. 



Bedrockgames said:


> But I can assure you my motivation here isn't that I am looking for something where it doesn't exist. Equivocation around story is something I have genuinely encountered a lot of in RPG discussions. Fiction seems ripe for that too.



Do you really want to found your argument on a such a steep slippery slope?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I personally prefer the term "fiction" because IMHO it's clearly descriptive of what it literally is. TTRPGs are about fiction, whether they are fictional settings or fictional characters or fictional scenarios or fictional plot hooks. It's all fiction. It's make believe. That literalness makes it both precise and apt as a term. Stoking imaginary fears about how someone equivocating on its possible meaning "story" (and even then, its sense as a pre-authored one rather than an emerging one) from the range of possible meanings for "fiction" does not make "fiction" less apt of a term.
> 
> 
> And also his use of 'ambiguity' for that matter.
> 
> 
> And yet "Living World" _*is*_ a loaded term (particularly as a positively-infused 'language persuasive technique') that you insist upon using without you raising any where near the sort of personal qualms or objections that you do for something as innocuous as "fiction." I hope the particular irony is not lost on you.
> 
> That said, "fiction," IMHO, is not a loaded term. A word having multiple, interconnected meanings in its semantic field does not mean that it's "loaded." It doesn't even necessarily prove the "polysemy" of a word. The word "fiction" is certainly no more loaded than any other word in the English language like "game," "world," "book," "dog," "death," or "mother." Furthermore, simply because ambiguity and/or vagueness between meanings can exist from imprecise use does not mean that it's a loaded term. This in general misunderstands what is meant by "loaded language."
> 
> 
> @Bedrockgames, simply because "crafted story" is included in the semantic field for the word "fiction," I don't think that "fiction carries a strong suggestion of the novel and of the crafted story" in this particular utterance. Even if it's possible, it's a weak suggestion at most. Instead, I think that it carries a more plausible suggestion of "fictional" (as in imagined, inventive, unreal) as a descriptive attribute. I would wager that the basic thesis that the TTRPGs involve "fictional" characters, settings, and scenarios is far from controversial. This is what is simply and plainly meant by the "fiction" of the game.
> 
> Also please take a step back for a moment and look at the wider conversation and its participants. Take a moment to consider the fact that the people you are arguing against about "fiction" are also _highly resistant_ in their own games against imposed, pre-authored stories, "story before," railroading, etc. and yet are clearly eager with applying the term "fiction." But if "fiction" was as loaded or equivocation-heavy as you claim for the reasons you gave, then these should be the very same people who should be equally objecting to the term "fiction," but they are clearly not disturbed by this vaguely threatening possibility. Their probable objections to the possible equivocation of the term "fiction" as something antithetical to their obvious personal gaming preferences are dead silent.
> 
> So this may reflect your own personal hang-ups rather than any actual, pragmatic problem with the term "fiction" to describe the imagined game space for TTRPGs. I am fairly confident saying this because, honestly, apart from the few isolated people here like you on this thread, I have _*NEVER*_ encountered people having any problem with the term "fiction" applied to TTRPGs. I am not exaggerating when I make that assertion. However, if you would like, since you occasionally do like appealing to anecdotal conversations associated with fictive statistics, I can even give you a fictive percentage and say that 97% of people I talk to understand what I mean by my use of "fiction" when I use it to talk about TTRPGs and don't share your hang-ups with the term "fiction." (I would wager further that most people don't care one iota.)
> 
> I even ran this by my partner who knows next to nothing about TTRPGs (and even then, tends to prefer more trad/neo-trad games), and I asked them "what do you think I mean by the term 'fiction' when applied to tabletop roleplaying games?" That's all I said. No further context was given. They immediately responded that they thought that it meant that it was "unreal" or "imagined." The word "story" actually wasn't mentioned at all.
> 
> I honestly don't know how else to communicate earnestly to you in good faith that this problem with the term "fiction" seems to be _mostly_ a you thing that you _want_ to be a much bigger, slippery slope semantic problem than it actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> Lexical ambiguity (in all its forms linguists have distinguished) tend to come from more isolated statements where context does not provide additional insight we can draw upon to clarify/narrow the (range of) meaning. For example, in the utterance "That's a cool cat." Are we talking here about (a) the thermal state of a feline or (b) a hip person? Both 'cat' and 'cool' have a range of overlapping, yet divergent, set of cognitive domains* that we draw upon or "tap" when we are attempting to discern meaning of an utterance. But if we are, for example, encountering this utterance in a jazz club vs. a zoo during winter that would likely provide the additional context for mentally deciphering the intended meaning without further utterances.
> 
> That a word includes multiple senses of meaning as part of its semantic field (as is_ ubiquitously_ the case) doesn't mean that it will always suggest all of them in each utterance. Realistically that's not the case. Some meanings are more apparent than others, particularly when applied to certain contexts. This is because ambiguity tends to resolve itself naturally in speech acts with further utterances that clarify or reinforce that meaning in context. Our brain tends to decipher a lot of this naturally due to the various mental frameworks we use for categorizing and contextualizing the meaning of speech acts. Our minds also tend to gloss over a lot of ambiguity when we encounter it (e.g., uses of the word "over").
> 
> There's not a good reason to fear potential ambiguity because you are worried that someone will equivocate on one of the possible meanings. How do you manage to even narrate things in your game if you are this worried about the existence of ambiguity? Are you this ridiculously terrified of calling a meteorological breeze in your fictional game world "wind" just because the word "wind" can also be used to describe a "fart" and are afraid of people equivocating the term? Or when you say that there is "plenty of space" are you worried that people will equivocate on ambiguous meaning and think that you are referring to "outer space"? I think that your fear of ambiguity and equivocation around the word "fiction" is greatly exaggerated, if not hyperbolically so.
> 
> This is also true of "fiction," which involves chasing a particular series of possible meanings (i.e., fiction -> story -> pre-authored -> railroaded content [or whatever]). Even then, the possibility of argumentative equivocation of a semantic unit is not the same as the natural result of equivocation as your argument implies is the case. That's too much of a slippery slope argument to make persuasively IMO. I think that the reasonable thing to do is not fear using accurately descriptive terms because people can equivocate on them (requiring them to make a series of steps), but, rather, to ask for clarification or to call out fallacies of equivocation when they do occur.
> 
> * Think of cognitive domains as a mental framework or semantic field of interrelated meanings we construct in our mind for a semantic unit. Or to borrow from cognitive linguist Ronald Langacker it is "a context for the characterization of the semantic unit."
> 
> For the record, @Bedrockgames, I am writing my dissertation on a singular Hebrew word in a subset genre of biblical literature, a genre that includes both "fiction" and "non-fiction," and applying cognitive linguistic approaches to discuss its discursive meaning(s). The word has a diverse range of distinct, yet interrelated meanings as part of its semantic field. Understanding what is meant by (and distinguishing between) lexical definitions, ambiguity, vagueness, polysemy, and cognitive domains are fundamental linguistic concepts for purposes of my own work. So my own criticisms of your argument, which draws heavily upon notions of semantic ambiguity and equivocation, do have a more substantial basis than simple differences of our respective game preferences.
> 
> Even if knowing this added piece of personal background is not likely to persuade you either way, I do have a bit more working familiarity on the subject matter than Joe Average. I just hope that confessing my background to this subject matter here doesn't become yet another piece of cognitive bias "evidence" you use to make further ad hominem accusations of academic elitism or intellectual bullying about others and me.
> 
> Overall, I definitely agree with @Fenris-77 that you are not so much worried about others equivocating on the term "fiction," but, rather, you are actively hunting to equivocate on the term yourself. Respectfully, you may want to reconsider your position on the term "fiction." From my own background familiarity on these matters, again whatever little it may be worth to you knowing, I don't think that your position is well grounded or reasoned. I can definitely see why Fenris-77 would be aggravated by your discussion.
> 
> 
> You are not so much speaking of "ambiguity," but, rather, the simple state of a word having multiple meanings. Ambiguity exists when multiple distinct interpretations are plausible in a given utterance, which is certainly possible if you isolate that utterance from its surrounding context. While they are distinct in the case of "fiction," they are also clearly interrelated as part of its semantic field: i.e., pertaining to the imagined, unreal, fabricated, fictive, etc. These meanings have more in common between each other than, for example, than the ambiguity that exists between the meanings of the lexeme 'bank': i.e., "financial institution" vs. "edge of a river." (But in the case of this example, that ambiguity can be attributed to _homonymy_.)
> 
> 
> I think that you often tend to appeal to what "a lot of gamers dislike" (or like, are, think, etc.) when you are using them as a amorphous shield for your own personal biases and perspectives. This is definitely not the first time you have made such unsubstantiated appeals. I think that your arguments would be far more persuasive if you didn't keep appealing to what "a lot of gamers" think and stuck to what _*you*_ like or dislike. I know you say you dislike it here. That's fine; however, your use of a "lot of gamers" here is immaterial and inconsequential. As I said before, I have not encountered the aversion to the term "fiction" from the nebulous, faceless, insubstantial "lot of gamers" that you hiding behind here. "A lot of gamers" I have encountered don't share your opinion. Whose "a lot of gamers" matters more?
> 
> 
> Just because you _can_ argue against the validity of the term "fiction" through the virtue of having an opinion doesn't mean (a) you are doing a good job of it, (b) that you're persuasive, or (c) that your opinion/argument is equally valid.
> 
> 
> Do you really want to found your argument on a such a steep slippery slope?




Aldarc. The issue with Fiction and the term story, is both of them are particularly problematic when it comes to RPG discussions. And this is going to be doubly the case when many of the posters invoking The Fiction as their preferred term, both come from a GNS background and have a preference for story now approaches. n terms of ambiguity, if a term has two or potential meanings, then its ambiguous. Fiction even in its first definition includes both the idea of imagined stuff and a story. That it is used pretty interchangeably in regular speech to mean novel, I think also demonstrates the issue here. And then I would add the fact that it tends to get used in a way in this discussion where the fiction applies not just to what happens, but to the setting the stuff is happening in (which I would say is very much a literary mindset, and bringing in some of that literary meaning, even if it isn't proper equivocation) 

Look, you can mention your background. I am not as educated as you clearly. But I know what equivocation is. And unless you are arguing seriously that Fiction is not an equivocal terms in the way described (that one can shift from meaning 'imaginary stuff' to 'a story' or even 'a novel' quite smoothly and easily, then I think you are just drawing on advanced knowledge in a field to dismiss what is pretty hard to deny: fiction is highly equivocal; in RPGs especially this is going to be the case (it is a short leap from fiction to story). It isn't bullying. But I know enough about logic and equivocation to know your argument is a bit specious. Probably not enough to defend my position against someone with that advanced level of understanding (but enough to know and understand the dynamic going on here: because it is something I can do, if I choose to, with History, which i don't). 

Now none of this is a problem if you aren't equivocating. But there have been plenty of instances of the fiction in other threads where this happens; and the term story has a long, long history of being equivocated upon in this manner all the time (I think you would have to be very disingenuous not to see that: both in terms of equivocation to argue for railroads, but also in terms of the story game versus trad debates-----in the same way that people use specious arguments about the term RPG to argue that story driven RPGs are not real RPGs). Again, if we are talking casual use, its totally fine. But you guys are claiming to have precise and meaningful jargon here to describe stuff, and you opted for a term like "the fiction" in vacuum, now that it is coming into contact with other types of gamers, there is push back against it. I believe you haven't encountered the problems i am trying to bring to your attention, but believe me when I tell you this is going to be a line that gets equivocated on and it is going to be a problem for people coming from styles like sandbox (when they see a term like that, it is both going to raise suspicions and it is going to strike them as highly inaccurate).


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> Much better phrased this time around.
> 
> I think my only problem with these formulations is that they are very generic -- as in unspecific to process -- and are achieved by any number of approaches.  It's like saying your RPGing has dwarves -- okay, cool, but why is that something special or different from any other RPGing with dwarves?  Not really aimed at you, but rather randomly shot out into the darkness.




If I'm understanding you correctly, the definition should reflect the processes that make what makes x's _living world_ different to y's _dynamic setting_ different to z's _world in motion_. Right?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> Aldarc. The issue with Fiction and the term story, is both of them are particularly problematic when it comes to RPG discussions. And this is going to be doubly the case when many of the posters invoking The Fiction as their preferred term, both come from a GNS background and have a preference for story now approaches. n terms of ambiguity, if a term has two or potential meanings, then its ambiguous. Fiction even in its first definition includes both the idea of imagined stuff and a story. That it is used pretty interchangeably in regular speech to mean novel, I think also demonstrates the issue here. And then I would add the fact that it tends to get used in a way in this discussion where the fiction applies not just to what happens, but to the setting the stuff is happening in (which I would say is very much a literary mindset, and bringing in some of that literary meaning, even if it isn't proper equivocation)
> 
> Look, you can mention your background. I am not as educated as you clearly. But I know what equivocation is. And unless you are arguing seriously that Fiction is not an equivocal terms in the way described (that one can shift from meaning 'imaginary stuff' to 'a story' or even 'a novel' quite smoothly and easily, then I think you are just drawing on advanced knowledge in a field to dismiss what is pretty hard to deny: fiction is highly equivocal; in RPGs especially this is going to be the case (it is a short leap from fiction to story). It isn't bullying. But I know enough about logic and equivocation to know your argument is a bit specious. Probably not enough to defend my position against someone with that advanced level of understanding (but enough to know and understand the dynamic going on here: because it is something I can do, if I choose to, with History, which i don't).
> 
> Now none of this is a problem if you aren't equivocating. But there have been plenty of instances of the fiction in other threads where this happens; and the term story has a long, long history of being equivocated upon in this manner all the time (I think you would have to be very disingenuous not to see that: both in terms of equivocation to argue for railroads, but also in terms of the story game versus trad debates-----in the same way that people use specious arguments about the term RPG to argue that story driven RPGs are not real RPGs). Again, if we are talking casual use, its totally fine. But you guys are claiming to have precise and meaningful jargon here to describe stuff, and you opted for a term like "the fiction" in vacuum, now that it is coming into contact with other types of gamers, there is push back against it. I believe you haven't encountered the problems i am trying to bring to your attention, but believe me when I tell you this is going to be a line that gets equivocated on and it is going to be a problem for people coming from styles like sandbox (when they see a term like that, it is both going to raise suspicions and it is going to strike them as highly inaccurate).



Oh, I totally agree.  But, I'd like to take a moment to ask you about your living world.  A lot of gamers understand this to be a planet that is alive, and that raises questions of what it eats and breathes.  Can you expand on how your living planet works?  And why did you choose a planet that is alive from, say, a flat rock held up by four elephants standing on the back of a turtle?


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly, the definition should reflect the processes that make what makes x's _living world_ different to y's _dynamic setting_ different to z's _world in motion_. Right?



No, just explain what/how it works in play.  Don't really care what it's called, I'd like to hear what it is that is done at the table to make it work.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, I totally agree.  But, I'd like to take a moment to ask you about your living world.  A lot of gamers understand this to be a planet that is alive, and that raises questions of what it eats and breathes.  Can you expand on how your living planet works?  And why did you choose a planet that is alive from, say, a flat rock held up by four elephants standing on the back of a turtle?



It subsists on a diet of player characters mostly.

I am not saying living world is a perfect term: it is the term that gained currency among many sandboxers to describe an approach to the setting and its inhabitants. But it doesn’t describe a rudimentary component of play across style: the fiction does.


----------



## Bedrockgames

AnotherGuy said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly, the definition should reflect the processes that make what makes x's _living world_ different to y's _dynamic setting_ different to z's _world in motion_. Right?




Those all basically are synonyms for the same concept.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, this is one of the appeals of skilled play. And I don't think this kind of play is specific to old school dungeon delve type scenarios....I imagine a lot of the sandbox play style that's been advocated for in this thread would also yield this kind of result.



I would say there is a huge overlap between the living world, skilled play, heavy prep crowd.  Not an absolute overlap but an overlap.




hawkeyefan said:


> I have no doubt you have years of experience with D&D and similar games based on your statements and your choice in avatar!
> 
> But what about with games that play differently than D&D?



That is a good point.  I've read a lot of different games but I have tried playing a Story Now game.  I just now willing to invest in a campaign to play something that doesn't really seem my cup of tea.  I do think I understand the game and I can see where some people might enjoy it.   It's a big paradigm shift from traditional D&D, heck even roleplaying.

I'm a rules collector so I own all sorts of games I don't play.  I'm keeping some of these small outfits in business I think.  ;-).




hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, this is all I mean.....it's all a matter of preference.



We definitely agree on this point.




hawkeyefan said:


> No, it's not a rule. I suppose I would say it's more of a fact? I mean, if you design a dungeon....let's call it the Maze of Madness.....and plan to introduce it into your campaign, it's an idea, right? It's fiction that you've created. You may think of it as part of the game, and I absolutely understand why.
> 
> But.....if you got hit by a bus before the Maze of Madness was introduced, or if one of your players said offhandedly "man, I really wish we cuold do something besides delve into dungeons" and so you ditch the Maze of Madness, or any number of other things......then is it part of the fiction of that game? No, it's not.
> 
> If we think of the game as a shared thing, then it's only the things that are shared that are actually part of the fiction. Until then, anything else is just possibility.



I think here is where "the fiction" and the "living breathing world" part ways.  The living breathing world includes all the off camera people, places, and events.   Some of which could affect the PCs overtly, some in subtle ways and others not at all.   We view this living breathing world as a thing apart from what you are calling the fiction.   Now you've defined the term "the fiction" so you are right by your definition.  To me the campaign setting is an entity apart from just what happens during the session.  

Those of us who think as I do believe these non-fiction parts of the campaign setting, the living world, ultimately make the fiction better.   The GM would be the conduit for why it's better.   For the same reason an author knowing her world really really well far beyond what she reveals to the reader, is a better author.  The touches of verisimilitude come more easily from a wealth of knowledge.   At least that is my take.

I see the Story Now crowd not even having the same objective.  They aren't trying to achieve what I am trying to achieve in my games.   The joy for them is the organic evolution of the story where even the GM is learning about the world.   They like that and that is why they like those games.  At least that is my take.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> It subsists on a diet of player characters mostly.
> 
> I am not saying living world is a perfect term: it is the term that gained currency among many sandboxers to describe an approach to the setting and its inhabitants. But it doesn’t describe a rudimentary component of play across style: the fiction does.



That doesn't really matter, though, because many gamers are going to immediate think that it's talking about a planet or planetoid that is alive.  This kind of ambiguity is going to really cause problems for a lot of people, especially people that have had any amount of exposure to planetary sciences -- like most 1st graders.  I don't think we can avoid this problem of "living world" being easily mistaken for a planet (or planetoid) that is alive and the questions that raises.  It makes it very difficult to discuss this topic because of the immediate equivocation that takes place with this term.  I really think a better term should be sought, especially if your concept is that the very ground eats the PCs when hungry (odd choice for an RPG, but it takes all kinds -- also sounds a bit fictional to me).


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> If we think of the game as a shared thing, then it's only the things that are shared that are actually part of the fiction. Until then, anything else is just possibility.



this is one reason why the fiction is a problem as a term: can’t you see how it plays much more strongly into story now rather than sandbox? And it is because the term


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> That doesn't really matter, though, because many gamers are going to immediate think that it's talking about a planet or planetoid that is alive.  This kind of ambiguity is going to really cause problems for a lot of people, especially people that have had any amount of exposure to planetary sciences -- like most 1st graders.  I don't think we can avoid this problem of "living world" being easily mistaken for a planet (or planetoid) that is alive and the questions that raises.  It makes it very difficult to discuss this topic because of the immediate equivocation that takes place with this term.  I really think a better term should be sought, especially if your concept is that the very ground eats the PCs when hungry (odd choice for an RPG, but it takes all kinds -- also sounds a bit fictional to me).




again taking an absurd example of equivocation to counter a perfectly common and reasonable one, not very persuasive I think


----------



## prabe

_Makes mental note *neve*r to argue definitions with @Aldarc ;-)_


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> If we think of the game as a shared thing, then it's only the things that are shared that are actually part of the fiction. Until then, anything else is just possibility.





Bedrockgames said:


> this is one reason why the fiction is a problem as a term: can’t you see how it plays much more strongly into story now rather than sandbox? And it is because the term



Sorry, what? You're objecting to the idea that something in your notes might not exist in the game-world because you haven't haven't established in-game that it does? You really think you can blame the word _fiction_ for that? Or are you objecting to the idea that something that hasn't arisen in play hasn't been established.

I suppose you could consider "it's in my notes" as a subset of "it's been established in play." It's consistent with my understanding of sandbox play ideals. If you have a better idea for a place no PCs have been, do you change your notes?


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ovinomancer said:


> No, just explain what/how it works in play.  Don't really care what it's called, I'd like to hear what it is that is done at the table to make it work.




As the risk of being laconic: GM decides based on a number of factors (bias, tables, extrapolations...etc)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> again taking an absurd example of equivocation to counter a perfectly common and reasonable one, not very persuasive I think



Oh, I agree.  The bits about "fiction" are quite silly.  But let's discuss more about the "living world" and how it eats PCs.  What does it breath, and how does it survive the cold vacuum of space?  

I'd ask about reproduction, but that's probably not Grandma friendly.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> As the risk of being laconic: GM decides based on a number of factors (bias, tables, extrapolations...etc)



This isn't any different from a number of other approaches that don't claim to create a "living world."  It is, in fact, a common theme to all RPGs that feature a GM -- at some point, they use their judgement to make a decision.  If this is the explanation, it holds little explanatory power.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> This isn't any different from a number of other approaches that don't claim to create a "living world."  It is, in fact, a common theme to all RPGs that feature a GM -- at some point, they use their judgement to make a decision.  If this is the explanation, it holds little explanatory power.



I think the explanatory power you're looking for might be that someone claiming to run a "living world" is probably saying they track changes in things the PCs haven't encountered. That seems a lot like what was described way upthread as "setting solitaire" to me, but I'm not opposed to GMs getting their fun as they see fit.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> Sorry, what? You're objecting to the idea that something in your notes might not exist in the game-world because you haven't haven't established in-game that it does? You really think you can blame the word _fiction_ for that? Or are you objecting to the idea that something that hasn't arisen in play hasn't been established.



There is a lot that exists in the game world that won't change.  Even if there is a small subset of things that theoretically might change.  So we view that stuff as established just like events the PCs are involved in.

So dungeons and further detailing of a world goes on as the game progresses but it's built on what already exists.   So if I decide to use the campaign world for another campaign after the first one ends, I may create a whole new sandbox in another place and the dungeons in that sandbox may not have existed earlier.  I am not though changing the world wholesale though as that to me is established.


----------



## Emerikol

So maybe to better explain
1.  Living World - That which has been established as truth in a campaign setting
2.  The Fiction - That which as been revealed through play to the group

Those two circles do not have to overlap perfectly.   I think this is some of the pushback on terms.  I'm fine with using "the fiction" to mean what you say though honestly I wouldn't have take that term myself.   But you can't say that #1 has to overlap #2 for everyone.  It may overlap in a Story Now game and that may be a characteristic of Story Now play.  It may be a characteristic of other styles of play.  It doesn't have to be though.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> There is a lot that exists in the game world that won't change.  Even if there is a small subset of things that theoretically might change.  So we view that stuff as established just like events the PCs are involved in.
> 
> So dungeons and further detailing of a world goes on as the game progresses but it's built on what already exists.   So if I decide to use the campaign world for another campaign after the first one ends, I may create a whole new sandbox in another place and the dungeons in that sandbox may not have existed earlier.  I am not though changing the world wholesale though as that to me is established.



As someone running two different campaigns (with in-world start-dates six months apart) in different parts of the same setting, this makes some sense to me. The stuff that's in the player-facing documents (or that either party has encountered) is established. The stuff that's not in those documents, which no one has encountered, isn't. I know I prep more in a just-in-time way than you do, but that doesn't seem like a vast chasm between us, there.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> So maybe to better explain
> 1.  Living World - That which has been established as truth in a campaign setting
> 2.  The Fiction - That which as been revealed through play to the group
> 
> Those two circles do not have to overlap perfectly.   I think this is some of the pushback on terms.  I'm fine with using "the fiction" to mean what you say though honestly I wouldn't have take that term myself.   But you can't say that #1 has to overlap #2 for everyone.  It may overlap in a Story Now game and that may be a characteristic of Story Now play.  It may be a characteristic of other styles of play.  It doesn't have to be though.



I think there'd be those who'd say something that hasn't arisen in play hasn't been established. The stuff I write as setting prep, I don't consider established until something player-facing happens: either the PCs encounter it, or I post a description of it.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> The stuff that's not in those documents, which no one has encountered, isn't.



I agree we probably overlap on style.   This particular phrase though is not one I accept as true.   What is established as truth for a world is exactly what the GM holds to be true for the world.  Some GMs may change their mind in which case I wouldn't think much of what they establish as true but not all GMs would.  There are things that are established that no players know about.  They may come to know of it or they may not.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Sorry, what? You're objecting to the idea that something in your notes might not exist in the game-world because you haven't haven't established in-game that it does?



yes


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I agree we probably overlap on style.   This particular phrase though is not one I accept as true.   What is established as truth for a world is exactly what the GM holds to be true for the world.  Some GMs may change their mind in which case I wouldn't think much of what they establish as true but not all GMs would.  There are things that are established that no players know about.  They may come to know of it or they may not.



Following that chain of thought leads to questions of how much of a fictional setting exists beyond what the characters encounter, which feels as though it's getting awfully close to angels-on-pins territory.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> yes



Then I guess your notes are part of the fiction, then, aren't they? (Though the stuff no one has encountered seems more on the lines of subtext to me ...)


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> this is one reason why the fiction is a problem as a term: can’t you see how it plays much more strongly into story now rather than sandbox? And it is because the term




You might have a conception or model of what the greater setting might look like (I do when I run sandbox games) you use to inform the judgments you make as a GM, but that's not the same thing is a shared imagined space or shared fiction. It's impossible to play a shared game inside a mental model or conception that exists in one person's head. We play inside what game designers call The Magic Circle, our shared understanding. When we say something is established in the fiction we mean the s_hared_ fiction, not the GM's conception or mental model of the game's overall setting.

So I think what you are probably objecting to here is more the perceived elevation of the shared experience over your personal experience of your mental model. I'll admit to that.  I think everything we do on both sides of the screen regardless of playstyle should be in service to that shared experience. That we play for each other, not ourselves. It's also what we all RPG shares, that here and now of the shared imagined space. Once you leave that shared space behind our ability to have a conversation about play that is amenable to a discussion of a variety of play paradigms becomes less viable in my opinion.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, I agree.  The bits about "fiction" are quite silly.  But let's discuss more about the "living world" and how it eats PCs.  What does it breath, and how does it survive the cold vacuum of space?
> 
> I'd ask about reproduction, but that's probably not Grandma friendly.



You've cracked me Omnivancer. I am about to reveal the dark, dark underbelly of the living world equivocation.

To answer your question. It doesn't eat player characters: it eats players. Countless men and women have died in service to this nefarious engine of our imaginations. But that really isn't the worst of it. 

Living World equivocation happens more than I have acknowledged. In fact it happens a lot. And the price is high as the above illustrates . Not only does the living world devour the bodies of hapless players, what it does to their minds, is unimaginable. I once had a player equivocate so hard, he thought he was in a living world: he went full Tom Hanks. I only have the courage to visit him once, sometimes twice a year at the psychiatric hospital. He is so lost though, all I can do is give him some 'gold pieces' for him to spend on the drinking and gambling habits he's developed in his living world delusion (I never should have put so many gambling halls in the main city). 

And no, you don't want to know about how the living world reproduces. You will just have to trust me on that one


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> Following that chain of thought leads to questions of how much of a fictional setting exists beyond what the characters encounter, which feels as though it's getting awfully close to angels-on-pins territory.



Well in order to benefit from deep world knowledge when adjudicating the game you have to have reliable world knowledge well established.  It goes back to that premise.   So my creative effort is on things that are added because they are not yet known vs things which have been established.   High level overview stuff to the degree it's known is established.  Kingdoms, history, etc...   Sandbox style stuff that is created each time a new sandbox is made are not established.   So I'd say one level more detailed than a World of Greyhawk Gazetteer is where I typically have far away places established.   

Inside the sandbox, I tend to establish things that are fixed and I tend to not establish things that are not.  Actual NPCs in town I establish.  Where they are at at any given moment, I do not.  I do create calendars etc.. but that could easily change even off camera.   A lot of change is in world change because the world is a living world that changes.  So those sorts of changes aren't really changing the truth but just progressing it along in time.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> You might have a conception or model of what the greater setting might look like (I do when I run sandbox games) you use to inform the judgments you make as a GM, but that's not the same thing is a shared imagined space or shared fiction. It's impossible to play a shared game inside a mental model or conception that exists in one person's head. We play inside what game designers call The Magic Circle, our shared understanding. When we say something is established in the fiction we mean the s_hared_ fiction, not the GM's conception or mental model of the game's overall setting.
> 
> So I think what you are probably objecting to here is more the perceived elevation of the shared experience over your personal experience of your mental model. I'll admit to that.  I think everything we do on both sides of the screen regardless of playstyle should be in service to that shared experience. That we play for each other, not ourselves. It's also what we all RPG shares, that here and now of the shared imagined space. Once you leave that shared space behind our ability to have a conversation about play that is amenable to a discussion of a variety of play paradigms becomes less viable in my opinion.




And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> You've cracked me Omnivancer. I am about to reveal the dark, dark underbelly of the living world equivocation.
> 
> To answer your question. It doesn't eat player characters: it eats players. Countless men and women have died in service to this nefarious engine of our imaginations. But that really isn't the worst of it.
> 
> Living World equivocation happens more than I have acknowledged. In fact it happens a lot. And the price is high as the above illustrates . Not only does the living world devour the bodies of hapless players, what it does to their minds, is unimaginable. I once had a player equivocate so hard, he thought he was in a living world: he went full Tom Hanks. I only have the courage to visit him once, sometimes twice a year at the psychiatric hospital. He is so lost though, all I can do is give him some 'gold pieces' for him to spend on the drinking and gambling habits he's developed in his living world delusion (I never should have put so many gambling halls in the main city).
> 
> And no, you don't want to know about how the living world reproduces. You will just have to trust me on that one



Interesting.  What role do your notes have in this horrorscape?


----------



## Emerikol

Campbell said:


> So I think what you are probably objecting to here is more the perceived elevation of the shared experience over your personal experience of your mental model. I'll admit to that.  I think everything we do on both sides of the screen regardless of playstyle should be in service to that shared experience. That we play for each other, not ourselves. It's also what we all RPG shares, that here and now of the shared imagined space. Once you leave that shared space behind our ability to have a conversation about play that is amenable to a discussion of a variety of play paradigms becomes less viable in my opinion.



Well I have accepted for purposes of our discussion that when you and others use the term "fiction" that you mean shared fiction.   I've been in that mode now for a bit.

I believe though that you are missing our point about the non-shared fiction which we call the living world.  We believe that living world enables the GM to be more effective when adjudicating the actions of NPCs/monsters/even nature inside the shared fiction.  So our living world feeds the shared fiction and makes it better.   At least that is true for us in our playstyle.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)



Yes, "fiction" is very loaded.  It means "stuff you made up" and also "novels."  I think this describes your play very well, though, as your above passage is clearly a fictional work that suggests a story similar to a novel.  As such, the word is very loaded because it bears a large load in describing your games.  I think that "loaded" is a good term here, because many gamers are going to see that as "bearing a large weight," and, indeed, it is doing so here for your games, as you've described them, at least in a metaphorical sense.  I am unclear, though, does your "fictional world," as it's eating your players, also bear a large weight?  This is a solid question that I think will better illuminate your approach to gaming.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)



So you're treating "in the notes" as "established in play." Which means it exists in the fiction before it appears, because you're privileging the GM's notes.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> And no, you don't want to know about how the living world reproduces. You will just have to trust me on that one



Mitosis?


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> So you're treating "in the notes" as "established in play." Which means it exists in the fiction before it appears, because you're privileging the GM's notes.



Good point!  It also means that the GM is establishing story -- ie, saying what is happening with characters and events -- removed from what's occurring in play at the table, so this really gets to "fiction" because it's both made up and writing a story like a novel or short story that is to be shared with an audience.

I'm starting to question why @Bedrockgames feels "fiction" doesn't describe his gaming....


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Do you really want to found your argument on a such a steep slippery slope?




It is definitely something of a slippery slope argument, but I would maintain it isn't that steep at all (and I would argue there are definitely signs of the equivocation having occurred in threads in the past). But again, when you have a hobby where so much argument and dispute around styles of play and how play out to be done, center so much on people pivoting around the meanings of 'story', and then you use as your term for 'stuff that is imagined' or 'stuff that happens', a word that both means 'imaginary' and 'story', and has strong, strong connotations of literal novels, then you are asking for that same problem. Again, not an issue in every day speech, but not a good choice for a word that is trying to capture what happens in an RPG, where it is really easy to get lost in the other types of media we frequently compare it to. Which sometimes it should be: if I am making a superheroes RPG inspired by the golden age of comics, then it might make sense to do that. But it depends on what kind of world you are trying to emulate in your design and in your campaign. Terms like story and fiction make that mistake much easier to make and also pave the way for bad actors on all sides.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Mitosis?



I think it has something to do with notes.  Which is why he's avoiding the topic.  And, honestly, that might be for the best.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Mitosis?




I assure you, if it were, I wouldn't shy away from describing it


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> I assure you, if it were, I wouldn't shy away from describing it



Budding? So you have a world growing from a world, growing from a world, growing from a world?

It's worlds all the way down?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Good point!  It also means that the GM is establishing story -- ie, saying what is happening with characters and events -- removed from what's occurring in play at the table, so this really gets to "fiction" because it's both made up and writing a story like a novel or short story that is to be shared with an audience.
> 
> I'm starting to question why @Bedrockgames feels "fiction" doesn't describe his gaming....




I realize you are joking but you are also making a serious critique and that critique illustrates the problem presented by terms like fiction and story.


----------



## Emerikol

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)



Bedrockgames is stating what I said in another way but the point is still the same.   We see the off camera stuff as an information feed that aids the GM in giving better answers and playing better NPCs.   The world is more consistent.  

here is an example.   Suppose the group comes upon some kids who are playing.  The PCs ask them if there are any rooms at the Inn.   Now if the GM knows nothing he either just dices for it or says yes.  It's all handwaved away off camera unless there is a conflict the GM wants specifically to be there which he will make up if he does.    But in a living world, suppose the a regiment of the kings guard just passed through town and the kids are all upset that they seized all the food and there is little left in the village.  They might tell the group that the Inn is closed because they can't provide meals but if all they need is shelter they can tell their mom to find them a room.   

Now if the group is hot on a mission they may get the room, eat iron rations, and move on to whatever they were doing.   The fact that all this info was provided though makes the world seem a lot more real and that is desirable for people in my playstyle.  They might also decide to intervene in some way.  Maybe they rustle up some food for the townsfolk.   Who knows.  It's up to the group.   In many cases the group will do nothing but they will still be more immersed in a world that seems to be moving around them and isn't static.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> So you're treating "in the notes" as "established in play." Which means it exists in the fiction before it appears, because you're privileging the GM's notes.




No, I am treating it as established. And yes the castle exists prior to play. 

I wouldn't describe the experience as the fiction. It exists in the setting before the players experience it. In some areas the GMs notes are privileged, in some they aren't. This is why 'playing to discover the GM's notes' isn't a good description. How things play out aren't in the notes. How an NPC responds to an insult isn't in the notes. The notes provide the fundamentals of the world, the fundamentals about NPCs. But again, the NPCs are moving, living pieces (dynamic if you don't like living). I think the language you are using, describes some of the styles in the thread very well. I don't think it is very useful to describing what happens in a living world sandbox.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> I realize you are joking but you are also making a serious critique and that critique illustrates the problem presented by terms like fiction and story.



You do realize @Ovinomancer was using _story_ instead of _fiction_ for good reason, yes? They're not the same.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Budding? So you have a world growing from a world, growing from a world, growing from a world?
> 
> It's worlds all the way down?




No, you can't have an infinite regress. That is impossible


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> You do realize @Ovinomancer was using _story_ instead of _fiction_ for good reason, yes? They're not the same.



Fiction also means story


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> The fact that all this info was provided though makes the world seem a lot more real and that is desirable for people in my playstyle. They might also decide to intervene in some way. Maybe they rustle up some food for the townsfolk. Who knows. It's up to the group. In many cases the group will do nothing but they will still be more immersed in a world that seems to be moving around them and isn't static.



It seems as though you are conflating "the GM has figured this out ahead of time" with "this feels more real." I'll grant it probably feels *more objective to the GM*, but that's not exactly the same thing as feeling more real to the players, or as fiction.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I realize you are joking but you are also making a serious critique and that critique illustrates the problem presented by terms like fiction and story.



Right.  In a Story Now game, where you're making things up (or pretending) in the moment with only a little thinking about what could happen before play, "fiction" doesn't make sense because it doesn't capture the bits of writing down stories to tell players later.  Meanwhile, "fiction" works much better for your approach because you are also writing down these stories to tell the players later AND making things up.  This is a good point.  

Perhaps we only need to use "fiction" when talking about "living worlds" so that most gamers understand that you're making up a story to tell the players about a planet (or planetoid) that is alive, because that really gets the concept across.  Meanwhile, we can just use "pretend" for other approaches that aren't writing these stories to tell the players?  How does that grab you?


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> Fiction also means story



Will you please get this through your head:

_Fiction_ as a word *includes*_ story_, but it's much, much broader than that. _Fiction_, as has been explained roughly _ad nauseum_, includes everything and anything made-up. By calling what emerges from play _fiction_ we are not imputing to it any sort of structure or process, merely that it is not _factual_.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)





This is not about playstyle at all. I have a personal belief that prep exists to inform play, to make play more dynamic. That our shared experience is more important than our individual experiences. That's as consistent with sandbox play as it is for Story Now play as it is for Adventure Path play. I honestly do not see how it's all that contentious.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> You do realize @Ovinomancer was using _story_ instead of _fiction_ for good reason, yes? They're not the same.



No I wasn't!  I was clearly using "fiction" as the load bearing term it is, meaning both a story and stuff you make up.  This is very important, I am told by most gamers, because otherwise "fiction" cannot support the weights it is supposed to, and this can have very bad repercussions for planets (or planetoids) that are alive.  It is very important that "living world" proponents be able to fully capture the weights held up by "fiction" so that they can write down stories to tell players AND make things up.  It is unfair to use these weighty words to also describe gaming where things are just made up -- no stories are written down by the GM.  You can't have this kind of equivocation, because it makes the planets (or planetoids) that are alive very sad.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> No I wasn't!  I was clearly using "fiction" as the load bearing term it is, meaning both a story and stuff you make up.  This is very important, I am told by most gamers, because otherwise "fiction" cannot support the weights it is supposed to, and this can have very bad repercussions for planets (or planetoids) that are alive.  It is very important that "living world" proponents be able to fully capture the weights held up by "fiction" so that they can write down stories to tell players AND make things up.  It is unfair to use these weighty words to also describe gaming where things are just made up -- no stories are written down by the GM.  You can't have this kind of equivocation, because it makes the planets (or planetoids) that are alive very sad.



I think you just broke my sarcasmometer.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Will you please get this through your head:
> 
> _Fiction_ as a word *includes*_ story_, but it's much, much broader than that. _Fiction_, as has been explained roughly _ad nauseum_, includes everything and anything made-up. By calling what emerges from play _fiction_ we are not imputing to it any sort of structure or process, merely that it is not _factual_.




It isn't that simple. Fiction as a term has several distinct meanings. One of those meanings is story. And if you look it up on google, the first definition to pop up is.....



> literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> It seems as though you are conflating "the GM has figured this out ahead of time" with "this feels more real." I'll grant it probably feels *more objective to the GM*, but that's not exactly the same thing as feeling more real to the players, or as fiction.



I think he is just saying it is an important part of making it feel real. I would say from the player side, I find settings to feel much more real when you know and can sense the GM has hashed out stuff like the geography in advance (and when you can tell he hasn't, or when he hasn't, I think it tends to make the setting feel more amorphous: which can be fine if it is heavy genre emulation, but for some approaches, you want a sense of a concrete world)


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't that simple. Fiction as a term has several distinct meanings. One of those meanings is story. And if you look it up on google, the first definition to pop up is.....



So, you're saying the people referring to "fiction" or "the fiction" are calling TRPGs literature?


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I think you just broke my sarcasmometer.



I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.  Is this another of those load bearing terms?  It seems like it might... equivocate (and I shudder, because I think this is something those living worlds do to procreate).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> This is not about playstyle at all. I have a personal belief that prep exists to inform play, to make play more dynamic. That our shared experience is more important than our individual experiences. That's as consistent with sandbox play as it is for Story Now play as it is for Adventure Path play. I honestly do not see how it's all that contentious.



Except we are seeing it in this thread be used to advance playstyle arguments (much of the discussion has centered around the impossibility of a living world).


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> So, you're saying the people referring to "fiction" or "the fiction" are calling TRPGs literature?




I am saying it can and does create confusion about what the fiction means (and suggests elements found in stories, literature and fiction will be present). You are paving the way for thinking of the game as an unfolding story


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> Except we are seeing it in this thread be used to advance playstyle arguments (much of the discussion has centered around the impossibility of a living world).



Hmm, that is indeed troubling.  Denying the existence of planets (or planetoids) that are alive is a dangerous game.  Surely you have quotes to cite where people have said that living worlds are impossible?  I think that many gamers would be outraged at such.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> I am saying it can and does create confusion about what the fiction means (and suggests elements found in stories, literature and fiction will be present). You are paving the way for thinking of the game as an unfolding story



So you're saying we are confusing TRPGs with literature? Because I assure you, I am not.

Elements that will be found in stories that will also be found in TRPGs include (but are not limited to): setting, character, events, and theme. Just off the top of my head; and the events of the game will likely form some sort of narrative, in a post facto way.

I don't think your argument is as strong as you think it is.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I am saying it can and does create confusion about what the fiction means (and suggests elements found in stories, literature and fiction will be present). You are paving the way for thinking of the game as an unfolding story



Wait, living worlds _*unfold *_now?!?!


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> It is but it is easy to slide into definition 1 (and one is very ambiguous so ripe for equivocation)



No one in this thread is doing that, except perhaps you. So why do you keep urging everyone else not to do it?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Wait, living worlds _*unfold *_now?!?!




Yes, we established that living worlds are futons about thirty pages ago. Please try to keep up


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, we established that living worlds are futons about thirty pages ago. Please try to keep up



It's not a living world, it's a futonic tesseract.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Hmm, that is indeed troubling.  Denying the existence of planets (or planetoids) that are alive is a dangerous game.  Surely you have quotes to cite where people have said that living worlds are impossible?  I think that many gamers would be outraged at such.




All kidding aside, I am quite certain a number of posters challenged the very idea of living worlds. We had pages of debate over it. I am not going to comb through and grab quotes for someone who hasn't made a serious post towards me though


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, we established that living worlds are futons about thirty pages ago. Please try to keep up



That's very unclear.  Are living worlds Japanese mattresses that are unrolled onto the floor, in which case this claim that they unfold is very confusing, or are they low wooden sofas that can be used as a bed, in which case "unfold" is doing a lot of work here.  I don't think  most gamers are going to understand what you mean by futon in this context.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> It's not a living world, it's a futonic tesseract.




Which is why fiction is so dangerous a term here. We are stuck in a terribly written doctor who episode.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> All kidding aside, I am quite certain a number of posters challenged the very idea of living worlds. We had pages of debate over it. I am not going to comb through and grab quotes for someone who hasn't made a serious post towards me though



They did not!  I mean, I understand it a challenging world, what with all the equivocation involved (shudder), but I saw people asking for it to be defined clearly in terms of play process.  Of course, this was, as you know, doomed to failure because most gamers automatically understand living world to be talking about planets (or planetoids) that are alive and not some concept of... well, I don't know.  No one, though, denied their very existence -- that would be horrible on the scale of equivocation (shudder).


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> All kidding aside, I am quite certain a number of posters challenged the very idea of living worlds. We had pages of debate over it. I am not going to comb through and grab quotes for someone who hasn't made a serious post towards me though



I think there were people saying it wasn't particularly useful as a term, and/or asking for a good definition of it. I don't think anyone was saying they don't exist.

There may have been people arguing against living worlds' having an objective reality (which since they're fictional objects is an argument that makes sense) but that's not the same thing as saying the playstyle doesn't exist.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> That's very unclear.  Are living worlds Japanese mattresses that are unrolled onto the floor, in which case this claim that they unfold is very confusing, or are they low wooden sofas that can be used as a bed, in which case "unfold" is doing a lot of work here.  I don't think  most gamers are going to understand what you mean by futon in this context.




I really can't be bothered to summarize pages you can't bother to read, but no as was explained before, living worlds are all things that unfold, including futons. But it would also apply to drapes, an unfolding emotion (though there was lots of debate over whether that was just metaphorical unfolding), ladders, maps, etc. It is really the heart of understanding how a living world works


----------



## AnotherGuy

So in our last game set in FR (Mission to Thay), PCs _word of recalled_ back to the Sword Coast after violently disagreeing with a high ranking member, Syranna, of the Thayan Resurrection (rebel group attempting to overthrow the Lich Szass Tam, current ruler of Thay). The cleric, now in Waterdeep, cast a _sending _revealing the secret location of the Thayan Resurrection members to the respective Thayan authorities.

I'm curious how indie techniques would resolve possible outcomes listed below or any other outcome, now that the session is over.

1. Syranna is cuptured by Thayan authorities
2. Syranna is killed by Thayan authorities 
3. (1) or (2) above and her partner (also mentioned in the module, who was elsewhere) seeks vengeance on PCs.
4. Syranna survives
5. Syranna survives and seeks vengeance on PCs (with or without partner)


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> I think there were people saying it wasn't particularly useful as a term, and/or asking for a good definition of it. I don't think anyone was saying they don't exist.
> 
> There may have been people arguing against living worlds' having an objective reality (which since they're fictional objects is an argument that makes sense) but that's not the same thing as saying the playstyle doesn't exist.



Well, there were definitely people saying living worlds didn't work the way we were saying (that they weren't any different from any other kind of campaign). That it was basically just euphemistic language to describe GM fiat or something.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> this is one reason why the fiction is a problem as a term: can’t you see how it plays much more strongly into story now rather than sandbox? And it is because the term



Based on this post, I don't think you know what "story now" play is, or what it looks like at the table.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Elements that will be found in stories that will also be found in TRPGs include (but are not limited to): setting, character, events, and theme. Just off the top of my head; and the events of the game will likely form some sort of narrative, in a post facto way.
> 
> I don't think your argument is as strong as you think it is.




Again there are way too many examples of gamers finding oughts in the term story in RPGs for me to say this argument has no weight or is weak. I think you can already see the issues using the term fiction has generated here (and that is without real equivocation). I would definitely say the same issues that plagued the term story will plague this one


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I really can't be bothered to summarize pages you can't bother to read, but no as was explained before, living worlds are all things that unfold, including futons. But it would also apply to drapes, an unfolding emotion (though there was lots of debate over whether that was just metaphorical unfolding), ladders, maps, etc. It is really the heart of understanding how a living world works



I don't need summaries to know that most gamers are going to be confused by the term "futon."  It's very loaded -- in that it bears weight both when a Japanese mattress and when a low wooden couch unfolding into a bed.  That there are pages of discussion doesn't remove this issue -- it's clear most gamers aren't going to know what you're talking about when you say "futon" in regards to "unfolding."  They're going to think of a Japanese mattress unrolled on the floor and be very confused as to how that can "unfold."

By the by, who folded the living worlds to begin with?  Is this related to equivocation (shudder)??


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, there were definitely people saying living worlds didn't work the way we were saying (that they weren't any different from any other kind of campaign). That it was basically just euphemistic language to describe GM fiat or something.



So ... isn't establishing something that isn't the result of PC action GM Fiat? I personally don't object to calling setting creation GM Fiat when I do it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> I don't think your argument is as strong as you think it is.




It is just my opinion, but the high volume of hostile responses suggests otherwise to me. My experience on forums is people making weak arguments generally get ignored.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> Again there are way too many examples of gamers finding oughts in the term story in RPGs for me to say this argument has no weight or is weak. I think you can already see the issues using the term fiction has generated here (and that is without real equivocation). I would definitely say the same issues that plagued the term story will plague this one



On the contrary, the difficulties you have had with the word _fiction_ is insisting that we are using it to mean something we are not.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> It is just my opinion, but the high volume of hostile responses suggests otherwise to me. My experience on forums is people making weak arguments generally get ignored.



Do not confuse "I am persistent" with "my argument is strong."


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> It seems as though you are conflating "the GM has figured this out ahead of time" with "this feels more real." I'll grant it probably feels *more objective to the GM*, but that's not exactly the same thing as feeling more real to the players, or as fiction.



It is a well established truth that authors who know their world well before writing are more likely on average to produce a compelling and immersive world.   That point is not really all that disputable.   So in a game, of course there are differences but the ability of the GM to interact with the PCs still benefits for the same reasons with a good knowledge of the existing world.   That is the point we are making.   That solid reliable world information is a great foundation for making better judgments and providing better info to the PCs as they progress through the world.

I'm not really sure what you mean by objective as that seems like a red herring.  When I say more "real", I am saying "easier to suspend disbelief" just like you do when reading a fantasy novel.   We all know the fantasy world is not real but we still come to care about the characters and the world.  If you are going to get your PCs to care about the world, and if they do care they will be more immersed and more engaged, then that world needs to feel real to them.   You are aided in making it feel real to them by having a good foundation of prep that guides your answers.

Edit:
I was once told by a player in one of my campaigns that my setting just felt more like a real place than any other they'd played in.   They couldn't say why.   It was just a feeling.   It's a feeling I want to foster in all my players.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> All kidding aside, I am quite certain a number of posters challenged the very idea of living worlds. We had pages of debate over it. I am not going to comb through and grab quotes for someone who hasn't made a serious post towards me though



I personally disagreed with your framing of it. Especially the bits where you kept claiming things that I know are hard or virtually impossible (while still being worth pursuing) are easy. Not that your playstyle was impossible or had no value. I said it was impossible to have an entire world contained inside your head, but said the pursuit was a noble one. That does not seem like an attack on a playstyle to me.

I do not think I should have to see sandbox play the same way as you for us to have a conversation. I was not putting down the playstyle. I quite enjoy sandbox play and would hazard we use pretty similar techniques for it. I just see it differently.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AnotherGuy said:


> So in our last game set in FR (Mission to Thay), PCs _word of recalled_ back to the Sword Coast after violently disagreeing with a high ranking member, Syranna, of the Thayan Resurrection (rebel group attempting to overthrow the Lich Szass Tam, current ruler of Thay). The cleric, now in Waterdeep, cast a _sending _revealing the secret location of the Thayan Resurrection members to the respective Thayan authorities.
> 
> I'm curious how indie techniques would resolve possible outcomes listed below or any other outcome, now that the session is over.
> 
> 1. Syranna is cuptured by Thayan authorities
> 2. Syranna is killed by Thayan authorities
> 3. (1) or (2) above and her partner (also mentioned in the module, who was elsewhere) seeks vengeance on PCs.
> 4. Syranna survives
> 5. Syranna survives and seeks vengeance on PCs (with or without partner)



None of these.  The next time you play, and an action calls the outcome of Syranna into question, it will be resolved according to the result of that action.  

More to the point, the entire formulation here is flawed in terms of a Story Now game approach -- you don't have these things set up like this.  The _sending _would actually be an action declaration that would have a resolution of success or failure (or a success with complication) and would be resolved right there.  In reality, in most such games, even casting sending would be in question -- spells in D&D are compact bits of player-side fiction introduction that are not tested.  What I mean by that is that spells in D&D allow players to change the fictional state of the situation by spending a resource chit and that don't have a chance of failure to occur.  Some may fail to have the desired effect, but the act of casting generates no consequences for the caster except the resource chit expended.  Many allow automatic changes in the fictional state, like sending does -- unless the GM makes a blocking move, sending sends a message without fail exactly as the PC wants.  This isn't how most Story Now games treat such things -- the casting of a spell would likely have stakes attached and be uncertain.  So, the very framing of the question has some issues.  

Secondly, the idea that the issue of Syranna's fate must be decided offscreen is not well framed for Story Now, either.  In Story Now, everything happens on-screen.  The fate of Syranna would be decided by adjudication in the moment of player action declarations for their PCs.  The best analogy I can see to your example would be that the PCs are going to risk casting a spell, and, if successful, this will generate another test to see how their goal of getting the Thayans to do something about Syranna.  On a success, this would establish that the Thayans are going to do something, but that resolution wouldn't be decided now.  In fact, if Syranna never comes up again in play, it would be dropped and never considered.  If it does come up, it will be because the action requires it, and that would then test to see what might be happening.  Perhaps, later, the PCs are doing something that impinges on the fate of Syranna, and fail, and the GM then narrates that Syranna shows up to be a threat, having evaded/defeated the Thayan authorities.  Until then, we need not resolve Syranna's fate, and shouldn't.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree make believe is foundational, and I agree using fiction to just mean stuff we make up isn’t equivocation, but I think if you use fiction or story to describe making stuff up, it leads to problems inevitably the other connotations get mixed in and equivocation arises.




Can you point to a post where fiction was used in this way? Where this problem you foresee has actually come to pass in this discussion?

From what I can see, everyone has been using the term fiction to mean "the stuff we make up when we play" which is the most accurate term we could probably come up with, and that is regardless of the game in question. It's true of D&D and Traveler and Call of Cthulhu and Apocalypse World and everything in between.



Bedrockgames said:


> this is one reason why the fiction is a problem as a term: can’t you see how it plays much more strongly into story now rather than sandbox? And it is because the term




No, I can't. Not in the way it's actually being used. 

You seem to be arguing that fiction means "story" and despite everyone telling you that's not the definition we are using, you ignore that and then discuss as if we mean story. 

It is only you that's using that definition. You are the only one equivocating on this.



Bedrockgames said:


> And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)




If this is how you look at it, then how do you really have a problem with a comment that play is about finding out what's in the GM's notes? Seriously. Sure, there may be more to it.....but by your own description here, a big part of play is about finding out what's in the GM's notes. 

And to comment on this castle idea.....sure, I get it. There's a castle and all these encounters the PCs are having in the area are ultimately coming from this hidden castle. Cool. But let's say that before the PCs actually find the castle, they move on. Something else in the sandbox catches their attention and the leave the area, and stop interacting with anything that is related to the castle. And they go about their business until the campaign eventually comes to an end. 

When you discuss it with them, you may say "Remember all those creatures in the Desolate Valley? They were all coming from the Haunted Castle nearby....but you guys never explored that hex!" And I get that this is true to you because it was your intention. 

But if you don't tell the players this, and instead you just ask them what happened in play, they'll describe the Desolate Valley and all the creatures they fought.....but they will never ever mention the Haunted Castle. Because it never came up in play. It was never established. What if one of them imagined that all those creatures were coming from a portal to another dimension? This is what he imagined would be the case.

Is his imagined reason "real"? Does it "exist" in the same sense as your Castle?




Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't that simple. Fiction as a term has several distinct meanings. One of those meanings is story. And if you look it up on google, the first definition to pop up is.....




No one is using that definition except you. We've all pointed out "no, not that definition.....the next one".



Bedrockgames said:


> Except we are seeing it in this thread be used to advance playstyle arguments (much of the discussion has centered around the impossibility of a living world).




Where? That's literally not happening at all. 

We're seeing it in this thread be used to defend a playstyle that is perceived to be under attack, when it in fact is not. 

No one has said "living world" is impossible. Most folks have acknowledged it's a pretty common goal in RPGs. Dynamic setting was an alternate term that has been offered.....and that's one that I think most of us want to achieve. I'm currently playing in two games each week. One is 5e D&D and the other is Blades in the Dark......in both cases the GM and players are trying to present a dynamic setting. 

The issue with "living world" is that it's more a goal of play, rather than a technique. If you asked someone their style of GMing and they said "dynamic setting" you may be a bit confused. You may have some ideas about what it means.....they've given you a goal, and so you may have ideas about obtaining that goal......but how do they obtain it? That will potentially vary by game.

For the two games I'm in, there are methods used for D&D that are not used for BitD, and vice versa, and then there are methods used by both.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> So, you're saying the people referring to "fiction" or "the fiction" are calling TRPGs literature?



Yet who was the poster who started a thread answering _no_ to the question Is RPGing a _literary_ endeavour?

That's right, it was me!


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> It is a well established truth that authors who know their world well before writing are more likely on average to produce a compelling and immersive world.   That point is not really all that disputable.   So in a game, of course there are differences but the ability of the GM to interact with the PCs still benefits for the same reasons with a good knowledge of the existing world.   That is the point we are making.   That solid reliable world information is a great foundation for making better judgments and providing better info to the PCs as they progress through the world.



There are novelists who outline their novels, and there are novelists who don't. Both types of novelists can create compelling fiction, in any genre. Setting is, at best, part of what makes a novel compelling.

Can it help a GM to have a good idea of a place or a person, so they can better convey that to the players? Yes. Is it *necessary*? Nope.


Emerikol said:


> I'm not really sure what you mean by objective as that seems like a red herring.  When I say more "real", I am saying "easier to suspend disbelief" just like you do when reading a fantasy novel.   We all know the fantasy world is not real but we still come to care about the characters and the world.  If you are going to get your PCs to care about the world, and if they do care they will be more immersed and more engaged, then that world needs to feel real to them.   You are aided in making it feel real to them by having a good foundation of prep that guides your answers.



I mean _objective_ in the sense the GM can see themself as a neutral reporter of events. You're not making this up on the spot (the fact you made it up beforehand is ... elided). It is possible to get players to care about a world with far less prep than you do (my campaigns) or next-to-no prep (such as a well-run and well-played game of Dungeon World). That previous statement doesn't mean it isn't possible the way you do it: It just means the way you do it isn't the only way to do it.


Emerikol said:


> Edit:
> I was once told by a player in one of my campaigns that my setting just felt more like a real place than any other they'd played in.   They couldn't say why.   It was just a feeling.   It's a feeling I want to foster in all my players.



In the Dungeon World game we're playing, my wife describes the world as feeling very real to her. I think the players in the campaigns I'm running feel as though the world is real to them. I suspect that's more a matter of GM skill (or facility with a given set of techniques) than one of any approach or specific set of techniques.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Yet who was the poster who started a thread answering _no_ to the question Is RPGing a _literary_ endeavour?
> 
> That's right, it was me!



I don't think I was around for that thread, but I agree with your answer. And I don't think TRPGs should try to mimic literary forms, let along specific stories, and I think using specific works as anything more than broad/vague inspiration is probably a bad idea. I think I've said things to that effect before.

Yes, I think playing a TRPG uses some of the same mental faculties as writing fiction, in the same way that wrestling and playing rugby use some of the same muscles. That doesn't mean I think they're the same thing. I don't see a conflict.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> No one is using that definition except you. We've all pointed out "no, not that definition.....the next one".



I understand. I understand you are using definition a(imagined stuff) and I am expressing concern about equivocation to definition b(story) or even c (novel), my point is this equivocation is very likely arise because fiction and story are nearly synonyms the way fiction is used in speech (and it is nearly a synonym for literature as well).


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> If you can't clarify what it means as succinctly as I clarified what "fiction" means, then there we go.
> 
> Your attempts to define living world are byzantine and non-specific, presented in giant walls of text.



No.  You don't get to force the definition of Living World into 7 words or less.  Not everything can or should be forced into such a small definition.  We have defined it for you.  You can accept it or not as you choose, but if you don't accept it, then there we go.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Well in order to benefit from deep world knowledge when adjudicating the game you have to have reliable world knowledge well established.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Inside the sandbox, I tend to establish things that are fixed and I tend to not establish things that are not.  Actual NPCs in town I establish.  Where they are at at any given moment, I do not.  I do create calendars etc.. but that could easily change even off camera.   A lot of change is in world change because the world is a living world that changes.  So those sorts of changes aren't really changing the truth but just progressing it along in time.





Emerikol said:


> There is a lot that exists in the game world that won't change.  Even if there is a small subset of things that theoretically might change.  So we view that stuff as established just like events the PCs are involved in.



This_ stuff that exists in the gameworld that doesn't change _seems to me to be _things written down by the GM in his/her notes, or things imagined by him/her and apt to be so written down even if that hasn't actually taken place yet._

The GM rewriting that material in accordance with his/her imagination about how those places and people might change over time lseems to me like it is adding more notes. Similar to JRRT's Appendices A and B to LotR.



Emerikol said:


> So dungeons and further detailing of a world goes on as the game progresses but it's built on what already exists.   So if I decide to use the campaign world for another campaign after the first one ends, I may create a whole new sandbox in another place and the dungeons in that sandbox may not have existed earlier.  I am not though changing the world wholesale though as that to me is established.





Bedrockgames said:


> I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because *it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10*, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)



I have bolded something which is a bit obscure, even equivocal, to me.

In any standard FRPG, if the PCs find a castle then that castle will have existed in the setting prior to them finding it. And it would have existed even if they had not. In the BW game in which my characters found Evard's Tower, the tower existed before they found it. _How else could they have found it?!_ In fact my PC found evidence in the tower - ie letters apparently written by his mother as a child - which implied the tower had existed from well before he was born.

So it is not at all distinctive of a sandbox that a castle, or tower, or any other relatively permanent thing should exist in the setting independent of who finds it.

Similarly for Emerikol's dungeons: presumably if Emerikol decides to use a campaign world for another campaign, set a year or so after the previous campaign, and drops in a new dungeon that is 1,000 years old, then that dungeon existed in the world during the last campaign too (and was about 999 years old when that old campaign finished).

So when Emerikiol says _it may not have existed in the sandbox earlier_ I think that means _the GM hadn't thought of it yet, and so hadn't written it down_. And when Bedrockgames says _it should exist in a sandbox whether or not they find it_ I think that means _the GM should have thought of it already and written it down, so that (eg) the GM can narrate signs of its existence_.

I don't know how those two claims - and related claims about verisimilitude, feeling "real", etc - are to be reconciled.



Emerikol said:


> We see the off camera stuff as an information feed that aids the GM in giving better answers and playing better NPCs.   The world is more consistent.



This seems to fit with what Bedrockgames said about the castle But I don't see how it is supposed to be reconciled with the possibility of subsequently authoring in a 1,000 year old dungeon. Obviously the GM will not have narrated signs of the existence of that dungeon prior to thinking it up; yet presumably such signs ought to have been present.



Emerikol said:


> We believe that living world enables the GM to be more effective when adjudicating the actions of NPCs/monsters/even nature inside the shared fiction.  So our living world feeds the shared fiction and makes it better.



I don't know what _effective_ means here. Does it mean _more consistent in narration_? If so, then how is that meant to fit with introducing new elements, like dungeons, into the gameworld?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand. I understand you are using definition a(imagined stuff) and I am expressing concern about equivocation to definition b(story) or even c (novel), my point is this equivocation is very likely arise because fiction and story are nearly synonyms the way fiction is used in speech (and it is nearly a synonym for literature as well).



Totally agree.  Look at this thread, where it's arisen with only you.  Very likely, that.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand. I understand you are using definition a(imagined stuff) and I am expressing concern about equivocation to definition b(story) or even c (novel), my point is this equivocation is very likely arise because fiction and story are nearly synonyms the way fiction is used in speech (and it is nearly a synonym for literature as well).



So, the only one here coming close to using _fiction_ to mean _story_ is you, and you think everyone else is equivocating? You're acting as though we're confusing _compose_ and _comprise_.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> You totally side stepped the real question so maybe I wasn't clear, I'll try again... why is "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" an apt descriptor of sandbox play but not of AP play... and if it actually is an apt description of both then isn't it probably better to use a different descriptor for one, the other or both?





Imaro said:


> Ok just to be clear... are you now stating that AP play and sandbox play are not different??  Just looking for clarification here.
> 
> Aren't we discussing the differences in these playstyles





Imaro said:


> It's being used as a reference/characterization for the entire playstyle... not as one of many descriptors...



Here is a quote of the post in which, in this thread, I used the phrase "playing to find out what happens in the GM's notes". That post occurred on page 17 of the thread ie some hundreds of posts subsequent to the OP.



pemerton said:


> Emerikol said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think people like me are at heart explorers.  They want to learn about a new world and explore it.  It's a big motivation.  They also want to achieve something by dint of their skill as players.  So they feel they "earned" their PC's greatness.
> 
> Gygax speaks to this a lot in the 1e DMG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted about this approach to play probably more than anyone else on these boards. I call it _playing to find out what is in the GM's notes._ The play process consists in the player's making moves with their PCs which oblige the GM to provide the players with information from the GM's notes: this is how the players "learn about a new world" (information) by "exploring it" (making moves that trigger the GM to provide that information).
> 
> In my own experience - of reading setting material and reading accounts of this sort of play and occasionally seeing it in action - the worlds themselves are rarely very deep. Sometimes they are quite detailed though.
Click to expand...


As you can see, it was a response to another poster - @Emerikol - describing him and RPGers like him as "explorers" who "want to learn about a new world and explore it".

So _he_ was the one who introduced the idea of _learning_ or _finding out_ as a point of play. What I did was clarify what is actually being learned: given that the "world" being "explored" is purely imaginary, what is actually being learned is what the GM has made up and written down in his/her notes. I even described the process of play that will generate this learning.

Now as I already posted, distinguishing between what Emerikol describes, and AP play, isn't a high priority for me. But one obvious difference between them is that the content of the notes is different. In sandbox play the notes are primarily guidebook-type notes: the sort of stuff one would find in a Lonely Planet. There may be a reference to future events, but that is to be understood as a way of pointing to a present disposition of some person or place in the fiction (a murder that will occur; a volcano that will erupt) which is apt to be thwarted if the players declare the right sorts of actions for their PCs (eg they apprehend the murderer first; they use magic to calm the volcano).

In an AP, on the other hand, the notes are mostly a series of events laid out in a time sequence. So references to future events aren't _just_ references to present dispositions but to things that will happen. Because of the way action declarations typically work in RPGing - ie they have a "temporal" aspect to them of generating _things that happen next_ - there is some tension between APs of this sort and taking player action declarations seriously. That is why APs are full of advice to GMs about how to disregard or negate the effects of action declarations, like _if the PCs apprehend person X then person Y will commit the murder_ or _if the PCs find a way to calm the volcano, Imix himself turns up and makes it erupt_.

Those are differences in the content of the notes, and also differences of GM technique.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Here is a quote of the post in which, in this thread, I used the phrase "playing to find out what happens in the GM's notes". That post occurred on page 17 of the thread ie some hundreds of posts subsequent to the OP.
> 
> As you can see, it was a response to another poster - @Emerikol - describing him and RPGers like him as "explorers" who "want to learn about a new world and explore it".
> 
> So _he_ was the one who introduced the idea of _learning_ or _finding out_ as a point of play. What I did was clarify what is actually being learned: given that the "world" being "explored" is purely imaginary, what is actually being learned is what the GM has made up and written down in his/her notes. I even described the process of play that will generate this learning.
> 
> Now as I already posted, distinguishing between what Emerikol describes, and AP play, isn't a high priority for me. But one obvious difference between them is that the content of the notes is different. In sandbox play the notes are primarily guidebook-type notes: the sort of stuff one would find in a Lonely Planet. There may be a reference to future events, but that is to be understood as a way of pointing to a present disposition of some person or place in the fiction (a murder that will occur; a volcano that will erupt) which is apt to be thwarted if the players declare the right sorts of actions for their PCs (eg they apprehend the murderer first; they use magic to calm the volcano).
> 
> In an AP, on the other hand, the notes are mostly a series of events laid out in a time sequence. So references to future events aren't _just_ references to present dispositions but to things that will happen. Because of the way action declarations typically work in RPGing - ie they have a "temporal" aspect to them of generating _things that happen next_ - there is some tension between APs of this sort and taking player action declarations seriously. That is why APs are full of advice to GMs about how to disregard or negate the effects of action declarations, like _if the PCs apprehend person X then person Y will commit the murder_ or _if the PCs find a way to calm the volcano, Imix himself turns up and makes it erupt_.
> 
> Those are differences in the content of the notes, and also differences of GM technique.




You still didn't answer the actual question but it doesn't matter as most of us have moved on from that line of discussion.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But that is the nature of equivocation. A word has multiple meanings and one can invoke different meanings of it in the same discussion. I can invoke fiction to mean 'imagined stuff' but I can also invoke it to mean 'a story' and I can also invoke it to mean stuff like 'novels'.



Upthread you posted the definition of equivocation.  You can use different meanings of a word in the same discussion without equivocation.  It's when you use multiple meanings within a single argument that you start equivocating.

An example would be if you said something like, "I'm talking about fiction as a story, not fiction as imagined stuff." and I responded with, "Fiction means imagined stuff and fiction means story, therefore fictional imagined stuff is the same as fictional story."  My response there would be equivocation.  Another way would be, " I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show."  There multiple uses are also being used within a single argument.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I get the connotations and why people have an issue with the first. But mostly this thread has just confirmed for me that it's a pretty accurate description. I don't think it must be a pejorative, even if that's how it may seem or may have been intended (although I think it was meant more to provoke a response than to really put a style down).
> 
> Does it undersell the importance of the players? I don't know. I get what you're saying, but it talks about the players role as "discovering" so that's in there. I feel like maybe it undersells the fictional world, since that's what's being discovered and that's what's actually in the GM's notes.



What puzzles me a bit is that no one thinks that reading a book or listening to an audiobook or podcast is boring or stupid. Lots of people do that.

Lots of people also read Choose Your Own Adventure books or play Fighting Fantasy books; or engage with their equivalents in computer game form.

I'm not sure why it's pejorative to point out that, in doing this, the reader/player learns what the author was imagining. That's kind of the point!


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> I would say there is a huge overlap between the living world, skilled play, heavy prep crowd.  Not an absolute overlap but an overlap.




Probably a safe assumption, although I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions. But yeah, prep heavy seems to be a pretty common approach to games that are about skilled play in the classic sense, and also for sandbox approach as it's been described often in this thread, with the GM as the primary authority on setting.



Emerikol said:


> That is a good point.  I've read a lot of different games but I have tried playing a Story Now game.  I just now willing to invest in a campaign to play something that doesn't really seem my cup of tea.  I do think I understand the game and I can see where some people might enjoy it.   It's a big paradigm shift from traditional D&D, heck even roleplaying.
> 
> I'm a rules collector so I own all sorts of games I don't play.  I'm keeping some of these small outfits in business I think.  ;-).




Do you mind if I ask what game you played? I do think it's a paradigm shift in some ways, but not so much when it comes to roleplaying. If we mean in the sense of adopting the role of a character within the fictional setting of the game.



Emerikol said:


> We definitely agree on this point.




It was bound to happen at some point! 



Emerikol said:


> I think here is where "the fiction" and the "living breathing world" part ways.  The living breathing world includes all the off camera people, places, and events.   Some of which could affect the PCs overtly, some in subtle ways and others not at all.   We view this living breathing world as a thing apart from what you are calling the fiction.   Now you've defined the term "the fiction" so you are right by your definition.  To me the campaign setting is an entity apart from just what happens during the session.
> 
> Those of us who think as I do believe these non-fiction parts of the campaign setting, the living world, ultimately make the fiction better.   The GM would be the conduit for why it's better.   For the same reason an author knowing her world really really well far beyond what she reveals to the reader, is a better author.  The touches of verisimilitude come more easily from a wealth of knowledge.   At least that is my take.




So this is where I don't know if I would agree. If the fiction is just the made up stuff that happens when we play, and the living breathing world is the setting in which we play (I think?), then I don't see how they split. 

If the setting includes all the off camera stuff, then I think the answer to the question "what is the point of GM's notes?" becomes pretty clear. They are the world. The players then discover that world through play. But may objected to this idea.

Now, I have ideas that are "off-screen" when I run a more story now focused game like Blades in the Dark. Some of these things will influence the fiction (the make believe happening in play) in ways that are indirect, and so they aren't yet established as being true within the fiction. My intention may be that they are, and I may be having the world behave that way. But prior to actually revealing this thing, it could change. Maybe a better idea occurs to me, which also fits with what's happened in play. Maybe my players veer away from this thing and explore other ideas, and then by the time we come back to it, another idea has come along that makes more sense. Any number of reasons could actually come up.

If we treat our notes as inviolate.....that they are established as part of play as much as the things that come up during actual play.....then again, I think the answer to the question about GM notes becomes very clear.



Emerikol said:


> I see the Story Now crowd not even having the same objective.  They aren't trying to achieve what I am trying to achieve in my games.   The joy for them is the organic evolution of the story where even the GM is learning about the world.   They like that and that is why they like those games.  At least that is my take.




Well, what are you trying to achieve in your games? You've touched on it, but what would you say are your play priorities? Maybe top three. 

For me, when I play a story now game, it's something like this:

Have fun
Be creative with my friends
Play my character honestly, and learn about them through play

That's probably not incredibly different from when I play a more traditional game like D&D which would be something like:

Have fun
Be creative with my friends
Play my character and overcome challenges through play



Emerikol said:


> It is a well established truth that authors who know their world well before writing are more likely on average to produce a compelling and immersive world.   That point is not really all that disputable.   So in a game, of course there are differences but the ability of the GM to interact with the PCs still benefits for the same reasons with a good knowledge of the existing world.   That is the point we are making.   That solid reliable world information is a great foundation for making better judgments and providing better info to the PCs as they progress through the world.
> 
> I'm not really sure what you mean by objective as that seems like a red herring.  When I say more "real", I am saying "easier to suspend disbelief" just like you do when reading a fantasy novel.   We all know the fantasy world is not real but we still come to care about the characters and the world.  If you are going to get your PCs to care about the world, and if they do care they will be more immersed and more engaged, then that world needs to feel real to them.   You are aided in making it feel real to them by having a good foundation of prep that guides your answers.
> 
> Edit:
> I was once told by a player in one of my campaigns that my setting just felt more like a real place than any other they'd played in.   They couldn't say why.   It was just a feeling.   It's a feeling I want to foster in all my players.




I don't know if this is "well established" at all. There is some amount of similarity in what an author does and what a GM does, but there are also significant differences. 

Imagine if an author had to simply release a chapter to the audience on a weekly basis, and allow them to make changes to it, and to shape what could follow based on these changes and their ideas. Then he has to write the next chapter, and release it the next week. 

That process is incredibly different from writing and revising and editing and rewriting and so on. Also, there's nothing stopping a writer from changing the "backstory" or setting information that informs his story to suit the needs of the story. In other words, he's free to make the changes he needs to tell the story he wants to tell. 

I don't expect any author is going to say that the most important part of their book is the stuff that didn't make it in. No.....the story is about what's in the book, by its very nature, that's the important stuff. Anything else is there to serve that. 

I'd say the same for GM notes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> You still didn't answer the actual question but it doesn't matter as most of us have moved on from that line of discussion.



The question being "should we use different terms for "learning what's in the GM's conception of the fiction" for AP vs sandbox play?"  I think he did answer that -- no, they are both doing this.  The difference between would then be other terms in addition to this one.  Like, saying a cat has retractable claws in addition to four legs while a dog does not have retractable claws in addition to four legs.  Both having four legs is still a valuable statement, it's just not the sole descriptor for each.  And, I hope we've moved past the claim that "playing to find out what the GM's conception of the fiction" is meant to be a sole descriptor rather than one among many.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If the player tells me what his PC does, I don't have the option to decide if it's part of the shared fiction.  It IS part of the shared fiction at the moment the player told me what his PC did.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D allows the following.
> 
> 1) DM contribution to the shared fiction without any players.
> 2) DM and player collaborative contribution to the shared fiction.(You don't need the DM to agree to this.)



I don't really get what is going on in (2). If the GM doesn't have to agree, where is the collaboration?

But anyway, there have been posters on this board - eg @Saelorn - who have expressly denied what you assert in the first part of this quote. They have said that an action declaration is simply a statement of what the player _wants_ to be part of the shared fiction, but that it doesn't become part of the shared fiction until the GM approves it.



prabe said:


> I also think it is, perhaps, continuing to conflate "setting" and "fiction." The former is a subset of the latter, and everything the players have their characters *do* changes the fiction.



The second sentence is true. But what I think tends to matter is _what is the nature and degree of such change?_ If it is confined to adding into the fiction that the PC performed a certain bodily movement, or that such a bodily movement had some local result, _but then the GM "manipulates" other offscreen elements to confine or minimise or negate any broader ramifications of these things_ the player hasn't changed the fiction very much.

There are various ways that my italicised thing in the previous paragraph can happen. One I associate with some modules/APs: the GM is instructed to do it in order to keep things "on track" - eg if the BBEG is killed early than a henchman takes over and keeps the plot going; if the PCs fail to save the world then some helpful NPC turns up and set things right; etc.

Another one I associate with sandboxing/"living world", in which the GM draws upon his/her sole-authored fiction that has not yet been revealed to the players (I also often call this _secret backstory_) to determine that the consequence of what the player successfully had his/her PC do is different from, or less significant than, the player intended. Eg the player does all the right things to learn the fate of his/her PC's long lost brother, and the GM reveals that it was a completely prosaic death in a minor plague five years earlier, with nothing more of consequence that follows.



prabe said:


> I think that to the extent the GM is playing to discover the players' conceptions of their characters, the players have say over that; seems to mean the players are deciding what is emerging.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The players can change my world--and have done so. Granted, in play that's been entirely through character action/s, but there've been changes based around backstories as well.



The next questions I would want to ask is _who decided what the changes were?_ and _what sorts of topics did the changes pertain to?_

In most games that aren't using the AP-type techniques I mentioned above, the PCs can (say) set fire to a forest or kill a bandit leader. But who decides what happens - eg does killing the bandit leader cause the bandits to be cowed and flee? Or to fight back in revenge? Or to seek service with the victorious PC? In some RPGing, these sorts of things might be the stakes of actions declared by players for their PCs and so the GM would not be the one to unilaterally decided what the change is. In other RPGing the player can have his/her PC kill the bandit leader, but deciding what results from that is entirely up to the GM. In both cases it is true to say that _the player changed the world_ but in the second case the causal influence was indirect - a prompt to the GM to do some authoring of the change in question.

As to topics: can the players make changes such as _establishing that a 1,000 year old dungeon exists_? Or can they only make changes that involve the future of the imagined world?

Note that both the above ways in which RPGs can differ are completely consistent with _in play that's entirely through character actions_. Burning Wheel depends entirely on character actions, and allows for players to decide not just that change will occur but what it will be (via the role of intent as well as task in resolving character actions) and permits players to make changes on topics like the presence of ancient dungeons (because of the way it resolves actions like _I search in these hills for an ancient dungeon_).

But to get the scope of player-change-of-setting found in BW, the role of the players has to go beyond _presenting a conception of their characters_. We have to look at how action declaration is understood and resolved.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand. I understand you are using definition a(imagined stuff) and I am expressing concern about equivocation to definition b(story) or even c (novel), my point is this equivocation is very likely arise because fiction and story are nearly synonyms the way fiction is used in speech (and it is nearly a synonym for literature as well).




But do you see how you're the only one who's actually done that? And that the conversation has become about that rather than anything else? 

Now, I won't assume that was your intention....but that's what has happened. You have made the thing you were scared of happen! Like in classic works of fiction make believe!


----------



## Ovinomancer

hawkeyefan said:


> But do you see how you're the only one who's actually done that? And that the conversation has become about that rather than anything else?
> 
> Now, I won't assume that was your intention....but that's what has happened. You have made the thing you were scared of happen! Like in classic works of fiction make believe!



Oh, gods, am I causing the procreation of living planets through equivocation because I'm scared of it?!?!1eleven!!?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't really get what is going on in (2). If the GM doesn't have to agree, where is the collaboration?



You aren't understanding.  You don't need the DM to agree, because he can't do anything else but include it.  The social contract forbids the DM from gatekeeping the player contributions until such time as he agrees with it.  You don't need his agreement.


pemerton said:


> But anyway, there have been posters on this board - eg @Saelorn - who have expressly denied what you assert in the first part of this quote. They have said that an action declaration is simply a statement of what the player _wants_ to be part of the shared fiction, but that it doesn't become part of the shared fiction until the GM approves it.



I can't see what @Saelorn says, but this wouldn't be the first time I disagree with his extreme positions.  I think he's coming from the position that the DM has the power to say now, but having the power and using it are two different things.  The police here in America have the power to search your home without a warrant or probable cause.  If they arrived to do so, nobody could stop them.  They have that power.  Similarly, the DM has the power to say no to a player declaration.  The player can't stop them.  Engaging those powers, though, would be a violation of the Constitution(police)/Social Contact(DM).


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I think a game with little prep is not going to go very well.



Then you'd be wrong. I've run many games with little prep and some with no prep.

Here are links to games I ran with no prep. The first two were Cthulhu Dark. The third was Wuthering Heights. All went very well: the PCs were created, starting situations were envisaged, events unfolded as imagined by the participants and guided by the action resolution processes; and in each case a satisfying resolution was reached which no one had any anticipation of when we started.



Emerikol said:


> I think this is a key insight about player skill.  I would say player agency maybe on top of that.  For example, in some games getting the group "in trouble" is built into the game and pretty hard to avoid.  The dice will lead their eventually.   Whereas, in theory at least, with careful planning and strategy, the group might accomplish their mission without getting into serious trouble.   Then they have that "I love it when a plan comes together" feeling.  A feeling of having overcome real obstacles.



_Player agency_ is eminently possible in games that don't involve _skilled play_ in the way you describe it. The skilled play that you describe is that of overcoming a problem or a puzzle. For instance, in my Classic Traveller game the players (via their PCs) confronted a problem: how do we get through 4 km of ice? The answer was fairly straightforward (and deliberately so on my part as GM, as I tend to downplay the role of that sort of problem-solving in my RPGing): _use our starship's triple beam laser to blast it away!_

But player agency can manifest in many other ways besides coming up with solutions to problems. _Changing the fiction_ is the most generic form that player agency takes in RPGing, and not all _changes to the fiction_ are _solutions to problems_. When my Burning Wheel characters encountered Evard's Tower that was a manifestation of player agency (given that I was the one to come up with the idea that the tower was in the general area and hence apt to be found) but it wasn't a solution to a problem. It was the cause of some though!


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> What puzzles me a bit is that no one thinks that reading a book or listening to an audiobook or podcast is boring or stupid. Lots of people do that.
> 
> Lots of people also read Choose Your Own Adventure books or play Fighting Fantasy books; or engage with their equivalents in computer game form.
> 
> I'm not sure why it's pejorative to point out that, in doing this, the reader/player learns what the author was imagining. That's kind of the point!




Can I ask why this is so important to you?

EDIT: I mean it's a playstyle you don't particularly enjoy or advocate for so why is it so important that you get to name it?

EDIT 2: At this point it's starting to feel like a power or control thing vs. a seeking analyzation and understanding thing


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> No.  You don't get to force the definition of Living World into 7 words or less.  Not everything can or should be forced into such a small definition.  We have defined it for you.  You can accept it or not as you choose, but if you don't accept it, then there we go.




I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. My point was that concern over the term "fiction" versus the term "living world" seems silly because when asked what I mean by fiction, I can very clearly say "make believe" or "definition 2 from the dictionary" and then we should be able to move on with that understanding. 

By contrast, the term "living world" is open to all manner of interpretations and based on descriptions that have been offered, it's not always easy to define. As such, the term is much more prone to equivocation of the kind BRG has described. 

Although, I'd also add that it's even more prone to another definition of equivocation, which is to use vague language in an attempt to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> It is a well established truth that authors who know their world well before writing are more likely on average to produce a compelling and immersive world.



Is it? The Phoenix on the Sword is pretty compelling as far as fantasy stories go. And yet REH was pretty much making it up as he went along.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Upthread you posted the definition of equivocation.  You can use different meanings of a word in the same discussion without equivocation.  It's when you use multiple meanings within a single argument that you start equivocating.
> 
> An example would be if you said something like, "I'm talking about fiction as a story, not fiction as imagined stuff." and I responded with, "Fiction means imagined stuff and fiction means story, therefore fictional imagined stuff is the same as fictional story."  My response there would be equivocation.  Another way would be, " I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show."  There multiple uses are also being used within a single argument.




Absolutely. I am not disagreeing there. Terms can be consistently applied. But I have objected to the term The Fiction anytime someone has asked me to sign off on a description of what I do and invoked the term because it is so equivocable. The fiction has strong connotations d of story and literature. Not vague, not mild: strong. One of the first things you see if you look it up is ‘a type of literature’. Given that there is so much dispute around the role of story in RPGs, why use a term that suggests story and novels when describing what happens in play? It just seems like a bad word to select if your aim is neutral clear terms to analyze play (one that squeezes in sone of these meanings just in its use, even when big isn’t intended, and one very prone to equivocation). I can elaborate more later when I have time, but you will see that I frequently object to using this term myself on these grounds. I don’t think it is exactly reaching on my part to see potential problems there


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> Can I ask why this is so important to you?
> 
> EDIT: I mean it's a playstyle you don't particularly enjoy or advocate for so why is it so important that you get to name it?



And do so incorrectly. As I showed in my response to @Ovinomancer yesterday, even something critical to play can have nothing to do with why you play the game.  See my response below, which I know you say, but am repeating for the sake of others here.

"It's the "play for" that's the problem. I don't play to find out what's in the DM's notes. Like at all. Zero. DM's notes are an important part of the game, but they are not any thing that I play for. I drive a hybrid car. Gas is a very important part of my driving experience. No gas. No go. I don't drive for gas. I don't drive to find gas. I drive for other reasons."


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. My point was that concern over the term "fiction" versus the term "living world" seems silly because when asked what I mean by fiction, I can very clearly say "make believe" or "definition 2 from the dictionary" and then we should be able to move on with that understanding.
> 
> By contrast, the term "living world" is open to all manner of interpretations and based on descriptions that have been offered, it's not always easy to define. As such, the term is much more prone to equivocation of the kind BRG has described.
> 
> Although, I'd also add that it's even more prone to another definition of equivocation, which is to use vague language in an attempt to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.



I think that the issues with "living world" are due to people having slightly different ideas of what it entails.  At its core, though, the primary thing that makes a word living or not is that some NPC activities, events, etc., happen offscreen and the PCs learn about those things after the fact.  The world goes on outside of the view of the PCs.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> "It's the "play for" that's the problem. I don't play to find out what's in the DM's notes.



I don't understand why you think a reply to @Emerikol is relevant to how you play. Are you the same poster? Or playing in the same game?


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> But do you see how you're the only one who's actually done that? And that the conversation has become about that rather than anything else?
> 
> Now, I won't assume that was your intention....but that's what has happened. You have made the thing you were scared of happen! Like in classic works of fiction make believe!



Hawkeye, I am just responding to posts that were reactions to something I said about the term the fiction in passing (which lead to me defending a position about the fiction and equivocation, which I do think is a problem beyond this thread). But I have other objections to the term. I am not enjoying debating the equivocation of fiction either. But if people keep taking me to task, I am going to keep responding. This is natural: people go into back up behavior mode when they are on the defensive. I am happy to let the topic drop if others are


----------



## Imaro

Here's a crack at a definition for "Living World"

A "Living World Game" is a game in which the GM creates or changes the setting both independently of and in response to player influence.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Can I ask why this is so important to you?



I can answer for me:  examining how people play games helps me better find ways I like to play.  Talking frankly and critically about tools and approaches helps me get the best out of those tools and approaches.


Imaro said:


> EDIT: I mean it's a playstyle you don't particularly enjoy or advocate for so why is it so important that you get to name it?



I enjoy it, I'm running it right now -- full blown railroad AP where play is absolutely about finding out what's in the notes.  I've also, in the last few years, run a pretty detailed sandbox hexcrawl 5e game, which was about finding out what's in the notes, just with a different emphasis.  If enjoyment and advocation are the benchmarks, I pass, and I don't mind @pemeton's nomenclature at all.


Imaro said:


> EDIT 2: At this point it's starting to feel like a power or control thing vs. a seeking analyzation and understanding thing



Well, for me it absolutely isn't, but then I don't feel threatened or insulted by a frank expression of what's happening at the table.  I don't think it's a bad thing at all to find out what's in my notes -- it's just an unromantic description.  Totes fine with it, and, as we've established, I both enjoy and advocate for this kind of gaming.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Here's a crack at a definition for "Living World"
> 
> A "Living World Game" is a game in which the GM creates or changes the setting both independently of and in response to player influence.



I like the addition of "independently of," as I think that's a good point.  However, this description still easily defines a railroad AP, which I do not think is the intent of the use of the term.  Happy to be corrected, though.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I like the addition of "independently of," as I think that's a good point.  However, this description still easily defines a railroad AP, which I do not think is the intent of the use of the term.  Happy to be corrected, though.



In a railroad AP the setting doesn't change, it's already been decided and mapped out.  Players actions can't change it because they are along for the ride and the DM if running an actual railroad won't ever change it either.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> In a railroad AP the setting doesn't change, it's already been decided and mapped out.



I disagree -- there are things the GM is set to determine in the setting.  I have proof of this in Descent into Avernus. And, I'm to do this independent of the PCs in some cases, and dependent on them in others (well, dependent in the sense of quantum ogres).


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I can answer for me:  examining how people play games helps me better find ways I like to play.  Talking frankly and critically about tools and approaches helps me get the best out of those tools and approaches.




And that's why using a specific term is important to you??



Ovinomancer said:


> I enjoy it, I'm running it right now -- full blown railroad AP where play is absolutely about finding out what's in the notes.  I've also, in the last few years, run a pretty detailed sandbox hexcrawl 5e game, which was about finding out what's in the notes, just with a different emphasis.  If enjoyment and advocation are the benchmarks, I pass, and I don't mind @pemeton's nomenclature at all.




I didn't assume you didn't enjoy it... the question wasn't directed at you.  It's funny you're talking about AP railroads and that's decidedly not what those pushing back against the nomenclature are talking about or advocating for.  Perhaps that's why you take to the nomenclature so easily.



Ovinomancer said:


> Well, for me it absolutely isn't, but then I don't feel threatened or insulted by a frank expression of what's happening at the table.  I don't think it's a bad thing at all to find out what's in my notes -- it's just an unromantic description.  Totes fine with it, and, as we've established, I both enjoy and advocate for this kind of gaming.




Lol... I can dislike something and not feel threatened by it but good jab thrown there.  You believe it's an unromantic description.  I believe it's an incorrect description.  I've yet to see anything that convinces me your belief is more correct than my own. And no we haven't established that, we've established you conflate the games we are talking about with AP railroads and you enjoy said AP railroads.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree -- there are things the GM is set to determine in the setting.  I have proof of this in Descent into Avernus. And, I'm to do this independent of the PCs in some cases, and dependent on them in others (well, dependent in the sense of quantum ogres).




Would you like to provide an example?  Because if you're ad-hoc'ing and going off book then it's not really an AP railroad anymore is it?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I think that the issues with "living world" are due to people having slightly different ideas of what it entails.  At its core, though, the primary thing that makes a word living or not is that some NPC activities, events, etc., happen offscreen and the PCs learn about those things after the fact.  The world goes on outside of the view of the PCs.




Sure, that's one definition that's been put forth, and I get it. I expect that's very much @Bedrockgames take on it, or very close to something like that. 

But how is that achieved? 

For instance, one GM may actively track what's happening with a given NPC during the time in between interactions that NPC has with the PCs. So let's say 10 sessions go by where the PCs don't interact with him. What has he been up to? 

It may vary by game and by GM, but here are some possible answers:


GM examines what happens in play and with other NPCs or Factions each week, and then decides how that has impacted the NPC in quesiton- he does this each week for each NPC or Faction "in play"
GM waits until the PCs interact with the NPC again, and then looks at what has happened over the past 10 sessions, and decides how that has impacted the NPC in question- so he's not tracking it weekly, just at the time it becomes relevant
GM establishes a goal for the NPC, or perhaps some other kind of event (maybe the NPC is being hunted by another faction, and may get caught) and decides on a weekly basis how this goal/event plays out and how much closer it is to happening
GM established a goal/event for the NPC and then when the PCs interact with him again, decides what the previous 10 sessions have meant for that NPC, and establishes it accordingly
GM makes weekly rolls to determine the progress of the goal/event as above and does this each week for each NPC/Faction "in play"
GM waits until the NPC comes back on screen and then makes a roll to determine what has happened over the past 10 sessions and where that has left the NPC

These methods are all different, but their goal is the same- to present some sense that things have happened when the PCs have not been directly involved. There are other methods as well, I'm sure, but I think that's enough to make my point.

Most of the games I've played/GMed use maybe 2 of these methods, or suggest 2 or 3 as options. They all seek the same thing, but are different methods. Deciding which to use is likely just a matter of personal preference or what makes the most sense for the system being used, or perhaps the participants involved in the game.

This is why I think the use of "living world" as a style of game rather than a goal is kind of useless except by those who have accepted is as shorthand for something more specific. Because it applies to a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World as readily as it does to D&D or more traditional sandbox games. And I expect that is not its intended use.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't understand why you think a reply to @Emerikol is relevant to how you play. Are you the same poster? Or playing in the same game?



He's making a general statement about the style.  Those of us who play the style disagree with his incorrect assessment of what it is that we do.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> And that's why using a specific term is important to you??



No, using a suitable descriptive term is, though.  What's the alterative proposed to describe the play where players use action declarations or just straight out ask the GM questions to learn what the GM thinks about the fiction?  This is an important chunk of play in many styles -- vital, even -- and if you have a preferred term for it, I'd enjoy hearing it.


Imaro said:


> I didn't assume you didn't enjoy it... the question wasn't directed at you.  It's funny you're talking about AP railroads and that's decidedly not what those pushing back against the nomenclature are talking about or advocating for.  Perhaps that's why you take to the nomenclature so easily.



Yes, I know it wasn't directed at me, but if it were it fails because I do enjoy this kind of gaming.  And, if a question fails depending on who it's addressed to, then it's not about the issue asked, but about who's asked.

I also talked about sandbox hexcrawls.  I feel the term applies well to both.  You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that don't support your claims and declare victory.


Imaro said:


> Lol... I can dislike something and not feel threatened by it but good jab thrown there.  You believe it's an unromantic description.  I believe it's an incorrect description.  I've yet to see anything that convinces me your belief is more correct than my own. And no we haven't established that, we've established you conflate the games we are talking about with AP railroads and you enjoy said AP railroads.



What is incorrect about it?  Does the GM not have notes, or a picture of the fictional setting and events in their head?  Do they not express these to the players, usually in response to questions or action the PCs take, with what's revealed dependent on the specific question or action?

I mean, that seems to describe an awful lot of things pretty clearly.  And it's differentiated from games where the players aren't finding out what the GM thinks the fictional setting or events are because the GM doesn't have one, yet.  These observations aren't demeaning to play, they describe it, or at least a part of it because there's so much more to explore.  Is the current phrasing unromantic?  Is it a bit blunt?  Yes, it is.  It reminds me of one of my favorite poems, by T. S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," which opens with:

Let us go then, you and I, 
When the evening is spread against the sky
Like a patient etherized on a table;

Blunt, but quite evocative.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> The second sentence is true. But what I think tends to matter is _what is the nature and degree of such change?_ If it is confined to adding into the fiction that the PC performed a certain bodily movement, or that such a bodily movement had some local result, _but then the GM "manipulates" other offscreen elements to confine or minimise or negate any broader ramifications of these things_ the player hasn't changed the fiction very much.



Not merely bodily movements, no. The PCs killed Turnik Steeltear, ending his (and the Masked Ones') reign of terror over the village of Callallah. Mo talked the city council of Pelsoreen into altering the city's laws on debt-slavery more than they'd originally intended to. There will be no more Masked Ones created; there are explicitly a few squads of them out in the world, but they're limited in number and lifespan. I will (though I haven't yet) re-write the player-facing document for Pelsoreen to reflect the change in debt-slavery.


pemerton said:


> There are various ways that my italicised thing in the previous paragraph can happen. One I associate with some modules/APs: the GM is instructed to do it in order to keep things "on track" - eg if the BBEG is killed early than a henchman takes over and keeps the plot going; if the PCs fail to save the world then some helpful NPC turns up and set things right; etc.



My dislike of AP-style play is, I think, well-documented by this point.


pemerton said:


> Another one I associate with sandboxing/"living world", in which the GM draws upon his/her sole-authored fiction that has not yet been revealed to the players (I also often call this _secret backstory_) to determine that the consequence of what the player successfully had his/her PC do is different from, or less significant than, the player intended. Eg the player does all the right things to learn the fate of his/her PC's long lost brother, and the GM reveals that it was a completely prosaic death in a minor plague five years earlier, with nothing more of consequence that follows.



I don't fridge characters (or other important things) the players create in their backstories (see below) without talking to the players, first. There's been a discussion of whether killing the PC's brother (in your example) is an uncool move by the GM; I'm not a big fan, but I think established expectations at the table matter the most for determining cool/uncool, here.


pemerton said:


> The next questions I would want to ask is _who decided what the changes were?_ and _what sorts of topics did the changes pertain to?_



So, in the examples I gave above, the PC/s pretty much decided what they wanted to happen, and made it happen. Turnik Steeltear and the Masked Ones were connected to a character's backstory; Mo decided the changes the Pelsoreen City Council were implementing weren't enough, and made a concerted effort to end the city's practice of debt-slavery by force of persuasion.


pemerton said:


> As to topics: can the players make changes such as _establishing that a 1,000 year old dungeon exists_? Or can they only make changes that involve the future of the imagined world?



In the other campaign I'm running, a player established that there was a monastery/dojo in New Arvai called the Chiaroscuro Temple (I helped some with the name and the concept, as part of negotiating it into the world I'm running) as part of her backstory, and established that there had been an incursion from the Hells there. The history of the Temple goes way back, and the Hellish incursion plays well with the basic character of New Arvai. Another player, in his character's backstory, established a small town in a mountain pass. That town has been there for centuries.

So: In play, the players in my campaigns can change the future of the world but probably not the past; in chargen, the players can change the past of the world, but probably not directly the future.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Would you like to provide an example?  Because if you're ad-hoc'ing and going off book then it's not really an AP railroad anymore is it?



Yes, of course it is.  The Railroad part just means that things must go through specific stations and will always arrive at the end of the train.  This, however, doesn't mean at all the setting details or event details are locked in and cannot be changed -- in many cases they have to be so that the next station is reached appropriately.

But, this specific example aside, what better definition of "changes the setting... independently of... player influence" is there than coming up with it before the players even make characters?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> No, using a suitable descriptive term is, though.  What's the alterative proposed to describe the play where players use action declarations or just straight out ask the GM questions to learn what the GM thinks about the fiction?  This is an important chunk of play in many styles -- vital, even -- and if you have a preferred term for it, I'd enjoy hearing it.




But this doesn't describe the playstyle that I and others in the thread are speaking to.



Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, I know it wasn't directed at me, but if it were it fails because I do enjoy this kind of gaming.  And, if a question fails depending on who it's addressed to, then it's not about the issue asked, but about who's asked.




It was about that person's subjective thoughts on the issue... Not yours.  But ok you score a point... I guess.  




Ovinomancer said:


> What is incorrect about it?  Does the GM not have notes, or a picture of the fictional setting and events in their head?  Do they not express these to the players, usually in response to questions or action the PCs take, with what's revealed dependent on the specific question or action?




Numerous posters have stated their objections and why to the nomenclature.  Me stating them over again isn't going to suddenly impart clarity or acceptance on your part.  Again seems like a time for me to disengage with you about said subject.


----------



## prabe

Imaro said:


> Here's a crack at a definition for "Living World"
> 
> A "Living World Game" is a game in which the GM creates or changes the setting both independently of and in response to player influence.



So, that comes reasonably close to what I've done, and I do not consider myself to be running a "living world." Also, I fail to see much difference as far as the player's experience between a GM-created world and a published one (other than availability of world-lore).


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> But, this specific example aside, what better definition of "changes the setting... independently of... player influence" is there than coming up with it before the players even make characters?




Random rolls... I use Vornheim to build out parts of the ruined city of Morthengaust in my game and it's done on the fly, not before the players make characters.  There are numerous tools like this for sandbox play... are these considered DM notes as well?


----------



## Imaro

prabe said:


> So, that comes reasonably close to what I've done, and I do not consider myself to be running a "living world." Also, I fail to see much difference as far as the player's experience between a GM-created world and a published one (other than availability of world-lore).




Strictly speaking I'm not sure there needs to be a difference, especially if the GM/DM is keeping the published world malleable and using it for his own ends.  Perhaps I'm missing the crux of your statement, if so could you clarify.  Also... what style of game do you consider yourself to be running?


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Not merely bodily movements, no. The PCs killed Turnik Steeltear, ending his (and the Masked Ones') reign of terror over the village of Callallah. Mo talked the city council of Pelsoreen into altering the city's laws on debt-slavery more than they'd originally intended to. There will be no more Masked Ones created; there are explicitly a few squads of them out in the world, but they're limited in number and lifespan. I will (though I haven't yet) re-write the player-facing document for Pelsoreen to reflect the change in debt-slavery.
> 
> My dislike of AP-style play is, I think, well-documented by this point.
> 
> I don't fridge characters (or other important things) the players create in their backstories (see below) without talking to the players, first. There's been a discussion of whether killing the PC's brother (in your example) is an uncool move by the GM; I'm not a big fan, but I think established expectations at the table matter the most for determining cool/uncool, here.
> 
> So, in the examples I gave above, the PC/s pretty much decided what they wanted to happen, and made it happen. Turnik Steeltear and the Masked Ones were connected to a character's backstory; Mo decided the changes the Pelsoreen City Council were implementing weren't enough, and made a concerted effort to end the city's practice of debt-slavery by force of persuasion.
> 
> In the other campaign I'm running, a player established that there was a monastery/dojo in New Arvai called the Chiaroscuro Temple (I helped some with the name and the concept, as part of negotiating it into the world I'm running) as part of her backstory, and established that there had been an incursion from the Hells there. The history of the Temple goes way back, and the Hellish incursion plays well with the basic character of New Arvai. Another player, in his character's backstory, established a small town in a mountain pass. That town has been there for centuries.
> 
> So: In play, the players in my campaigns can change the future of the world but probably not the past; in chargen, the players can change the past of the world, but probably not directly the future.



I think, again, that the difference here is authorities -- yes, your players change things, but only can do so with your approval.  This isn't a dig, it's a very important distinction and allows for types of play that use this tool to maintain coherency in themes and vision and events.  It's exactly how I wield my authority when running games that have the GM role set up with this authority.  This is contrasted by games where the GM does not get approval authority -- players can introduce things that the GM can, at best, challenge through the mechanics and, if the player succeeds, the player can assert this over the GM's desires.  Of course, if running this kind of game, the GM should be leaving those desires at the door so this isn't a problem.

As much as you allow and even encourage the players to have input into your games (and I'm the same way), it's more of a benevolent dictator situations -- you can always say no and that's within the structure of the game and the social contract.

I think, fundamentally, this is the difference -- can the GM say 'no', where can they say 'no', and for what reasons can they say 'no.'


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Random rolls... I use Vornheim to build out parts of the ruined city of Morthengaust in my game and it's done on the fly, not before the players make characters.  There are numerous tools like this for sandbox play... are these considered DM notes as well?



I would say so.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I also talked about sandbox hexcrawls.  I feel the term applies well to both.  You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that don't support your claims and declare victory.




Meant to address this as well... are your sandbox hexcrawls and AP railroads run the same?


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I would say so.




How if neither I nor the players know what will be rolled and thus what the fiction will be?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, that's one definition that's been put forth, and I get it. I expect that's very much @Bedrockgames take on it, or very close to something like that.
> 
> But how is that achieved?
> 
> For instance, one GM may actively track what's happening with a given NPC during the time in between interactions that NPC has with the PCs. So let's say 10 sessions go by where the PCs don't interact with him. What has he been up to?
> 
> It may vary by game and by GM, but here are some possible answers:
> 
> 
> GM examines what happens in play and with other NPCs or Factions each week, and then decides how that has impacted the NPC in quesiton- he does this each week for each NPC or Faction "in play"
> GM waits until the PCs interact with the NPC again, and then looks at what has happened over the past 10 sessions, and decides how that has impacted the NPC in question- so he's not tracking it weekly, just at the time it becomes relevant
> GM establishes a goal for the NPC, or perhaps some other kind of event (maybe the NPC is being hunted by another faction, and may get caught) and decides on a weekly basis how this goal/event plays out and how much closer it is to happening
> GM established a goal/event for the NPC and then when the PCs interact with him again, decides what the previous 10 sessions have meant for that NPC, and establishes it accordingly
> GM makes weekly rolls to determine the progress of the goal/event as above and does this each week for each NPC/Faction "in play"
> GM waits until the NPC comes back on screen and then makes a roll to determine what has happened over the past 10 sessions and where that has left the NPC
> 
> These methods are all different, but their goal is the same- to present some sense that things have happened when the PCs have not been directly involved. There are other methods as well, I'm sure, but I think that's enough to make my point.
> 
> Most of the games I've played/GMed use maybe 2 of these methods, or suggest 2 or 3 as options. They all seek the same thing, but are different methods. Deciding which to use is likely just a matter of personal preference or what makes the most sense for the system being used, or perhaps the participants involved in the game.
> 
> This is why I think the use of "living world" as a style of game rather than a goal is kind of useless except by those who have accepted is as shorthand for something more specific. Because it applies to a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World as readily as it does to D&D or more traditional sandbox games. And I expect that is not its intended use.



Yes.  There are different methods by which the living world is achieved.  Some DMs may decide everything.  The DM decides that an earthquake is going to hit Amn 6 weeks after the campaign begins.  He decides that a solar eclipse will happen on the 88th day.  He decides the response of NPCs, etc.  Other DMs may make charts.  An event will happen on the 88th day and he rolls on his chart and an assassination of a ruler comes up, and then he picks or determines the ruler randomly, etc.  

Regardless of the method used, the result is the same.  A world where events and NPCs do things independent of the PCs, but which they are intended to learn about later.  I say intended to learn about, because game play sometimes prevents the information from reaching them.

I don't view a living world as a style, though.  It's something that is applied to other styles.  You can have a living breathing world that exists in a sandbox.  It can exist in a linear game.  It can exist in other styles.  It's a goal applied to various styles.  The method of reaching the goal is just what varies.  Goals quite often have different ways to reach them.  Three companies may have the goal of getting their product into the hands of 100k people in 3 months.  They can each use a different method of achieving that goal.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> But this doesn't describe the playstyle that I and others in the thread are speaking to.



Of course it doesn't -- it's not a playstyle description.  It's a description of a specific aspect of play.  And, if this doesn't describe what you're doing, then I'd love to hear what it is you are doing -- because this is exactly what I do, and what's happened in many games I've been in and run over the last 30 years.  The first game I played in I'd describe as a highly detailed sandbox, and that's a lot of what happened.  "What's over here in the swamp?"  "You've heard these rumors, but if you want to know, you have to go there."  "Okay, we go there."  "Here's what's in the swamp."  

This is, of course, a highly elided and simplified version of play, but it shows that what's being described by "play to find out the GM's conception of the fiction" is right on.  I honestly have trouble with arguments that this doesn't happen.  I think this is getting mixed up with the GM just telling the players what happens -- ie, forcing outcomes -- but it's not.  A classic dungeon delve involved exactly this and cannot work at all without it.


Imaro said:


> It was about that person's subjective thoughts on the issue... Not yours.  But ok you score a point... I guess.



Not trying to score points.  If the question is only valid for @pemerton, and only because of what you think @pemerton thinks, then it's a question about @pemerton, not about what the terms mean.  I guess it's valid if you want to question @pemerton, but that seems to be implying a lack of good faith rather than an engagement in discussion.


Imaro said:


> Numerous posters have stated their objections and why to the nomenclature.  Me stating them over again isn't going to suddenly impart clarity or acceptance on your part.  Again seems like a time for me to disengage with you about said subject.



No, they've stated objections to the phrasing.  I haven't seen someone propose a different phrasing for the play that's being described.  Well, you're denying this play exists at all, which is very odd, because I don't see what you can do otherwise and maintain the other things asserted -- like having a detailed setting.  How do the players learn about the setting details without the GM telling them?  I mean... yeah, don't get the problem here.  I can see that the directness of the phrasing may be offputting, in which case please propose something more palatable that also still clearly outlines the phenomenon.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> How if neither I nor the players know what will be rolled and thus what the fiction will be?



Where did the table come from?


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I think, again, that the difference here is authorities -- yes, your players change things, but only can do so with your approval.  This isn't a dig, it's a very important distinction and allows for types of play that use this tool to maintain coherency in themes and vision and events.  It's exactly how I wield my authority when running games that have the GM role set up with this authority.  This is contrasted by games where the GM does not get approval authority -- players can introduce things that the GM can, at best, challenge through the mechanics and, if the player succeeds, the player can assert this over the GM's desires.  Of course, if running this kind of game, the GM should be leaving those desires at the door so this isn't a problem.
> 
> As much as you allow and even encourage the players to have input into your games (and I'm the same way), it's more of a benevolent dictator situations -- you can always say no and that's within the structure of the game and the social contract.
> 
> I think, fundamentally, this is the difference -- can the GM say 'no', where can they say 'no', and for what reasons can they say 'no.'



The backstory I agree is ... at least negotiated ;-) and I don't deny that I have last word on the setting side of it (I think the players have last word on character side, if that distinction is clear).

The in-game events ... for me to nullify those--for me to have someone else (not previously established in the fiction) pick up with making Masked Ones after the PCs killed Steeltear and destroyed the Forge of Masks, or for me to decide that the Pelsoreen City Council listened to that impassioned, eloquent speech and was unmoved--I guess technically a DM could have done so, but I don't think I could have. Call that a distinction between the published rules and either the table's expectations or my expectations of myself.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Where did the table come from?




The Vornheim book.  But aren't we concerned with whether the fiction is generated by the GM or not.  Another example is in a PBtA game does this mean that when a GM is creating a consequence the players are playing to find out what's in his head/notes as well concerning the fiction?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  There are different methods by which the living world is achieved.  Some DMs may decide everything.  The DM decides that an earthquake is going to hit Amn 6 weeks after the campaign begins.  He decides that a solar eclipse will happen on the 88th day.  He decides the response of NPCs, etc.  Other DMs may make charts.  An event will happen on the 88th day and he rolls on his chart and an assassination of a ruler comes up, and then he picks or determines the ruler randomly, etc.
> 
> Regardless of the method used, the result is the same.  A world where events and NPCs do things independent of the PCs, but which they are intended to learn about later.  I say intended to learn about, because game play sometimes prevents the information from reaching them.
> 
> I don't view a living world as a style, though.  It's something that is applied to other styles.  You can have a living breathing world that exists in a sandbox.  It can exist in a linear game.  It can exist in other styles.  It's a goal applied to various styles.  The method of reaching the goal is just what varies.  Goals quite often have different ways to reach them.  Three companies may have the goal of getting their product into the hands of 100k people in 3 months.  They can each use a different method of achieving that goal.




Yes, this has been my point. The term is being used as an adjective rather than a noun. As a means rather than an end. 

For which it stinks. 

Unless it has become an agreed upon shorthand by those to whom you're speaking. Which seems to be the way BRG intends....but if I'm not one of those folks, then the term is vague and meaningless, and much harder to pin down than "the fiction". 

But either way, I think you and I aren't really disagreeing, so I'll leave this topic at that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> The backstory I agree is ... at least negotiated ;-) and I don't deny that I have last word on the setting side of it (I think the players have last word on character side, if that distinction is clear).
> 
> The in-game events ... for me to nullify those--for me to have someone else (not previously established in the fiction) pick up with making Masked Ones after the PCs killed Steeltear and destroyed the Forge of Masks, or for me to decide that the Pelsoreen City Council listened to that impassioned, eloquent speech--I guess technically a DM could have done so, but I don't think I could have. Call that a distinction between the published rules and either the table's expectations or my expectations of myself.



Right, this is self imposed, though, and not a feature or constraint of the role.  I think this is an important distinction -- to separate out what we ourselves might do and instead look at what the power structure allows.  The game's structure (5e) clearly allows, even encourages this kind of thing.  It's your implicit social contract with your group that imposes your limitations -- you'd view it as unfair, and your group probably might, too, so you just don't do it.  This isn't codified, it exists in the great wooly mass of unspoken social dynamics.


----------



## prabe

Imaro said:


> Strictly speaking I'm not sure there needs to be a difference, especially if the GM/DM is keeping the published world malleable and using it for his own ends.  Perhaps I'm missing the crux of your statement, if so could you clarify.  Also... what style of game do you consider yourself to be running?



My point about using published settings was mostly that I think that the definition I was responding to will capture a lot of GMs who are using published material, even if they're not setting out to run a "living world."

As to my own style? I was OK with "dynamic setting." I wrote up the setting myself. I allow (as mentioned elsewhere) the players to add things to the setting in backstories. I allow the players to have their characters change the setting in play. I do occasionally keep track of things offscreen, and I do change/edit/invent the world both in response to the the PCs and independently. But, my experience with sandbox-style games has been very much of the "go and find the fun" variety, which ... I didn't find the fun in, so I pretty explicitly don't call what I do a sandbox or set out to run it as one. The PCs have at least one goal--frequently more than one--and they choose that goal and they choose how to accomplish it. I frame events and conflicts and opposition, but there is no overarching story.

I haven't really tried to come up with a pithy description of it. I typically just call it "DMing." ;-)


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, this is self imposed, though, and not a feature or constraint of the role.  I think this is an important distinction -- to separate out what we ourselves might do and instead look at what the power structure allows.  The game's structure (5e) clearly allows, even encourages this kind of thing.  It's your implicit social contract with your group that imposes your limitations -- you'd view it as unfair, and your group probably might, too, so you just don't do it.  This isn't codified, it exists in the great wooly mass of unspoken social dynamics.



I agree that I am a greater constraint on my authority than the 5E rules are, and I understand that when analyzing a game one needs to look at the written rules and little else. While I agree, though, that the rules *allow* a DM to nullify character actions, I'm not sure they *encourage* it--other than, perhaps, in AP-style play, where one must from time to time negate character actions to keep the story on the rails. Outside of AP-style play, I can't imagine a table would have stood for my negating either of the two examples I gave upthread.


----------



## Imaro

prabe said:


> My point about using published settings was mostly that I think that the definition I was responding to will capture a lot of GMs who are using published material, even if they're not setting out to run a "living world."
> 
> As to my own style? I was OK with "dynamic setting". I wrote up the setting myself. I allow (as mentioned elsewhere) the players to add things to the setting in backstories. I allow the players to have their characters change the setting in play. I do occasionally keep track of things offscreen, and I do change/edit/invent the world both in response to the the PCs and independently. But, my experience with sandbox-style games has been very much of the "go and find the fun" variety, which ... I didn't find the fun in, so I pretty explicitly don't call what I do a sandbox or set out to run it as one. The PCs have at least one goal--frequently more than one--and they choose that goal and they choose how to accomplish it. I frame events and conflicts and opposition, but there is no overarching story.
> 
> I haven't really tried to come up with a pithy description of it. I typically just call it "DMing." ;-)




Honestly your style of play sounds similar to mine.  The main differences probably being that I ask my players to have goals and make sure to tie them into the setting which helps alleviate some of the problem of the "finding their fun" style since they  already know what their fun is and just need to go find it.  Also recently I've started using more randomizing tools (mainly from OSR games and supplements) to generate fiction in the moment (and sometimes, though rarely, in the past) along with creating some of it on my own.  I also have factions with goals motivations, etc that I purposefully plan to create conflict, strife and drama but that's as close to an overarching plot as I tend to have.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> I haven't really tried to come up with a pithy description of it. I typically just call it "DMing." ;-)



Psh!  If you aren't Turbo Boutique DMing, you aren't DMing.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> The Vornheim book.  But aren't we concerned with whether the fiction is generated by the GM or not.  Another example is in a PBtA game does this mean that when a GM is creating a consequence the players are playing to find out what's in his head/notes as well concerning the fiction?



I don't understand the question.  Of course when the GM is narrating a consequence they're telling the players what their concept of the fiction is.  They are granted the authority to do so in this regard, but only in this regard.  Well, they also have authority to do so when framing a scene.  Both, though, are much more tightly constrained in that you can only narrate within the scope of the stakes and/or actions of the PCs.  

Let's imagine that the PC needs to cross a square patrolled by guards.  In Blades (switching from PbtA because I'm more comfortable with Blades), this scene is framed by the GM -- the GM has the authority to imagine and tell the player about this challenge.  However, this challenge is in direct response to a player stated goal -- it didn't exist until it was needed/thought of by the GM to provide an obstacle in response to a player stated need.  So, the GM here is absolutely telling the player what they think, but they couldn't think of it before this moment, or could only have thought of it loosely as a possible aid if such a situation arose as it would be useful.  The patrolled square isn't part of notes, or prior conjecture, but it is imagined and related by the GM.  The player then declares how they want this to work.  They can sneak across, and stakes will be set and a check made.  If a success, they sneak across and this is what happens.  If a failure, the GM, once again, gets to imagine something and tell the player about it (although, in Blades, the player has ways to defuse this).  However, once again, this failure must follow from what the player actually declared, and stick within the scope of the scene as established.  If the player decides to draw steel and slash their way across, that's also fine, and stakes are set, and now the consequence won't be being spotted, but attendant to the PC action.  Maybe they talk their way across -- same proceedure.  There's nothing outside of the initial framing to prevent or modify these actions -- nothing hidden to be discovered, and nothing about how the GM thinks the guards will react that impacts the success/failure of these approaches.  The GM has to wait until a failure state occurs to tell the player how they, the GM, thinks about the fiction.

Contrasted with a more traditional style, where the guards all have combats statistics ahead of time, the number and placement of guards is established, potentially hidden information exists which can be discovered by the player.  Here, if the player wants to sneak across, the GM will look at their notes on the situation, or how they imagine the scene to be, and then decide if this is possible or not based on their concept of the fiction.  Same for fighting across, which now depends on the combat stats and positions of the guards.  Or talking, which depends on if the GM thinks the guards can be chatted up or bribed.  Any of these details might be able to be revealed to players by them asking questions, like "I observe the square from the shadows and see if the guards leave any gaps in their patrol routes," which prompts the GM to provide their answer to this question.   Or investigate guards to see if they're bribable, which prompts the GM to tell the players what they think about this.

This is what I'm talking about, and what "playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction" means.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't understand the question.  Of course when the GM is narrating a consequence they're telling the players what their concept of the fiction is.  They are granted the authority to do so in this regard, but only in this regard.  Well, they also have authority to do so when framing a scene.  Both, though, are much more tightly constrained in that you can only narrate within the scope of the stakes and/or actions of the PCs.
> 
> Let's imagine that the PC needs to cross a square patrolled by guards.  In Blades (switching from PbtA because I'm more comfortable with Blades), this scene is framed by the GM -- the GM has the authority to imagine and tell the player about this challenge.  However, this challenge is in direct response to a player stated goal -- it didn't exist until it was needed/thought of by the GM to provide an obstacle in response to a player stated need.  So, the GM here is absolutely telling the player what they think, but they couldn't think of it before this moment, or could only have thought of it loosely as a possible aid if such a situation arose as it would be useful.  The patrolled square isn't part of notes, or prior conjecture, but it is imagined and related by the GM.  The player then declares how they want this to work.  They can sneak across, and stakes will be set and a check made.  If a success, they sneak across and this is what happens.  If a failure, the GM, once again, gets to imagine something and tell the player about it (although, in Blades, the player has ways to defuse this).  However, once again, this failure must follow from what the player actually declared, and stick within the scope of the scene as established.  If the player decides to draw steel and slash their way across, that's also fine, and stakes are set, and now the consequence won't be being spotted, but attendant to the PC action.  Maybe they talk their way across -- same proceedure.  There's nothing outside of the initial framing to prevent or modify these actions -- nothing hidden to be discovered, and nothing about how the GM thinks the guards will react that impacts the success/failure of these approaches.  The GM has to wait until a failure state occurs to tell the player how they, the GM, thinks about the fiction.
> 
> Contrasted with a more traditional style, where the guards all have combats statistics ahead of time, the number and placement of guards is established, potentially hidden information exists which can be discovered by the player.  Here, if the player wants to sneak across, the GM will look at their notes on the situation, or how they imagine the scene to be, and then decide if this is possible or not based on their concept of the fiction.  Same for fighting across, which now depends on the combat stats and positions of the guards.  Or talking, which depends on if the GM thinks the guards can be chatted up or bribed.  Any of these details might be able to be revealed to players by them asking questions, like "I observe the square from the shadows and see if the guards leave any gaps in their patrol routes," which prompts the GM to provide their answer to this question.   Or investigate guards to see if they're bribable, which prompts the GM to tell the players what they think about this.
> 
> This is what I'm talking about, and what "playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction" means.




I guess IMO both are playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction... Is one constrained and made up in the moment, sure I'll give you that but ultimately it is the GM who is creating the lions share of the  fiction in both instances... right? Contrast this with something like Polaris... where there is no traditional DM and the players have specific roles to generate fiction in the moment as one player takes on the protagonists role.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I guess IMO both are playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction... Is one constrained and made up in the moment, sure I'll give you that but ultimately it is the GM who is creating the lions share of the  fiction in both instances... right?



I think you've missed quite a lot.  In one, the GM imagines the whole thing and the player navigates it.  In the other, the GM imagines specific and limited things in direct response and constrained by player prompting, and at least half the time the player gets to say what happens and the GM cannot modify that.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I think you've missed quite a lot.  In one, the GM imagines the whole thing and the player navigates it.  In the other, the GM imagines specific and limited things in direct response and constrained by player prompting, and at least half the time the player gets to say what happens and the GM cannot modify that.




But the game itself is hyper-focused... that means all of the fiction is constrained by player prompting... but the majority of the fiction is still ultimately created by the GM.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Aldarc. The issue with Fiction and the term story, is both of them are particularly problematic when it comes to RPG discussions. And this is going to be doubly the case when many of the posters invoking The Fiction as their preferred term, both come from a GNS background and have a preference for story now approaches.



Ah, yes. I see. The qualifications of the people arguing for "the fiction" is all wrong. They come from the badwrongthink of GNS. Is that right? We all know that @Ovinomancer and @Fenris-77 are both big fans of GNS. 



Bedrockgames said:


> In terms of ambiguity, if a term has two or potential meanings, then its ambiguous. Fiction even in its first definition includes both the idea of imagined stuff and a story. That it is used pretty interchangeably in regular speech to mean novel, I think also demonstrates the issue here. And then I would add the fact that it tends to get used in a way in this discussion where the fiction applies not just to what happens, but to the setting the stuff is happening in (which I would say is very much a literary mindset, and bringing in some of that literary meaning, even if it isn't proper equivocation)



@Bedrockgames, in my prior post, I have explained to you how several of the assertions you repeat here display some fundamental misunderstandings of terms, particularly in regards to 'ambiguity,' and we aren't going to get anywhere if you just repeat them for your arguments here. If you're just going to repeat those assertions again without taking time to correct your argument, then I'm going to assume that you haven't bothered reading those explanations. Any argument that relies on falling back on those sort of misunderstandings of the terms is frankly a crap one. 

You are talking about what is referred to as "lexical ambiguity"* or polysemy but then you (likely unintentionally) equivocate on different meanings of "ambiguity." Let's go through the equivocation process. To paraphrase: 

(1) "Ambiguity exists when a word has multiple meanings." 
-- This refers to "lexical ambiguity." There are generally two different types: polysemy or homonymy. 
(2) "The word 'fiction' has multiple meanings." 
-- Taking this assertion as true, we would need to understand what kind of lexical ambiguity we are dealing with for "fiction." 
-- Homonymy is when lexical ambiguity in a semantic unit derives from two words spelt the same way: e.g., bank and bank. This is obviously not the case for "fiction." 
-- "Fiction" is polysemous. Its meanings, despite the distinctions one can draw, are clearly interrelated conceptually and derive from a singular semantic unit or morphology. This constitutes polysemy. For the record, most words in English (if not most languages) have polysemy. Linguistic feature, not a bug. 
(3) "Ergo the word 'fiction' is/can be ambiguous when used in discussions (and people can/will equivocate between these meanings)." 
-- Herein is the problem because it's construing "lexical ambiguity" (multiple meanings exist for a word) as "semantic ambiguity" or "pragmatic ambiguity" (it's difficult to decipher which meaning is intended). This equivocates the senses of "ambiguity." This is to say, just because a word is technically lexically ambiguous (possesses polysemy) doesn't mean that its meaning or use is pragmatically ambiguous in an utterance, and context plays a key role here. Moreover, the problem exists in asserting that since ambiguity exists (in whatever form) that people will equivocate with the term. 

Secondly, I don't understand the problem with "fiction" applying to both what happens and the setting, because, yes, they are both aspects of the imagined fiction. I'm also not sure why or how this is a bad thing or even "sorta equivocation." I think that people such as @pemerton and @Manbearcat have been consistent in their use of "fiction." As you will see below, even Kevin Crawford uses "fiction" in reference to the setting. 

* E.g., "I saw bats." There is _lexical ambiguity_ regarding both the sense of the verb _saw_ (i.e., saw as 'vision' or saw as 'cutting') and the object _bats_ (i.e., bats as 'a type of flying animal' or bats as 'wooden club'). 



Bedrockgames said:


> Look, you can mention your background. I am not as educated as you clearly. But I know what equivocation is. *And unless you are arguing seriously that Fiction is not an equivocal terms in the way described (that one can shift from meaning 'imaginary stuff' to 'a story' or even 'a novel' quite smoothly and easily, then I think you are just drawing on advanced knowledge in a field to dismiss what is pretty hard to deny: fiction is highly equivocal; *in RPGs especially this is going to be the case (it is a short leap from fiction to story). It isn't bullying.



Let me read what you are saying here back to you: If I don't agree with your conclusion that the term 'fiction' is "highly equivocal" then I am just using my advanced knowledge to dismiss your conclusion without any merit. Now tell me, @Bedrockgames. How is that not utter presumptuous nonsense? Do you truly not get how insulting and dismissive your own words are here? 

The ability for a word to have different meanings or for people to shift between meanings does not mean that a semantic unit is "highly equivocal." It means that the word is "polysemous" or displays "polysemy." This can also mean that the word is multivalent, in the sense that it can be used in different linguistic constructions and combinations of meaning. Intentional use of polysemy occurs frequently in literature, often for purposes of subversion of expectations and humor (e.g., the character Bottom in Midsummer's Night Dream). Again, multivalency, polysemy, and lexical ambiguity are key factors in the word that is the focus of my study. It's not a "highly equivocal" word or term. It's a polysemous one that is used in a wide range of contexts and meanings. The fact that the term "fiction" includes distinct, but _clearly interrelated_, meanings as part of its semantic field does not mean that it's somehow "highly equivocal." That a word _can be_ ambiguous in a hypothetical given utterance does not mean that it is inherently or always ambiguous in every utterance. It means that some further context is generally needed by interlocutors to decipher the meaning in utterances where it's difficult to decipher which sense or meaning of a word is likely intended. 



Bedrockgames said:


> But I know enough about logic and equivocation to know your argument is a bit specious. Probably not enough to defend my position against someone with that advanced level of understanding (but enough to know and understand the dynamic going on here: because it is something I can do, if I choose to, with History, which i don't).



If my argument is a bit specious, then I welcome critique or the chance for further clarification on these terms, but simply saying that "you know enough about logic and equivocation" to claim that my argument is specious is not going to cut the mustard. It's all bark and no bite. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Now none of this is a problem if you aren't equivocating. But there have been plenty of instances of the fiction in other threads where this happens; and the term story has a long, long history of being equivocated upon in this manner all the time (I think you would have to be very disingenuous not to see that: both in terms of equivocation to argue for railroads, but also in terms of the story game versus trad debates-----in the same way that people use specious arguments about the term RPG to argue that story driven RPGs are not real RPGs). Again, if we are talking casual use, its totally fine. But you guys are claiming to have precise and meaningful jargon here to describe stuff, and you opted for a term like "the fiction" in vacuum, now that it is coming into contact with other types of gamers, there is push back against it. I believe you haven't encountered the problems i am trying to bring to your attention, but believe me when I tell you this is going to be a line that gets equivocated on and it is going to be a problem for people coming from styles like sandbox (when they see a term like that, it is both going to raise suspicions and it is going to strike them as highly inaccurate).



Honestly, I think that your issue is not so much with the term "fiction," but, rather, with the term "story." I don't think that having a problem with the term "story" means that one should be forced to read "fiction" as "story" just because it exists as one possible meaning. Yes, that means you're essentially advocating for equivocating. In fighting the monster, you have become the very monster you hate. It's insisting that because "fiction" can be read as the "bad kind of fiction" (i.e., pre-authored story) and not the good kind (i.e,. emerging story*) or even the neutral sense of "imagined, invented, unreal, etc." then the term must be avoided at all costs. Obviously, I think that's a misguided approach. 

Honestly, IMHO, as someone who doesn't really care about GNS, I find "the fiction" to be the most natural term for well... the fiction that's created as part of play, whether that applies to the play process or setting. From what I can tell reading through the Alexandrian, he does not have any hang-ups with using the term "the fiction" to describe "the fiction" of play. I can also not find any hang-ups regarding 'fiction' from Kevin Crawford, who writes in SWN and WWN, "No matter how finely-sculpted your world or inventive your fiction, if you can’t deliver a playable bit of fun at the table then your job as a GM is not done." Maybe I missing something about why "fiction" is so problematic for these pro-sandbox people who don't seem to have problems using the term. 

If you have citations of the term "fiction" being problematic for sandbox gamers and the like, then I would gladly welcome reading those resources. Until then, any pushback I receive is not so much from those "other types of gamers," but, rather, with Bedrockgames himself. And from what I can tell it's mostly because Ron Edward and those other GNS people use the term "fiction" and we all know that it's badwrongthink, so the use of "fiction" is guilty by association. 

* This seems to be a case where you have no problem with the use of "story," or at least OSR and sandbox circles do not. I raised this point earlier, but this was never addressed. 



Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, "fiction" is very loaded.  It means "stuff you made up" and also "novels."  I think this describes your play very well, though, as your above passage is clearly a fictional work that suggests a story similar to a novel.  As such, the word is very loaded because it bears a large load in describing your games.  I think that "loaded" is a good term here, because many gamers are going to see that as "bearing a large weight," and, indeed, it is doing so here for your games, as you've described them, at least in a metaphorical sense.  I am unclear, though, does your "fictional world," as it's eating your players, also bear a large weight?  This is a solid question that I think will better illuminate your approach to gaming.



Again, I don't think that this necessarily is what is meant by "loaded" terms. Loaded language does not refer to words having different meanings. It most often refers to terms that often contain emotionally-charged associations: e.g., "freedom" (good) vs. "fascism" (bad). Or even how something more positively framed like "homeland" is often used by nationalists. I don't think that "fiction" has those sort of high-inference loaded associations, even in RPG circles. Loaded terms in RPG circles are generally terms like "railroading" and "meta-gaming" on the more negative end or "living world" and "player agency" on the more positive end.


----------



## Fenris-77

Arrgh! *GNS*?! You insult me sir. I will see you in the courtyard at dawn. Do not forget to bring a second.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> But the game itself is hyper-focused... that means all of the fiction is constrained by player prompting... but the majority of the fiction is still ultimately created by the GM.



I've played it.  That's not my experience.  I was following the players around, not the other way around.  What's your experience with the games?


----------



## Bedrockgames

@Aldarc no. I am saying I believe your argument is specious because it is pretty obvious that fiction is a highly equivocal term. It is pretty common sensicsl that a term like fiction (which can mean both ‘imagined stuff’ and ‘story’ and is often first regarded as a reference to literature) could very easily be equivocated on by shifting from one of those meanings to get to another. And what is more: it’s a blurry term because it strongly suggests things like literature, novels, etc. so even if it is being used to describe ‘imagined stuff’, I would argue it’s other connotations are so strong, they carry into the conversation unnoticed. Again I don’t have your knowledge of linguistics to contend with your argument, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong and you are right (people use their expertise all the time to advance specious arguments). My point is, I don’t change my mind because one academic who is on the other side of a debate with me on a hand forum decides to make an argument using knowledge from their field (I will happily listen to neutral academics, but I think you can see why I would be wary when something seems so obvious to me)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> Ah, yes. I see. The qualifications of the people arguing for "the fiction" is all wrong. They come from the badwrongthink of GNS. Is that right? We all know that @Ovinomancer and @Fenris-77 are both big fans of GNS.
> 
> 
> @Bedrockgames, in my prior post, I have explained to you how several of the assertions you repeat here display some fundamental misunderstandings of terms, particularly in regards to 'ambiguity,' and we aren't going to get anywhere if you just repeat them for your arguments here. If you're just going to repeat those assertions again without taking time to correct your argument, then I'm going to assume that you haven't bothered reading those explanations. Any argument that relies on falling back on those sort of misunderstandings of the terms is frankly a crap one.
> 
> You are talking about what is referred to as "lexical ambiguity"* or polysemy but then you (likely unintentionally) equivocate on different meanings of "ambiguity." Let's go through the equivocation process. To paraphrase:
> 
> (1) "Ambiguity exists when a word has multiple meanings."
> -- This refers to "lexical ambiguity." There are generally two different types: polysemy or homonymy.
> (2) "The word 'fiction' has multiple meanings."
> -- Taking this assertion as true, we would need to understand what kind of lexical ambiguity we are dealing with for "fiction."
> -- Homonymy is when lexical ambiguity in a semantic unit derives from two words spelt the same way: e.g., bank and bank. This is obviously not the case for "fiction."
> -- "Fiction" is polysemous. Its meanings, despite the distinctions one can draw, are clearly interrelated conceptually and derive from a singular semantic unit or morphology. This constitutes polysemy. For the record, most words in English (if not most languages) have polysemy. Linguistic feature, not a bug.
> (3) "Ergo the word 'fiction' is/can be ambiguous when used in discussions (and people can/will equivocate between these meanings)."
> -- Herein is the problem because it's construing "lexical ambiguity" (multiple meanings exist for a word) as "semantic ambiguity" or "pragmatic ambiguity" (it's difficult to decipher which meaning is intended). This equivocates the senses of "ambiguity." This is to say, just because a word is technically lexically ambiguous (possesses polysemy) doesn't mean that its meaning or use is pragmatically ambiguous in an utterance, and context plays a key role here. Moreover, the problem exists in asserting that since ambiguity exists (in whatever form) that people will equivocate with the term.
> 
> Secondly, I don't understand the problem with "fiction" applying to both what happens and the setting, because, yes, they are both aspects of the imagined fiction. I'm also not sure why or how this is a bad thing or even "sorta equivocation." I think that people such as @pemerton and @Manbearcat have been consistent in their use of "fiction." As you will see below, even Kevin Crawford uses "fiction" in reference to the setting.
> 
> * E.g., "I saw bats." There is _lexical ambiguity_ regarding both the sense of the verb _saw_ (i.e., saw as 'vision' or saw as 'cutting') and the object _bats_ (i.e., bats as 'a type of flying animal' or bats as 'wooden club').
> 
> 
> Let me read what you are saying here back to you: If I don't agree with your conclusion that the term 'fiction' is "highly equivocal" then I am just using my advanced knowledge to dismiss your conclusion without any merit. Now tell me, @Bedrockgames. How is that not utter presumptuous nonsense? Do you truly not get how insulting and dismissive your own words are here?
> 
> The ability for a word to have different meanings or for people to shift between meanings does not mean that a semantic unit is "highly equivocal." It means that the word is "polysemous" or displays "polysemy." This can also mean that the word is multivalent, in the sense that it can be used in different linguistic constructions and combinations of meaning. Intentional use of polysemy occurs frequently in literature, often for purposes of subversion of expectations and humor (e.g., the character Bottom in Midsummer's Night Dream). Again, multivalency, polysemy, and lexical ambiguity are key factors in the word that is the focus of my study. It's not a "highly equivocal" word or term. It's a polysemous one that is used in a wide range of contexts and meanings. The fact that the term "fiction" includes distinct, but _clearly interrelated_, meanings as part of its semantic field does not mean that it's somehow "highly equivocal." That a word _can be_ ambiguous in a hypothetical given utterance does not mean that it is inherently or always ambiguous in every utterance. It means that some further context is generally needed by interlocutors to decipher the meaning in utterances where it's difficult to decipher which sense or meaning of a word is likely intended.
> 
> 
> If my argument is a bit specious, then I welcome critique or the chance for further clarification on these terms, but simply saying that "you know enough about logic and equivocation" to claim that my argument is specious is not going to cut the mustard. It's all bark and no bite.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I think that your issue is not so much with the term "fiction," but, rather, with the term "story." I don't think that having a problem with the term "story" means that one should be forced to read "fiction" as "story" just because it exists as one possible meaning. Yes, that means you're essentially advocating for equivocating. In fighting the monster, you have become the very monster you hate. It's insisting that because "fiction" can be read as the "bad kind of fiction" (i.e., pre-authored story) and not the good kind (i.e,. emerging story*) or even the neutral sense of "imagined, invented, unreal, etc." then the term must be avoided at all costs. Obviously, I think that's a misguided approach.
> 
> Honestly, IMHO, as someone who doesn't really care about GNS, I find "the fiction" to be the most natural term for well... the fiction that's created as part of play, whether that applies to the play process or setting. From what I can tell reading through the Alexandrian, he does not have any hang-ups with using the term "the fiction" to describe "the fiction" of play. I can also not find any hang-ups regarding 'fiction' from Kevin Crawford, who writes in SWN and WWN, "No matter how finely-sculpted your world or inventive your fiction, if you can’t deliver a playable bit of fun at the table then your job as a GM is not done." Maybe I missing something about why "fiction" is so problematic for these pro-sandbox people who don't seem to have problems using the term.
> 
> If you have citations of the term "fiction" being problematic for sandbox gamers and the like, then I would gladly welcome reading those resources. Until then, any pushback I receive is not so much from those "other types of gamers," but, rather, with Bedrockgames himself. And from what I can tell it's mostly because Ron Edward and those other GNS people use the term "fiction" and we all know that it's badwrongthink, so the use of "fiction" is guilty by association.
> 
> * This seems to be a case where you have no problem with the use of "story," or at least OSR and sandbox circles do not. I raised this point earlier, but this was never addressed.
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think that this necessarily is what is meant by "loaded" terms. Loaded language does not refer to words having different meanings. It most often refers to terms that often contain emotionally-charged associations: e.g., "freedom" (good) vs. "fascism" (bad). Or even how something more positively framed like "homeland" is often used by nationalists. I don't think that "fiction" has those sort of high-inference loaded associations, even in RPG circles. Loaded terms in RPG circles are generally terms like "railroading" and "meta-gaming" on the more negative end or "living world" and "player agency" on the more positive end.



I, um, don't think you read my post there with the proper intonation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don’t know what Kevin Crawford or the Alexandria think of those terms. I am going by sandbox GMs I have regular conversations with who eschew such language. Personally I do not think ‘the fiction’ is a good term to describe the stuff that happens in a campaign setting

and yes I am misusing the term lauded I think. All I mean is, the word carries these various connotations of literature, fiction and story, so once it enters into mainstream acceptance, I feel like those connotations will be a problem that emerge


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> @Aldarc no. I am saying I believe your argument is specious because it is pretty obvious that fiction is a highly equivocal term. It is pretty common sensicsl that a term like fiction (which can mean both ‘imagined stuff’ and ‘story’ and is often first regarded as a reference to literature) could very easily be equivocated on by shifting from one of those meanings to get to another. And what is more: it’s a blurry term because it strongly suggests things like literature, novels, etc. so even if it is being used to describe ‘imagined stuff’, I would argue it’s other connotations are so strong, they carry into the conversation unnoticed. Again I don’t have your knowledge of linguistics to contend with your argument, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong and you are right (people use their expertise all the time to advance specious arguments). My point is, I don’t change my mind because one academic who is on the other side of a debate with me on a hand forum decides to make an argument using knowledge from their field (I will happily listen to neutral academics, but I think you can see why I would be wary when something seems so obvious to me)



A “highly equivocal term” is not a thing at least not in how you seem to be using it. You keep repeating this as if it meant something when it doesn’t.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I've played it.  That's not my experience.  I was following the players around, not the other way around.  What's your experience with the games?




My experience was that the direction of the game was driven by the players but as GM I still created the majority of the fiction on the fly.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> My experience was that the direction of the game was driven by the players but as GM I still created the majority of the fiction on the fly.



You've played Blades in the Dark?  Interesting.  Some of your questions gave me the distinct impression you had not.  It also appears we had different experiences -- most of my game was created by the players.  Did I have input?  Yes, but at least half the time it wasn't up to me at all, it was up to the players.  This is in contrast to my 5e games, where almost all of it is up to me.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t know what Kevin Crawford or the Alexandria think of those terms. I am going by sandbox GMs I have regular conversations with who eschew such language.



Actual citations have been requested.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> You've played Blades in the Dark?  Interesting.  Some of your questions gave me the distinct impression you had not.  It also appears we had different experiences -- most of my game was created by the players.  Did I have input?  Yes, but at least half the time it wasn't up to me at all, it was up to the players.  This is in contrast to my 5e games, where almost all of it is up to me.




Are we talking the game or who created the majority of the fiction... including framing, consequences, etc.?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Are we talking the game or who created the majority of the fiction... including framing, consequences, etc.?



Presumably yes.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> A “highly equivocal term” is not a thing at least not in how you seem to be using it. You keep repeating this as if it meant something when it doesn’t.




What I mean is a term that carries lots of connotations so that it is easy to equivocate on. Both story and fiction are easily equivocated on. Take story, it can mean 'hey what's the story man'. as in 'what happened. But it can also mean a formal story, with structure, themes, etc. This regularly crops up in RPG discussions where someone takes the former meaning then shifts to the latter to assert that all RPGs are about story (I have been in countless threads where this has been the case) in order to build an argument that RPGs ought to have strong story telling tools, or that the GM ought to be trying to weave a story, etc. Fiction is a very similar kind of term, and I have seen it produce similar problems in previous discussions. It is a lot less prevalent of a term though, so I am mostly anticipating the problems it will produce if it gets more mainstream currency. Still it is very murky, I know in previous discussions with posters here it has routinely produced all kinds of difficulties for me when contrasting my style with pemerton's for example (and I suspect this is because of the elasticity of the term due to all its connotations, and how it kind of glues the events in the campaign with the setting in a way, so that the fiction is both setting and what the characters do-----at least that was my reading of some uses of it in prior discussions).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Let me read what you are saying here back to you: If I don't agree with your conclusion that the term 'fiction' is "highly equivocal" then I am just using my advanced knowledge to dismiss your conclusion without any merit. Now tell me, @Bedrockgames. How is that not utter presumptuous nonsense? Do you truly not get how insulting and dismissive your own words are here?
> 
> The ability for a word to have different meanings or for people to shift between meanings does not mean that a semantic unit is "highly equivocal." It means that the word is "polysemous" or displays "polysemy." This can also mean that the word is multivalent, in the sense that it can be used in different linguistic constructions and combinations of meaning. Intentional use of polysemy occurs frequently in literature, often for purposes of subversion of expectations and humor (e.g., the character Bottom in Midsummer's Night Dream). Again, multivalency, polysemy, and lexical ambiguity are key factors in the word that is the focus of my study. It's not a "highly equivocal" word or term. It's a polysemous one that is used in a wide range of contexts and meanings. The fact that the term "fiction" includes distinct, but _clearly interrelated_, meanings as part of its semantic field does not mean that it's somehow "highly equivocal." That a word _can be_ ambiguous in a hypothetical given utterance does not mean that it is inherently or always ambiguous in every utterance. It means that some further context is generally needed by interlocutors to decipher the meaning in utterances where it's difficult to decipher which sense or meaning of a word is likely intended.




This is an example of what I mean. I really can't contend with this language. It is beyond my expertise. But I can say, a term like fiction has multiple meanings that can serve different ends in an RPG discussions and equivocating on those meanings would be easy, thus it is highly equivocal. Are you saying it isn't easy to equivocate on the word fiction? Granted that is a subjective call, but I would maintain it is extremely easy to equivocate there


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> A “highly equivocal term” is not a thing at least not in how you seem to be using it. You keep repeating this as if it meant something when it doesn’t.




I was just looking for a useful descriptor of what I am trying say. I wasn't invoking it as a formal term, I was putting it together as a description of fiction because it carries so many meanings and is prone to ambiguity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Ah, yes. I see. The qualifications of the people arguing for "the fiction" is all wrong. They come from
> 
> Secondly, I don't understand the problem with "fiction" applying to both what happens and the setting, because, yes, they are both aspects of the imagined fiction. I'm also not sure why or how this is a bad thing or even "sorta equivocation." I think that people such as @pemerton and @Manbearcat have been consistent in their use of "fiction." As you will see below, even Kevin Crawford uses "fiction" in reference to the setting.




Because this has been an enormous problem in discussions I have had with them. It just creates this barrier to talking about a sandbox style in the conversations and gives them the leg up. I don't really have the depth of thought or time to put it into words right now (about to get ready for a game session). But I know this has come up again and again. And this blurring has definitely mattered when we are talking about a style where those two things are much more distinct.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Are we talking the game or who created the majority of the fiction... including framing, consequences, etc.?



I'm confused by the question.  I didn't frame anything that wasn't prompted by the players, and then constrained by them.  I don't think you can call this unilaterally me doing it at all -- I'm not telling them my conception of the fiction, I'm creating fiction for them in accordance with their inputs and constrained by those inputs.  If your point is that the GM exercises creative license, then sure, both games are the same in that the GM exercises creative license.  This misses much.

Have you actually played Blades in the Dark?  What crew was in play?  What was one of the themes/stories that emerged?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Honestly, IMHO, as someone who doesn't really care about GNS, I find "the fiction" to be the most natural term for well... the fiction that's created as part of play, whether that applies to the play process or setting. From what I can tell reading through the Alexandrian, he does not have any hang-ups with using the term "the fiction" to describe "the fiction" of play. I can also not find any hang-ups regarding 'fiction' from Kevin Crawford, who writes in SWN and WWN, "No matter how finely-sculpted your world or inventive your fiction, if you can’t deliver a playable bit of fun at the table then your job as a GM is not done." Maybe I missing something about why "fiction" is so problematic for these pro-sandbox people who don't seem to have problems using the term.




I can't speak for either Crawford or Alexander. However that use seems to be much more casual than the proper term 'the fiction' (not saying he hasn't used it, just the example you give seems like a casual one). I myself use that language casually about games, and happily will use terms like drama and story when describing what happened even in GM advice. But I wouldn't use those labels for something as fundamental to play as what arises at the table. And I would not use them in a way that makes them the purpose of play (they can be the purpose of play, but they don't have to be).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Actual citations have been requested.




I am not going to give you citations for discussions I have had with people. You don't have to agree with or believe my sense of what most sandbox would tend to think. That's up to you. Me reporting my sense doesn't require an academic citation. Sorry, I am not in class with you here


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I can't speak for either Crawford or Alexander. However that use seems to be much more casual than the proper term 'the fiction' (not saying he hasn't used it, just the example you give seems like a casual one). I myself use that language casually about games, and happily will use terms like drama and story when describing what happened even in GM advice. But I wouldn't use those labels for something as fundamental to play as what arises at the table. And I would not use them in a way that makes them the purpose of play (they can be the purpose of play, but they don't have to be).



So, then, what?  "Make believe?" "Pretend elves?"  What would you term the entirely made up, fictional results of play -- both the fictional inputs by players and GMs, and the fictional outputs of the same.  What term do you prefer to this make believe?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> So, then, what?  "Make believe?" "Pretend elves?"  What would you term the entirely made up, fictional results of play -- both the fictional inputs by players and GMs, and the fictional outputs of the same.  What term do you prefer to this make believe?




I usually use terms like 'developments', 'events', 'in-game events', to describe what happens in a game.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I usually use terms like 'developments', 'events', 'in-game events', to describe what happens in a game.



These terms are clearly above “highly equivocal” or “ambiguous” misunderstandings in a TTRPG conversation.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm confused by the question.  I didn't frame anything that wasn't prompted by the players, and then constrained by them.  I don't think you can call this unilaterally me doing it at all -- I'm not telling them my conception of the fiction, I'm creating fiction for them in accordance with their inputs and constrained by those inputs.  If your point is that the GM exercises creative license, then sure, both games are the same in that the GM exercises creative license.  This misses much.
> 
> Have you actually played Blades in the Dark?  What crew was in play?  What was one of the themes/stories that emerged?



I didn't say you did it all.  I said the fiction was still created by the GM in the majority of cases.  My point is that even under constraints you created the majority of the fiction, not them. They guided it and directed it but you created it, not them.  If I constrain an artist to work in a certain medium, with a certain color palette... did I then create the work of art?

It's been quite a while but yeah I have played it.  I'm cloudy on the exact details since it's been a long time but if I remember correctly the crew were hawkers (drug dealers) and one of the stories that emerged was them attending a rave-like party to pass off laced drugs as belonging to their competitors in order to weaken their competitors hold on the neighborhood.  I remember they had a Whisper who, because of a roll ended up causing an entity to invade the party.  And I also remember them running into members of their competitors gang who realized they were passing of drugs with their marking on it... again because of a roll.  The main thing though is that I was still the one generating most, though not all of the fiction.


----------



## Campbell

Bedrockgames said:


> I usually use terms like 'developments', 'events', 'in-game events', to describe what happens in a game.



Is there any term you would accept that reflects that there are real world causes to these things? That they do not just spring from the ether fully formed.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> What I mean is a term that carries lots of connotations so that it is easy to equivocate on. Both story and fiction are easily equivocated on.



From what I can tell, the only person who is equivocating on what they mean by "fiction" in this thread is you and I think that you are intentionally trying to do so. Again, I think that this is mostly a _you_ problem and not an inherent problem with the term "fiction." 



Bedrockgames said:


> Take story, it can mean 'hey what's the story man'. as in 'what happened. But it can also mean a formal story, with structure, themes, etc. This regularly crops up in RPG discussions where someone takes the former meaning then shifts to the latter to assert that all RPGs are about story (I have been in countless threads where this has been the case) in order to build an argument that RPGs ought to have strong story telling tools, or that the GM ought to be trying to weave a story, etc. Fiction is a very similar kind of term, and I have seen it produce similar problems in previous discussions. It is a lot less prevalent of a term though, so I am mostly anticipating the problems it will produce if it gets more mainstream currency.



I think that your chief problem is not so much with "fiction," but, rather, with the term "story." And I have stated before that the people who should be opposed to having story imposed on them are also people who are putting forth "fiction" as a term. I also think, as I have said before, that your argument is mostly an unfounded slippery slope fallacy. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Still it is very murky, I know in previous discussions with posters here it has routinely produced all kinds of difficulties for me when contrasting my style with pemerton's for example (and I suspect this is because of the elasticity of the term due to all its connotations, and how it kind of glues the events in the campaign with the setting in a way,* so that the fiction is both setting and what the characters do*-----at least that was my reading of some uses of it in prior discussions).



Again, I don't see how or why this is a problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I think that your chief problem is not so much with "fiction," but, rather, with the term "story." And I have stated before that the people who should be opposed to having story imposed on them are also people who are putting forth "fiction" as a term. I also think, as I have said before, that your argument is mostly an unfounded slippery slope fallacy.



Slippery slope is an acceptable argument if the stated outcome is likely (which I would maintain it is)


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Slippery slope is an acceptable argument if the stated outcome is likely (which I would maintain it is)



Which I maintain isn’t especially since you are prone to fear-mongering arguments.


----------



## uzirath

Ovinomancer said:


> Any of these details might be able to be revealed to players by them asking questions, like "I observe the square from the shadows and see if the guards leave any gaps in their patrol routes," which prompts the GM to provide their answer to this question.   Or investigate guards to see if they're bribable, which prompts the GM to tell the players what they think about this.




I'm curious about whether players can engage in observation like this in Blades? What would happen? I'm very fuzzy on these non-traditional games, but here's what I imagine based on following some of these conversations. The player can't just fish for information with no outcome in mind. So instead of saying, "I observe the guards to see if I notice anything useful," they could say, "I secretly observe the guards and discover a gap in their patrol route which I then exploit." Something like that?

When I've been a player in a traditional game, a significant amount of the fun has been in gathering information. Which seems to be an effort to transferring as much of the GM's conception to the players as possible before declaring a high-stakes action.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Which I maintain isn’t.




Fair enough


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> Is there any term you would accept that reflects that there are real world causes to these things? That they do not just spring from the ether fully formed.




I don't think developments does that. But if you must, Imaginary Developments could work. I think in-game developments or in-game events makes clear these are things happening in a game, not something we are believing really occur. Not sure it is needed to prevent the kind of misunderstanding from arising.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I usually use terms like 'developments', 'events', 'in-game events', to describe what happens in a game.




Oh no, both of those words have multiple definitions, too!


----------



## innerdude

So it's sort of become clear to me that this hangup over the phrase, "the fiction," really is the key point, or lynchpin, in the whole mindset of "dynamic campaign" (***) play.

Without the core conceit of there being some true, pure, ur-state "objective model" from which all further inferences about the shared imaginary "stuff" / shared imaginary space (SIS) is derived, the entire conception of "dynamic campaign" play ceases to be relevant.

I think Bedrockgames has alluded to this already a couple of times, with the "I might as well just show the players my notes" comment around running adventure paths.

And I think I finally caught a glimpse as to why in the Actor Stance / Immersion / "Playing as my character" thread.

Would you say, @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames, that one of the reasons you prefer players to only "play as their character" is that it necessarily---and purposefully---limits the quantity and scope of mental modeling they do?

Something like, "If I can just keep the players from trying to do all of the scene and history extrapolating, and keep that behind my curtain, it will make it easier for them to mentally envision/enmesh/insert their consciousness into the world. They're not having to jump out from their segmented character mindset to worry about the 'dynamism' of the setting, or feel pressure to make things work. Furthermore, it's too easy for external inputs that I-as-GM haven't envisioned to disrupt the balance/harmony of the ur-state 'external model' I've already spent so much time building.

"If we can just keep the characters immersed 'playing as their character', I can more fully enable and maintain the fine balance of managing the verisimilitude of the SIS, while also having the secondary benefit of reducing distractions in getting the players into our desired 'immersion flow.'"

Is there any accuracy to this?


*Side note: I've mentioned it already, but the biggest paradigm shift (and I mean that in the absolute, literal sense of the world) for me came when I finally let go of the notion of there being an "objective external model" of the SIS. As soon as I could lay that conceit aside, and recognize that the "objective external model" was just as much a constructed fiction as everything else, my entire mindset changed.


----------



## Ovinomancer

uzirath said:


> I'm curious about whether players can engage in observation like this in Blades? What would happen? I'm very fuzzy on these non-traditional games, but here's what I imagine based on following some of these conversations. The player can't just fish for information with no outcome in mind. So instead of saying, "I observe the guards to see if I notice anything useful," they could say, "I secretly observe the guards and discover a gap in their patrol route which I then exploit." Something like that?
> 
> When I've been a player in a traditional game, a significant amount of the fun has been in gathering information. Which seems to be an effort to transferring as much of the GM's conception to the players as possible before declaring a high-stakes action.



So, what would happen in Blades would be the character makes this action declaration.  We have stakes -- they want to not be discovered -- and this is in question, so this is an action declaration and can be challenged by the GM.  If the GM doesn't challenge this (and that would be poor play), they say yes, and the player gets what they want.  If they do challenge it, then the mechanics are invoked.  Without a lot of explanation, there's an agreement as to how effective this attempt will be (Effect) and how dangerous it is (Position).  This codifies both the scope of success and the scope of failure.  The player, if they agree, then rolls their action (if they don't, they can then do something else -- the negotiation is to establish shared understanding of the fiction).  The outcome is either failure, in which case the GM establishes a consequence within the scope of the Position and the action declared and play goes from there (maybe now a chase through the streets), or success.  Success has two modes: with consequence and full success, depending on the roll.  With consequence means that the player achieves what they wanted -- they now know when a gap in the rotation occurs they can use to sneak across -- but it comes with a cost the GM imposes, again with respect to the action and the Position.  Maybe the player overhears a conversation that the guards have posted dogs inside the courtyard on the other side of the square, so now the player has to overcome this challenge, or they got the info, but realize as soon as they're moving across the square that they left some gear behind, and not have to chose to go on without it or double back at more risk.  On a straight success, they get what they want, no strings attached.

Blades is very focused on generating a specific kind of experience, and so focuses on playing rogues in a haunted city.  The players have a lot of things they can do to affect rolls and alter outcomes, and access to a flashback mechanic to introduce new things on the fly that they did prior to the score. As such, Blades absolutely focuses play on Act Now, Plan Later.  The idea that you'd need to spend lots of gametime investigating targets and planning your approach is anathema to the concept of Blades.  Blades instead assumes that you're very competent at being criminals, and your characters have done this work, but you don't need to play through that, you just get to the end product.  It's system, which allows players to set success conditions, lends itself to this, and the variety of tools the players have do as well.  It's a very different mode of gaming from more traditional games, where the GM is the owner and arbitrator of all things setting.  It takes some mental adjustment, but it works very, very well.  Most of the thinking people that haven't played these games have are from the wrong mindset -- I know, I was one of them.  Trying to figure out how this works, how the GM can do a setting that's that malleable, is hard to grasp, until you, almost quite literally, realize that there is no spoon.


----------



## prabe

Imaro said:


> Honestly your style of play sounds similar to mine.  The main differences probably being that I ask my players to have goals and make sure to tie them into the setting which helps alleviate some of the problem of the "finding their fun" style since they  already know what their fun is and just need to go find it.  Also recently I've started using more randomizing tools (mainly from OSR games and supplements) to generate fiction in the moment (and sometimes, though rarely, in the past) along with creating some of it on my own.  I also have factions with goals motivations, etc that I purposefully plan to create conflict, strife and drama but that's as close to an overarching plot as I tend to have.



I suggest (but do not insist) that players write up short backstories for their characters, which A) gives the players a chance to establish motivations and B) gives the players (and me) a chance to establish connections between the characters and the setting. I start off the campaign by putting all the characters in the same place at the same time, then throwing manure at an air circulator. As they deal with the repercussions of the opening, I start threading in things from their backstories. So maybe that difference isn't so different (and if you aren't tracking me and all my posts, there's no reason you would have known, so IMO we're good).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I didn't say you did it all.  I said the fiction was still created by the GM in the majority of cases.  My point is that even under constraints you created the majority of the fiction, not them. They guided it and directed it but you created it, not them.  If I constrain an artist to work in a certain medium, with a certain color palette... did I then create the work of art?
> 
> It's been quite a while but yeah I have played it.  I'm cloudy on the exact details since it's been a long time but if I remember correctly the crew were hawkers (drug dealers) and one of the stories that emerged was them attending a rave-like party to pass off laced drugs as belonging to their competitors in order to weaken their competitors hold on the neighborhood.  I remember they had a Whisper who, because of a roll ended up causing an entity to invade the party.  And I also remember them running into members of their competitors gang who realized they were passing of drugs with their marking on it... again because of a roll.  The main thing though is that I was still the one generating most, though not all of the fiction.



So, what just occurred to me is that, in Blades, the players are not declaring actions with the hope the GM will tell them something about the setting/game/event -- this is the failure state.  They are declaring actions so as to tell the GM something about the setting/game/event.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Which I maintain isn’t especially since you are prone to fear-mongering arguments.



I am not fear mongering. That is hyperbole


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not fear mongering. That is hyperbole



It was also Ad Hominem.  Rather than counter the argument, he attacked you directly.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not fear mongering. That is hyperbole



You are expressing fear about the vague possibility that people may equivocate terms.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> So, what just occurred to me is that, in Blades, the players are not declaring actions with the hope the GM will tell them something about the setting/game/event -- this is the failure state.  They are declaring actions so as to tell the GM something about the setting/game/event.




I would say they are declaring actions with the hope of achieving their goal (Sometimes this goal could be to get the GM to tell them something about the setting/game/event... sometimes it is to tell the GM something about the setting/game/event).  We know from the rulebook that most of the time achieving the goal will come at a cost.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I would say they are declaring actions with the hope of achieving their goal (Sometimes this goal could be to get the GM to tell them something about the setting/game/event... sometimes it is to tell the GM something about the setting/game/event).  We know from the rulebook that most of the time achieving the goal will come at a cost.



You're trying to hide the pea.  In D&D, players declare actions for the GM to tell them how it went.  This is part an parcel of 5e, it written on page 4 of the PHB -- the GM narrates the outcome of an action.  There are almost no constraints on this -- if the action runs afoul of the GM's conception of the fiction, then the GM is 100% free to narrate a failure outright, even after asking for a check (some GMs advocate for doing this so as to obfuscate even further).  This is starkly different from Blades, where the player gets exactly what they want.  The point you make about some cost being likely is true(ish), but this doesn't change that the player still gets to say what happens, but the GM also gets to say something else happens in addition.  This extra say of the GM cannot negate or reduce the player's success -- they get to say that thing happens.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> You're trying to hide the pea.  In D&D, players declare actions for the GM to tell them how it went.  This is part an parcel of 5e, it written on page 4 of the PHB -- the GM narrates the outcome of an action.  There are almost no constraints on this -- if the action runs afoul of the GM's conception of the fiction, then the GM is 100% free to narrate a failure outright, even after asking for a check (some GMs advocate for doing this so as to obfuscate even further).  This is starkly different from Blades, where the player gets exactly what they want.  The point you make about some cost being likely is true(ish), but this doesn't change that the player still gets to say what happens, but the GM also gets to say something else happens in addition.  This extra say of the GM cannot negate or reduce the player's success -- they get to say that thing happens.



So who is generating majority of the fiction?  If the DM is framing, setting the scene, playing the NPC's and on the most common roll also narrating fiction... How is he not still the majority contributor in this game?  No one is arguing it is the same as say D&D, only that in both the lion's share of the fiction is generated by the GM.  

EDIT: You seem to be arguing that the games operate under different constraints... that's not what I've argued against.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> You are expressing fear about the vague possibility that people may equivocate terms.



Fearmongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> So who is generating majority of the fiction?  If the DM is framing, setting the scene, playing the NPC's and on the most common roll also narrating fiction... How is he not still the majority contributor in this game?  No one is arguing it is the same as say D&D, only that in both the lion's share of the fiction is generated by the GM.
> 
> EDIT: You seem to be arguing that the games operate under different constraints... that's not what I've argued against.



I'm uncertain where you're trying to go here.  This seems like a set up for something, but I don't think it's saying what you think it does, given your other arguments in this thread.  Does the GM create fiction in Blades?  Yes, of course they do, this is an uncontroversial statement.  Can that be considered the majority of content generation?  Here I'm very much going to disagree.  If I get to oblige you to generate specific kinds of fiction, then it's hard to say that you're the primary generator of fiction, even if this is so by volume of words.  The players in Blades do so much more direction of what fiction is created, even if the GM is doing the actual legwork with speaking, that it's not exactly fair to say that the GM generates the majority of the fiction, even if the majority of the words spoken are by the GM.  This is where I think a key point is being elided by your claim.  It's like saying that both unshorn poodles and chihuahuas are covered in fur -- this leaves quite a bit of information about the differences between poodles and chihuahuas out.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It was also Ad Hominem.  Rather than counter the argument, he attacked you directly.



I think it is safe to say this has moved from conversation to contact sport


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Fearmongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.



The particular issue in this case is equivocation of meanings in forum discourse.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is safe to say this has moved from conversation to contact sport



I wouldn't rely too much on Max's take on informal logical fallacies.  He likes citing them, but is often wrong.  Here, for instance, @Aldarc discussed specific behavior and labeled it. That's not an ad hom, because it's discussing specific behavior.  It might be wrong, but it isn't the informal logical fallacy of ad hominin.   That would be if he ignored making any argument about a specific behavior, called you names, and said you were wrong because you were those names.  That isn't this.

I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion about words and their meanings:  Check out our new word, Fearmongering!


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> It was also Ad Hominem.  Rather than counter the argument, he attacked you directly.



His argument has already been countered multiple times. Countering it again is just gratuitous violence.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> I wouldn't rely too much on Max's take on informal logical fallacies.  He likes citing them, but is often wrong.  Here, for instance, @Aldarc discussed specific behavior and labeled it. That's not an ad hom, because it's discussing specific behavior.  It might be wrong, but it isn't the informal logical fallacy of ad hominin.   That would be if he ignored making any argument about a specific behavior, called you names, and said you were wrong because you were those names.  That isn't this.




Taking a moment to step outside the snakiness here: why do you have to be so nasty to him? This whole thread feels like a veiled attack on the intelligence of posters people disagree with. I don't particularly care whether the argument Aldarc was making qualifies as an ad hom fallacy (frankly I don't care if its fallacious). We are literally just disagreeing about how to describe the stuff that happens in a game session: that really shouldn't warrant the kind of vitriol that is arising.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> I wouldn't rely too much on Max's take on informal logical fallacies.  He likes citing them, but is often wrong.  Here, for instance, @Aldarc discussed specific behavior and labeled it. That's not an ad hom, because it's discussing specific behavior.  It might be wrong, but it isn't the informal logical fallacy of ad hominin.




I think his point was he attacking the argument by labeling it fear mongering (at least in that post: obviously he addressed the argument itself in other areas of the discussion). i don't honestly know or care whether this instance qualifies a proper ad hom. I don't think MaxPerson was deeply invested in that notion ether. I suspect he was mainly responding to the spirit of Aldarc's posts towards me (which I would say have largely been hostile, and here doubly so). He is also probably responding to the fact that basically everyone in the thread is dog piling on me. I don't particularly care if folks do that. They can if they want. But that is what so often happens in threads with this circle  of posters.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> Taking a moment to step outside the snakiness here: why do you have to be so nasty to him? This whole thread feels like a veiled attack on the intelligence of posters people disagree with. I don't particularly care whether the argument Aldarc was making qualifies as an ad hom fallacy (frankly I don't care if its fallacious). We are literally just disagreeing about how to describe the stuff that happens in a game session: that really shouldn't warrant the kind of vitriol that is arising.



I'm not being nasty.  Max often throws out informal logical fallacies when they aren't actually there.  I clarified that there was no logical fallacy, made no statement about the correctness or incorrectness of @Aldarc claim of fearmongering, and left with a pithy joke.  Please, continue with hashing out this latest brouhaha over the meaning of words.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not being nasty.  Max often throws out informal logical fallacies when they aren't actually there.  I clarified that there was no logical fallacy, made no statement about the correctness or incorrectness of @Aldarc claim of fearmongering, and left with a pithy joke.  Please, continue with hashing out this latest brouhaha over the meaning of words.




It is being nasty, you are singling out another poster and basically making fun of their grasp of a concept like fallacies (which in nerd circles, and we are in a nerd circle, has lots of social value). If you want to attack someone or belittle them, go ahead, I don't report posters as a rule. But don't do it and act like you are not.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I think his point was he attacking the argument by labeling it fear mongering (at least in that post: obviously he addressed the argument itself in other areas of the discussion). i don't honestly know or care whether this instance qualifies a proper ad hom. I don't think MaxPerson was deeply invested in that notion ether. I suspect he was mainly responding to the spirit of Aldarc's posts towards me (which I would say have largely been hostile, and here doubly so). He is also probably responding to the fact that basically everyone in the thread is dog piling on me. I don't particularly care if folks do that. They can if they want. But that is what so often happens in threads with this circle  of posters.



Man, this is really after you, isn't it?  Responding twice to the same post?  You should charge me rent for all this space in your head!  I'm cheap, though, so I'll probably skip paying and you'll have to evict me, but I'll warn you I might sneak back in and squat.

Max is usually fully invested in informal logical fallacies.  I've been around that block with him a few times.  S'ok, I just tend to point them out from time to time.  And, yes, you are getting dogpiled.  It's not because people are mean, or that you're a visionary being set upon by the masses, but rather that your recent arguments are so outlandishly framed that they invite lots of responses to the negative.  You've literally claimed that you're worried that using "fiction" will cause undue confusion in people if allowed out of this thread, which is just silly because it's been in the wild, used exactly as it has been in this thread, for decades.  It's not a new thing, and your fears have not come to fruition.  I think the fearmongering thing is, as you noted, hyperbolic, but it at least gave you a new vector for claiming to be a victim instead of examining the silliness of some of your arguments (specifically the "fiction" one, oh, and the claiming that people are denying "living world" is even possible -- I don't know how anyone could say this, as no one outside of you and a few others even understand what it means and no one's bothered to put out a good explanation -- hmm, maybe it doesn't exist?).  I hope that works out well for you, you seem to be pretty adept at managing these things, given that we're so far into this thread and you've managed to make it about you and your concern over words.  Kudos!


----------



## Campbell

Back to prep.

One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> It is being nasty, you are singling out another poster and basically making fun of their grasp of a concept like fallacies (which in nerd circles, and we are in a nerd circle, has lots of social value). If you want to attack someone or belittle them, go ahead, I don't report posters as a rule. But don't do it and act like you are not.



I'm not making fun of him, I'm saying he's wrong in this case.  When did saying people are wrong, and explaining why, become making fun of them?  And, it's also true that Max often throws out logical fallacies -- they seem, to him, to be easy win buttons that you just have to press if a situation looks remotely close enough.  Meh, not really concerned about your tone policing here, anyway.  Max was incorrect, it's not an ad hom, and I'm less and less interested in letting you direct conversation away from any useful discussion.  Toodles!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Man, this is really after you, isn't it?  Responding twice to the same post?  You should charge me rent for all this space in your head!  I'm cheap, though, so I'll probably skip paying and you'll have to evict me, but I'll warn you I might sneak back in and squat.
> 
> Max is usually fully invested in informal logical fallacies.  I've been around that block with him a few times.  S'ok, I just tend to point them out from time to time.  And, yes, you are getting dogpiled.  It's not because people are mean, or that you're a visionary being set upon by the masses, but rather that your recent arguments are so outlandishly framed that they invite lots of responses to the negative.  You've literally claimed that you're worried that using "fiction" will cause undue confusion in people if allowed out of this thread, which is just silly because it's been in the wild, used exactly as it has been in this thread, for decades.  It's not a new thing, and your fears have not come to fruition.  I think the fearmongering thing is, as you noted, hyperbolic, but it at least gave you a new vector for claiming to be a victim instead of examining the silliness of some of your arguments (specifically the "fiction" one, oh, and the claiming that people are denying "living world" is even possible -- I don't know how anyone could say this, as no one outside of you and a few others even understand what it means and no one's bothered to put out a good explanation -- hmm, maybe it doesn't exist?).  I hope that works out well for you, you seem to be pretty adept at managing these things, given that we're so far into this thread and you've managed to make it about you and your concern over words.  Kudos!




You have problems. 

My arguments aren't outlandish at all. I made a very reasonable argument about equivocation on a term.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not making fun of him, I'm saying he's wrong in this case.




No, you are making fun of him. You are doing it the way we gamers and geeks always make fun of people: trying to make them insecure about their knowledge and intellect. You aren't just saying he is wrong in this case or that you disagree, you are accusing him of failing to grasp fallacies consistently over time, as a trait of his personality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> When it comes to having a shared language of play naturalistic language pretty much erases the creative act which is where the vast majority of actual differences in playstyle live. Differences in how we approach the creative act pretty much are the foundations of different approaches to playing RPGs. The actual act of play in the moment is almost identical so by diminishing the creative act we leave ourselves with almost nothing useful to say to each other.
> 
> There's also the bit that the general language we use to describe play should not elevate any given playstyle. Besides making us contort to talk about play that exists outside of the mainstream naturalistic descriptions of play tend to elevate certain styles as being more real or authentic.




No one is demising the creative act. People are making creative choices in that process.  What stuff like living world gets to is the how and why you make those choices. Again for me, something about that passage saying Harkon Lucas is a living breathing character, suddenly made making choices for him in play so much more understandable and easy. That is why I like language like Living World and Living Adventure. The language of the passage was actually to describe it as a wandering major encounter, and the paragraph ended with 'they live!' and my summary of that has become "Living Adventure", which when applied broadly to the setting as a whole is "living world". If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. You and I clearly think about games very differently from one another.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> You have problems.
> 
> My arguments aren't outlandish at all. I made a very reasonable argument about equivocation on a term.



Where you used equivocation incorrectly (you meant ambiguity) and where the theorized harm has never occurred in the wild despite the very thing you argued about being out there for decades (referring to game outputs as "fiction")?  You may feel your arguments are valid, and sound, but there's good evidence that they just don't pan out at all.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> Back to prep.
> 
> One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.



I can see that working. Of course, I'd probably write my typical-length narrative background and extract NPCs from it. That is, honestly, how I'd probably do any kind of explicitly narrowed background like this--it's just easier for how my brain works.

I'd imagine you could ask for a place or two, as another option. I know some character ideas start with where they're from (at least, some of *my* character ideas do). I'm sure y'all have thought that through.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> No, you are making fun of him. You are doing it the way we gamers and geeks always make fun of people: trying to make them insecure about their knowledge and intellect. You aren't just saying he is wrong in this case or that you disagree, you are accusing him of failing to grasp fallacies consistently over time, as a trait of his personality.



Ah, I get it, you get to tell me what I mean when I say things.  Cool, it's a nifty power, I guess.  Can I call on you when I next get into an argument with my wife? Regardless, you're now making this argument about me, personally, and not about what I said.  I believe this may be veering into something, but I can quite put my finger on it.  I'm sure it will become more clear if you continue this by making about me, though, so have at, clarity is a-coming!


----------



## hawkeyefan

Campbell said:


> Back to prep.
> 
> One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.




So my regular group just started a new campaign with the intention of rotating GMs periodically. So we crafted many of the NPCs in our starting town as a group. We established who knew whom and why. 

Each of the PCs feels like they have their own place in the setting...like they existed beforehand instead of springing to life spontaneously at the start of the game.


----------



## Fenris-77

I feel like this thread would be far more interesting and productive if people weren't constantly riding to the defense of ideas and other posters who don't need defending.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Where you used equivocation incorrectly (you meant ambiguity) and where the theorized harm has never occurred in the wild despite the very thing you argued about being out there for decades (referring to game outputs as "fiction")?  You may feel your arguments are valid, and sound, but there's good evidence that they just don't pan out at all.



I think my arguments were sound. Just some people didn’t agree with them


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Where you used equivocation incorrectly (you meant ambiguity)



no I meant equivocation. I said the ambiguity of the term made it easy to equivocate on, and the nature of its meanings probe to equivocation in RPG discussion: so I described it as a highly equivocal term. You don’t have to agree with me. But you can at least disagree with what I am saying and not twist my meaning


----------



## Fenris-77

You don't seem to be using the word equivocation in any way that I'm familiar with. The word implies an active attempt to use imprecise language, which carries with it a significant charge of acting in bad faith on someone's part. I don't think that what you're talking about though, which means that ambiguity or ambiguous language use is actually what you're talking about.

Edit: I'm not saying the above to be unfriendly, or confrontational, but I think you're missing the active, bad faith part of what equivocation means. If you aren't you may want to be clearer about which actors you are accusing of bad faith.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> You don't seem to be using the word equivocation in any way that I'm familiar with. The word implies an active attempt to use imprecise language, which carries with it a significant charge of acting in bad faith on someone's part. I don't think that what you're talking about though, which means that ambiguity or ambiguous language use is actually what you're talking about.



Equivocation doesn’t require nefarious intent, it can even be unintentional. It just requires that an argument shift on the multiple meanings of a term at different stages of the argument leading to a conclusion that isn’t valid. I have been giving more than one reason for objecting to fiction. One is its potential for equivocation (I feel this has happened in past threads here where the fiction has been used as a term; but more importantly I think it is a term ripe for the same kind of equivocation you see with the term story: which most certainly occurs). The other objection was that, because it carries so many problematic connotations (at least in terms of gaming discussion) that murkiness and ambiguity creates problems. These are two desperate, but related objections


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I think my arguments were sound. Just some people didn’t agree with them



I know you think this.  However, your arguments about how "fiction" will be misconstrued do not show up in the wild, even after more than a decade of it being something not uncommonly used.  If we go by the metric of "does your idea have evidence to back it" and "is there a large body of evidence where it would show up," those answers are no and yes respectively.  So, lots of opportunity, no evidence.  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, however, but at some point, it's pretty convincing.  How long do we need to keep checking to see if your concern comes true to lay this to bed, and remember, I cannot prove a negative, just show there's no positives.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Equivocation doesn’t require nefarious intent, it can even be unintentional.



Nope, not the word you're looking for, which may have been part of the problem. Here's a generic definition:
_the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself_. You notice there the absolute need for an *active* attempt to conceal or mislead? That's common to every definition you can find. You don't have equivocation without that active attempt. So either you're accusing someone of an active attempt to mislead, or you're using the wrong word. I'll let you decide which is which I guess.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> no I meant equivocation. I said the ambiguity of the term made it easy to equivocate on, and the nature of its meanings probe to equivocation in RPG discussion: so I described it as a highly equivocal term. You don’t have to agree with me. But you can at least disagree with what I am saying and not twist my meaning



I know you meant equivocation, but you've used it incorrectly, which is what I said.  I don't think you intended to use it incorrectly, but you have.  Equivocation is where you try to obfuscate meaning intentionally, in this case it would be to use a word with the intent to not clearly express an idea.  This is not what happened, at all, as everyone was extremely clear with what they meant.  You instead kept insisting that the word could, maybe, possibly, be misconstrued and mistaken for a different meaning.  That's being ambiguous, not equivocal. 

EDIT:  I see @Fenris-77  beat me to this.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Nope, not the word you're looking for, which may have been part of the problem. Here's a generic definition:
> _the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself_. You notice there the absolute need for an *active* attempt to conceal or mislead? That's common to every definition you can find. You don't have equivocation without that active attempt. So either you're accusing someone of an active attempt to mislead, or you're using the wrong word. I'll let you decide which is which I guess.




My understanding of equivocation is it is merely the shifting from one meaning to another of a word in an argument, which produces a conclusion that just doesn't follow. It is a problem of logic, not a problem of intention. Obviously it is often going to be used intentionally. But I can't get into the head of people equivocating in their arguments. The end result is the same whether the intention to do so is there. You see people equivocate on multiple uses of a word all the time without even realizing they are doing so.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> I know you meant equivocation, but you've used it incorrectly, which is what I said.  I don't think you intended to use it incorrectly, but you have.  Equivocation is where you try to obfuscate meaning intentionally, in this case it would be to use a word with the intent to not clearly express an idea.  This is not what happened, at all, as everyone was extremely clear with what they meant.  You instead kept insisting that the word could, maybe, possibly, be misconstrued and mistaken for a different meaning.  That's being ambiguous, not equivocal.
> 
> EDIT:  I see @Fenris-77  beat me to this.




Again, it is always possible I am wrong, but the way I was taught this in logic fit with this definition:



> Equivocation​The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.
> _Examples:_
> 
> I have the right to watch "The Real World."  Therefore it's right for me to watch the show.  So, I think I'll watch this "Real World" marathon tonight instead of studying for my exam.
> The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore there must be a cosmic lawgiver.
> God: "One million years to me is a second."  Man: "What about one million dollars, my Lord?" God: "A penny." Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?" God: "No problem, just a second."
> Noisy children are a real headache. Two aspirin will make a headache go away. Therefore, two aspirin will make noisy children go away.
> A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than nothing.
> Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world.
> I don't see how you can say you're an ethical person. It's so hard to get you to do anything; your work ethic is so bad
> From Lewis Carroll_, Through the Looking _Glass: "You couldn't have it if you didn't want it," the Queen said. "The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today." "It must come to jam today," Alice objected. "No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: today isn't any other day, you know."
> Philosophy is supposed to stand on neutral ground. But most philosophers argue for very definite conclusions. This is hardly standing on neutral ground. Shouldn't we conclude that most philosophers aren't doing philosophy?
> Sarah was put in classes for the exceptional student. But i discovered that despite her age she could hardly read. Surely she was put in these classes by error.




Or this one from a philosophical dictionary:



> The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument.




And here is the definition of equivocal also from a philosophical dictionary:



> Having more than one meaning; see univocal / equivocal.


----------



## Fenris-77

Perhaps we should use the _actual_ definition of equivocation if it's going to play such a large role in the thread? Just a thought. Your description actually matches my definition pretty well, as it captures the active obfuscation.  Are you claiming that anyone in this thread has *actively* obscured the meaning of, for example, fiction, in our discussion? Someone needs to be actively obscuring meaning or you're using the wrong word, something that several posters have suggested to you multiple times. So which is it? Are we (or is someone else)* actively* attempting to conceal or mislead, or are you* mistaken *about the meaning of the word? You need to pick one.

Edit: Your examples mean the same as mine (especially the fancy top one that uses the kill shot word _LOGIC_, so there's no out there.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Equivocation is where you try to obfuscate meaning intentionally




To be clear: I do think this has happened on prior threads around the term The Fiction. And I think it will arise in the future if this term were adopted by the gaming community at large. But I don't believe intentionality is required for there to be equivocation, there just needs to be a conclusion that doesn't logically follow because one premise uses one meaning, and another uses a different meaning.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Perhaps we should use the _actual_ definition of equivocation if it's going to play such a large role in the thread? Just a thought. Your description actually matches my definition pretty well, as it captures the active obfuscation.  Are you claiming that anyone in this thread has *actively* obscured the meaning of, for example, fiction, in our discussion? Someone needs to be actively obscuring meaning or you're using the wrong word, something that several posters have suggested to you multiple times. So which is it? Are we (or is someone else)* actively* attempting to conceal or mislead, or are you* mistaken *about the meaning of the word? You need to pick one.




I am using the definition of equivocation in logic as I understand it (which is the meaning I was invoking). I was not using it in a sense that intention was a factor.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I am using the definition of equivocation in logic as I understand it (which is the meaning I was invoking). I was not using it in a sense that intention was a factor.



Your understanding is incorrect. Obviously, manifestly, incorrect. So pick one, is someone lying on purpose about the meaning, or are you wrong about people equivocating? I'm not going to let squirm away this time, and I don't really care that your understanding is missing a key component of the actual definition. You've been throwing that word around like a bloody flail, so you need to own up to being wrong about it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Edit: Your examples mean the same as mine (especially the fancy top one that uses the kill shot word _LOGIC_, so there's no out there.




I am not sure what you are referring to but I think  it is clear the examples and definitions I offered don't require the inetionatlity you are saying is required of equivocation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Your understanding is incorrect.




I really don't think it is. All that matters is the logic, not the intention. You can commit equivocation with intention, but the same exact argument can be made without intention. It doesn't matter what your intention was, what matters is the logic of the argument isn't sound because meaning of a key word has shifted during its course. Here is a standard example:

The end of life is death. 
Happiness is the end of life. 
So, death is happiness.

This argument is an example of equivocation whether the person uttering it is attempting to obscure the truth or merely stumbling into a bad argument without realizing it. Now that said, I think there usually is some kind of intention at work. But it doesn't have to be there


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure what you are referring to but I think  it is clear the examples and definitions I offered don't require the inetionatlity you are saying is required of equivocation.



The *definition* of equivocation requires that intentionality. That's what I'm referring to - the definition of the word. It's not my problem that you don't know what it actually means. You've been very keen on the word, so I assumed you actually knew what it meant. Maybe just take the hint that you made a mistake instead of continuing to double down on obvious shenanigans. Up to you.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I really don't think it is. All that matters is the logic, not the intention. You can commit equivocation with intention, but the same exact argument can be made without intention. It doesn't matter what your intention was, what matters is the logic of the argument isn't sound because meaning of a key word has shifted during its course.



What matters is the *definition *of the word, in plain English. Not your obfuscation, or poetry, or anything else. Just the definition, which you were wrong about and refuse to own up to. Nothing has shifted, or changed, you just used a word you didn't understand fully.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not going to let squirm away this time, and I don't really care that your understanding is missing a key component of the actual definition. You've been throwing that word around like a bloody flail, so you need to own up to being wrong about it.




I am not going to be your punching bag Fenris, sorry. I am not a worm and I am not going to sit here passively while you try to humiliate me. If you want to converse with me, please be polite and treat me like a real person. Not some villain you have in your head. You and I have had enough friendly exchanged to be able to treat each other like people. I happen to think I am right in my usage of the term. You don't think so. Fair enough. We can disagree on that. I am not claiming to be super brilliant or always 100 percent right about everything. But I am also pretty convinced I am correct here. What matters is, whether my use of terminology is right or wrong, what I am pointing to is a problem in the word fiction (whether people are intentionally using it to shift on meaning or unintentionally: and to be clear, in previous threads I think this has happened, but I can only guess at intentions---sometimes I think its intentional, sometimes I think it is just a thing people slide into).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> The *definition* of equivocation requires that intentionality. That's what I'm referring to - the definition of the word. It's not my problem that you don't know what it actually means. You've been very keen on the word, so I assumed you actually knew what it meant. Maybe just take the hint that you made a mistake instead of continuing to double down on obvious shenanigans. Up to you.




I just offered two definitions from philosophical dictionaries that do not require intentionality. And here is the wikipedia entry (also not requiring any intentionality): 

In logic, *equivocation* ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> What matters is the *definition *of the word, in plain English. Not your obfuscation, or poetry, or anything else. Just the definition, which you were wrong about and refuse to own up to. Nothing has shifted, or changed, you just used a word you didn't understand fully.




But I am using equivocation as it is used in logic, not everyday speech. I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't require intention to equivocation in logic (though it certainly is likely intention exists). I am just using the word as I was taught in my logic course. And looking up the meaning of it in a philosophical dictionary, it looks like my memory of the term is quite accurate.


----------



## Fenris-77

It's got nothing to do with being anyone's punching bag. If anything, you've been using the word 'equivocation' like a weapon to disambiguate discussion here for a while. This isn't complicated, you obviously were mistaken about what the word means, and are obviously unwilling to own up to it. Great, lets move on. I'm not treating you like a worm, which is an interesting rhetorical dodge in and of itself, I'm just holding you accountable for you rhetoric. You've spent _pages_ crapping on peoples posts because of 'equivocation' but when push comes to shove, you don't know what that actually means. This isn't personal at all, and if you think it is you don't know me well enough.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> But I am using equivocation as it is used in logic, not everyday speech. I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't require intention to equivocation in logic (though it certainly is likely intention exists). I am just using the word as I was taught in my logic course. And looking up the meaning of it in a philosophical dictionary, it looks like my memory of the term is quite accurate.



In order for there to be equivocation in communication, someone must equivocate. _Equivocate_ is a verb, and requires a subject. Who do you think has equivocated?


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> But I am using equivocation as it is used in logic, not everyday speech. I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't require intention to equivocation in logic (though it certainly is likely intention exists). I am just using the word as I was taught in my logic course. And looking up the meaning of it in a philosophical dictionary, it looks like my memory of the term is quite accurate.



You *aren't*. The basic definition of the word is enough to show that. The active component to the definition is what rubbed everyone's rhubarb the wrong way, so just own  up to misuse rather than continuing this wacky shuck and jive act like there's some other definition that makes it all ok.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> It's got nothing to do with being anyone's punching bag. If anything, you've been using the word 'equivocation' like a weapon to disambiguate discussion here for a while. This isn't complicated, you obviously were mistaken about what the word means, and are obviously unwilling to own up to it. Great, lets move on. I'm not treating you like a worm, which is an interesting rhetorical dodge in and of itself, I'm just holding you accountable for you rhetoric. You've spent _pages_ crapping on peoples posts because of 'equivocation' but when push comes to shove, you don't know what that actually means. This isn't personal at all, and if you think it is you don't know me well enough.




Your language couldn't be more personal Fenris. Sorry, you were attacking me. And I am going to respond if attacked by you. 

And I believe I do know what the word means. Again, I posted several philosophical definitions and none of them said anything about intentionality. And it isn't like I can know anyone's intentions anyway, I can only speculate on intentions. But I can talk about how in the past the term has been equivocated upon in that way, and how I believe it will be in the future.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> In order for there to be equivocation in communication, someone must equivocate. _Equivocate_ is a verb, and requires a subject. Who do you think has equivocated?




In other threads, when we were debating things like being able to run a living world, and agency of player characters, I believe several posters were. But I am not going to name them when I am already on the receiving end of a massive dog pile. I do believe though that some of the different meanings of the term fiction were used in ways that could be considered equivocation. But again, more importantly, I think it is a term that will be prone to a lot of equivocation in future. That is one of my main reasons for not adopting it.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> In other threads, when we were debating things like being able to run a living world, and agency of player characters, I believe several posters were. But I am not going to name them when I am already on the receiving end of a massive dog pile. I do believe though that some of the different meanings of the term fiction were used in ways that could be considered equivocation. But again, more importantly, I think it is a term that will be prone to a lot of equivocation in future. That is one of my main reasons for not adopting it.



Who, in this thread, used _the fiction_ to equivocate?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> You *aren't*. The basic definition of the word is enough to show that. The active component to the definition is what rubbed everyone's rhubarb the wrong way, so just own  up to misuse rather than continuing this wacky shuck and jive act like there's some other definition that makes it all ok.




Fenris, yes I am. You can be rubbed the wrong way if you want, but as far as I am concerned, I was using it correctly according to its use in logic (and in terms of the active component, I wasn't even commenting one way or the other on whether people were actively equivocation). And when I invoked equivocation it was as a logical issue. Either way, you don't have to accept that. I really do not get your hostility or most anyone else's.


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Who, in this thread, used _the fiction_ to equivocate?




I never stated anyone equivocated in this thread, I said I remembered them doing so in earlier threads (it is possible someone did in this thread, but I would have to back and read posts to see). And like I said before, I am not going to name anyone because frankly I don't feel like getting dogpiled on by more people


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> To be clear: I do think this has happened on prior threads around the term The Fiction. And I think it will arise in the future if this term were adopted by the gaming community at large. But I don't believe intentionality is required for there to be equivocation, there just needs to be a conclusion that doesn't logically follow because one premise uses one meaning, and another uses a different meaning.



Cites, please.  Unfortunately, as much as it would be pleasing to do so, taking your word for it is right out.  You need to show the evidence that "fiction" when used to describe the results of RPG play, is taken to mean a literary work like a novel.  This is your claim, and you cannot just handwave at vague evidence you think has happened.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> Fenris, yes I am. You can be rubbed the wrong way if you want, but as far as I am concerned, I was using it correctly according to its use in logic (and in terms of the active component, I wasn't even commenting one way or the other on whether people were actively equivocation). And when I invoked equivocation it was as a logical issue. Either way, you don't have to accept that. I really do not get your hostility or most anyone else's.



_As far as you're concerned_ doesn't add up to much when it's incorrect. Anyway, I'm moving on. You used the word poorly, you don't want to admit it, whatever.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> _As far as you're concerned_ doesn't add up to much when it's incorrect. Anyway, I'm moving on. You used the word poorly, you don't want to admit it, whatever.




I really didn't Fenris. I used it correctly.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> I never stated anyone equivocated in this thread, I said I remembered them doing so in earlier threads (it is possible someone did in this thread, but I would have to back and read posts to see). And like I said before, I am not going to name anyone because frankly I don't feel like getting dogpiled on by more people



Your objection to the use of _the fiction_ in this thread was that it was an equivocation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Cites, please.  Unfortunately, as much as it would be pleasing to do so, taking your word for it is right out.  You need to show the evidence that "fiction" when used to describe the results of RPG play, is taken to mean a literary work like a novel.  This is your claim, and you cannot just handwave at vague evidence you think has happened.




The problem is two-fold: I have been involved in a number of threads with posters from this thread, where I recall equivocation occurring around the term the fiction. I am not going to go back and comb through them to find the posts. What's more, I don't feel like getting more aggressive hostile responses that will inevitably result if I raise up posts from another thread involving posters here just to prove this point (as it was a fairly minor one). My biggest concern with fiction is it seems like a highly equivocal term to me, and will be prone to the sort of misuse I have described in the future. If you disagree that is fine. I can't tell you what to think.


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I really didn't Fenris. I used it correctly.



No, you didn't. See the definition of the word set next to your actual use of it. Really though, this is a sideline. Let's step back a second.

If what you wanted to express was a concern that some people might, for example, use the word _fiction_ to mean something else, something more specific, then sure, maybe they would. Maybe on purpose (which would be equivocation) or maybe not (which would be ambiguous). The actual point is that with a stable definition of fiction, which has been provided _ad nauseum_, that isn't an issue.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I never stated anyone equivocated in this thread, I said I remembered them doing so in earlier threads (it is possible someone did in this thread, but I would have to back and read posts to see). And like I said before, I am not going to name anyone because frankly I don't feel like getting dogpiled on by more people



Ah, more handwaving to evidence that you recall, but cannot produce, that proves your point.  You do see the problem here, right?

And, you're misunderstanding the definition of the logical fallacy, because it requires that someone use a word in one sense, and then a different sense, in the same argument.  The first example is that you have a right to do something, so that makes it right to do.  This is an equivocation, and it's utterly absent in this thread with regards to the term "fiction."


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Your objection to the use of _the fiction_ in this thread was that it was an equivocation.




No a term on its own can't be an equivocation. My objection was it is a term people tend to equivocate on, and that it is pretty obvious to me, it will lead to lots of the kind of equitation I am talking about. I said the fiction is equivocal (which just means having more than one meaning), and specifically I said things like "highly equivocal" because it carries so many terms that can be problematic in RPG discussions.


----------



## Fenris-77

_Equitation_ is the art or practice of horse riding or horsemanship


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> And, you're misunderstanding the definition of the logical fallacy, because it requires that someone use a word in one sense, and then a different sense, in the same argument.  The first example is that you have a right to do something, so that makes it right to do.  This is an equivocation, and it's utterly absent in this thread with regards to the term "fiction."




This is exactly the meaning of equitation I am using. Again,  I didn't say anyone in this thread equivocated on fiction (and if I did, that was unintentional). My objection is to how its been used in the past that way, and to how it will IMO be used.


----------



## Fenris-77

Also, having more than one meaning is NOT equivocal.


----------



## prabe

Bedrockgames said:


> No a term on its own can't be an equivocation. My objection was it is a term people tend to equivocate on, and that it is pretty obvious to me, it will lead to lots of the kind of equitation I am talking about. I said the fiction is equivocal (which just means having more than one meaning), and specifically I said things like "highly equivocal" because it carries so many terms that can be problematic in RPG discussions.



Who was using _the fiction_ ambiguously in this thread, in way that it could be misinterpreted as you describe?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> The problem is two-fold: I have been involved in a number of threads with posters from this thread, where I recall equivocation occurring around the term the fiction. I am not going to go back and comb through them to find the posts. What's more, I don't feel like getting more aggressive hostile responses that will inevitably result if I raise up posts from another thread involving posters here just to prove this point (as it was a fairly minor one). My biggest concern with fiction is it seems like a highly equivocal term to me, and will be prone to the sort of misuse I have described in the future. If you disagree that is fine. I can't tell you what to think.



 And I am saying that this is either an intentional misrepresentation or an accident of misunderstanding.  You only have to find evidence once to prove both wrong.  We await.  Until then, you're casting aspersions on unnamed people in an attempt to salvage your argument, which is not a good look for someone trying to claim victimhood.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, more handwaving to evidence that you recall, but cannot produce, that proves your point.  You do see the problem here, right?




No I don't. I am answering everyones' questions clearly. I gave my reasoning here


----------



## Bedrockgames

prabe said:


> Who was using _the fiction_ ambiguously in this thread, in way that it could be misinterpreted as you describe?



you have asked this multiple times already and I have given you answers. I am not here to be subject to some kind of inquisition. If you guys disagree with me that is fine. But I maintain there is an issue with equivocation when it comes to this term.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> No I don't. I am answering everyones' questions clearly. I gave my reasoning here



No, you aren't answering clearly.  You're saying that you maybe recall a problem elsewhere, but cannot recall where.  This is not clearly.  You are now smearing people with this argument, and being highly disingenuous.  Until you can produce proof of your claims, which should be easy given how you think this will be common, you need to stop implying people are dishonest.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> And I am saying that this is either an intentional misrepresentation or an accident of misunderstanding.  You only have to find evidence once to prove both wrong.  We await.  Until then, you're casting aspersions on unnamed people in an attempt to salvage your argument, which is not a good look for someone trying to claim victimhood.




I am just giving my honest opinion Omnomancer. You guys are the ones who have spent nearly ten pages of the thread going after me over this one little point.


----------



## Fenris-77

Fenris-77 said:


> _Equitation_ is the art or practice of horse riding or horsemanship



What did you actually mean here? I'm guessing you were looking for another word. This isn't a shot at you, but I didn't want to reply without clarification.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> No, you aren't answering clearly.  You're saying that you maybe recall a problem elsewhere, but cannot recall where.  This is not clearly.  You are now smearing people with this argument, and being highly disingenuous.  Until you can produce proof of your claims, which should be easy given how you think this will be common, you need to stop implying people are dishonest.



I am not smearing anyone. I am refraining from evening mentioning people. But i do remember equivocation arising around the fiction in those threads.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> What did you actually mean here? I'm guessing you were looking for another word. This isn't a shot at you, but I didn't want to reply without clarification.



?????


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I am just giving my honest opinion Omnomancer. You guys are the ones who have spent nearly ten pages of the thread going after me over this one little point.



I think you're underselling the page count associated with your use of equivocation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> I think you're underselling the page count associated with your use of equivocation.




I was just guessing at the number of pages. I have no idea how many pages it has been


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> ?????



You used the word _equitation_ twice in successive posts. It means what I said it means. I'm guessing that's not what you meant..


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I am just giving my honest opinion Omnomancer. You guys are the ones who have spent nearly ten pages of the thread going after me over this one little point.



Nope, you can't claim honest opinion as a defense.  You've made a statement of fact -- people are using "the fiction" to equivocate, specifically to sneak in "novel writing" for the make-believe results of play.  This is not an opinion, it is a claimed statement of fact. 

That it's unnamed people and that they seem to intend to do this makes this seem very much like conspiratorial ideation, and that's not healthy, man.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> You used the word _equitation_ twice in successive posts. It means what I said it means. I'm guessing that's not what you meant..




I was typing on a phone so it was likely autocorrect or a misspelling on my part


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> I was typing on a phone so it was likely autocorrect or a misspelling on my part



OK, I thought as much. It just struck me as odd. As you were sir.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, you can't claim honest opinion as a defense.  You've made a statement of fact -- people are using "the fiction" to equivocate, specifically to sneak in "novel writing" for the make-believe results of play.  This is not an opinion, it is a claimed statement of fact.
> 
> That it's unnamed people and that they seem to intend to do this makes this seem very much like conspiratorial ideation, and that's not healthy, man.




I have stated what I think and believe to be the case. It is an opinion. It could be wrong. I am not going to dig through an old thread though over it. I am content to just go by my memory.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I have stated what I think and believe to be the case. It is an opinion. It could be wrong. I am not going to dig through an old thread though over it. I am content to just go by my memory.



It's not an opinion if you're making statements of fact.  Otherwise, you're saying that you imagine people have been equivocating with "the fiction" in other threads and you imagine it happens elsewhere you haven't seen.  Is this your statement -- that you have an active imagination and imagine these things?  If so, okay, your opinion.  Quite a silly one, but we can put it safely to bed as just some active imagination.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> It's not an opinion if you're making statements of fact.  Otherwise, you're saying that you imagine people have been equivocating with "the fiction" in other threads and you imagine it happens elsewhere you haven't seen.  Is this your statement -- that you have an active imagination and imagine these things?  If so, okay, your opinion.  Quite a silly one, but we can put it safely to bed as just some active imagination.




I am not infallible. I am making statements I believe to be factual, but they are clearly my opinions. For example whether someone equivocated is going to be a debatable thing. I think equivocation arose in those threads. But that is my opinion because I could very well be incorrect.


----------



## Fenris-77

So when people in this thread tried to use a stable definition of _Fiction_, without equivocation, and with specific attention to the subject at hand, why was this other thread so important? More important than anything anyone here had to say, obviously. But not important enough to quote or refer to? You spent a lot of time derailing conversation based on amorphous fears of the use of the word fiction, I think it's appropriate to dig into that a little.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not infallible. I am making statements I believe to be factual, but they are clearly my opinions. For example whether someone equivocated is going to be a debatable thing. I think equivocation arose in those threads. But that is my opinion because I could very well be incorrect.



No, you're again using words incorrectly.  Facts cannot be your opinion. They exist or do not.  You may have opinions about facts, but you can't say a thing is a fact and also your opinion -- this is a category error.  You are saying that you think a thing exists, but this is an act of imagination, not of fact.  Saying that it's your opinion that such equivocations as have been discussed exist is you imagining that they do.  If this is the case, as I said, we can easily put this to bed as your imagination of bad things.  No further need to argue.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> So when people in this thread tried to use a stable definition of _Fiction_, without equivocation, and with specific attention to the subject at hand, why was this other thread so important? More important than anything anyone here had to say, obviously. But not important enough to quote or refer to? You spent a lot of time derailing conversation based on amorphous fears of the use of the word fiction, I think it's appropriate to dig into that a little.




To say that the definition here was stable, I would have to comb through and review as I wasn't reading this thread with that particular issue in mind. The other thread was important because it was one of the threads where the whole GMs notes thing arose as a pejorative. It was part of a cluster of threads around similar topics, where a lot of debate centered on 'the fiction' and the fiction was used in a way that really diminished sandbox and living world play (and I believe it was by equivocation). I don't want to revisit that here. I stated my reasons for objecting to the term the fiction. I have long objected to that term (in part because of how it has been used, in part because of its potential for misuses, and also, frankly because I find the phrasing 'the fiction' to be a little snooty as well). You are totally free to ignore my objections. Generally the times i object to it is when someone asks me to sign off on a particular use of it as an example of what I mean (and I almost always respond by saying that I would not use the term the fiction). How we got to this point in this discussion, I honestly don't know. I know I raised an objection some time ago, brought up equivocation and it has become the focus somehow. My feeling on it is, this is how I feel about the term, people aren't under any obligation to agree with  or even consider my feelings on the term 'the fiction'. It really shouldn't be something that warrants a discussion this  lengthy and redundant


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> No, you're again using words incorrectly.  Facts cannot be your opinion. They exist or do not. * You may have opinions about facts, but you can't say a thing is a fact and also your opinion *-- this is a category error.  You are saying that you think a thing exists, but this is an act of imagination, not of fact.  Saying that it's your opinion that such equivocations as have been discussed exist is you imagining that they do.  If this is the case, as I said, we can easily put this to bed as your imagination of bad things.  No further need to argue.




I have trying to be clear that I believe, and I remember, that equivocation occurred around the fiction. That is an opinion about something that may be a fact.


----------



## Fenris-77

I gave a succicnt and stable defintion, more than once. What other people in other places may or may have not done is immaterial. I also dont really care that you find it snooty, it's not exactly a high falutin' word.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> You spent a lot of time derailing conversation based on amorphous fears of the use of the word fiction, I think it's appropriate to dig into that a little.




Fenris, I have explained my view on the term as best I can. I don't think it is worth any digging on my part as what I get in response is hostile and seemingly angry posts. I have been responding to posts here all day. I don't really see any value when it seems like you guys have already made up your minds about me and my opinions on this matter.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> I gave a succicnt and stable defintion, more than once. What other people in other places may or may have not done is immaterial. I also dont really care that you find it snooty, it's not exactly a high falutin' word.




Unsurprisingly I disagree. I think 'the fiction' has a very pretentious ring to it. Maybe I am outlier on that. Maybe 99% of people don't hear that in it. I am not the final arbiter here. But my honest response when I first heard it, and whenever I hear it now, is it seems a little 'high falutin' to me. 

Yes, you did. But I don't believe that stable definition has been followed in the past. Nor do I believe it will be followed in the future.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> I have trying to be clear that I believe, and I remember, that equivocation occurred around the fiction. That is an opinion about something that may be a fact.



Nope.  You're either claiming its your opinion, or it is a fact.  Here you are claiming it is a fact, and trying to also say it's just your opinion.  That's attempting to equivocate -- you're trying to use opinion in one since, that it's just your thinking and so cannot be proven, but also trying to insinuate that opinions can be about fact and have the weight of facts as evidence of your claims. That this later definition is entirely incorrect is not stopping this argument from occurring -- you just made it here.  So, congratulations, I guess, you earn an equivocation gold star for recursive equivocation!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope.  You're either claiming its your opinion, or it is a fact.  Here you are claiming it is a fact, and trying to also say it's just your opinion.  That's attempting to equivocate -- you're trying to use opinion in one since, that it's just your thinking and so cannot be proven, but also trying to insinuate that opinions can be about fact and have the weight of facts as evidence of your claims. That this later definition is entirely incorrect is not stopping this argument from occurring -- you just made it here.  So, congratulations, I guess, you earn an equivocation gold star for recursive equivocation!




Now I am just going to have to tune you out Ovin. I've entertained your posts long enough


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> Now I am just going to have to tune you out Ovin. I've entertained your posts long enough



Yes, this seems wise of you.


----------



## Fenris-77

All that needs doing is to ask a question. What do you mean by fiction? To which I reply, the narration or description of imaginary events and people (a dictionary definition buy the way). After that, what other people mean, or say, doesn't matter. 

Your appreciation of hostility is missing the extent to which you've derailed this entire thread by worrying more about possible equivocation by unnamed people in unknown contexts, rather than the actual use and context of this actual thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Also, having more than one meaning is NOT equivocal.



I am  not going to debate stuff like that with you any more Fenris. I provided the philosophical dictionary definition of both terms. If you feel that isn't adequate I don't know what to say (though I will state even the first dictionary definition is "being subject to two or more interpretations, and usually used to mislead or confuse". But it ultimately isn't that important. I was just using it as a handy descriptor of the The Fiction. I wasn't trying to start a debate about the meaning of words


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, this seems wise of you.



Have a nice day: goodbye


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> Have a nice day: goodbye



Comma, not colon.


----------



## hawkeyefan




----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Comma, not colon.



Maybe he's starting a list...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> All that needs doing is to ask a question. What do you mean by fiction? To which I reply, the narration or description of imaginary events and people (a dictionary definition buy the way). After that, what other people mean, or say, doesn't matter.
> 
> Your appreciation of hostility is missing the extent to which you've derailed this entire thread by worrying more about possible equivocation by unnamed people in unknown contexts, rather than the actual use and context of this actual thread.




You guys are the ones derailing the thread. I make an objection to a term. You can ignore that objection, you can respond to it and move on. You guys are the ones circling around me, and hate posting me. The derailment has been you guys pedantically arguing with me over whether I used equivocation correctly. I respond to posts in kind. If people are nice, I am nice. If people are mean, I am more defensive. If people are behaving aggressively or rudely, I don't pretend they aren't doing so. I admit I made a somewhat aggressive comment early in this thread stating I felt the thread title was something of a trap (which was due to my interactions with the OP around the topic in the threads I mentioned). Some people agreed with me and that led to a lot of argumentation. Not my best day on En World, I readily admit. But I don't think that warrants what I have received here (and it isn't like this is unique to this thread, plenty of the posters who are hostile to me, have long been hostile to me for previous interactions over similar topics). 

Let me be clear: I want you to stop aggressively posting at me. I am happy to engage all of you. Not here to be your bad guy.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ovinomancer said:


> Comma, not colon.




You are an naughty word (and that is a fact, not an opinion)


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, this is a pickle, isn't it? You have, manifestly, been derailing the thread for days with constant references to equivocation and word use, constantly dismissing arguments and positions based solely on a word or two. But taken to task about that, the finger gets pointed elsewhere. That seems self-serving, at the very least.  You wouldn't be satisfied with offerings of stable definitions, nor specific examples of said same, you harped away on this strawman of possible equivocation. I would suggest that the question should be put to you, not anyone else, can we let that petty crap go and just talk about the hobby? Can we stick to the people and words in* this* thread rather than vague allusions to other people, other uses, and other threads?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, this is a pickle, isn't it? You have, manifestly, been derailing the thread for days with constant references to equivocation and word use, constantly dismissing arguments and positions based solely on a word or two. But taken to task about that, the finger gets pointed elsewhere. That seems self-serving, at the very least.  You wouldn't be satisfied with offerings of stable definitions, nor specific examples of said same, you harped away on this strawman of possible equivocation. I would suggest that the question should be put to you, not anyone else, can we let that petty crap go and just talk about the hobby? Can we stick to the people and words in* this* thread rather than vague allusions to other people, other uses, and other threads?




Fenris I think I have shown I have no problem when people disagree with me or even take me to task. But I do have a problem with snide posts, aggressive posts, being the subject of a coordinated dog pile, and when people don't seem to be making good faith objections to my posts (where they just appear to be engaged in specious and pedantic arguments around words). Maybe you think that is just giving me a dose of my own medicine. But I would argue the concern around equivocation of fiction is a valid one (I could be wrong for sure, but it is a reasonable issue to raise). Dissecting my use of equivocation in some attempt to prove I don't understand the word, I think clearly disingenuous and just done to be spiteful and attempt to humiliate me. Now I will admit there were times I made personal attacks myself (but in those instances I do feel they were against posters who were behaving somewhat abusively towards other posters by lording knowledge and expertise over them). 

Personally Fenris, I like you as a poster. I have enjoyed our conversations. So I am perfectly happy to ignore this going forward (which I can't say for posters like Aldarc and Ovin because there is long history of these kinds of exchanges there).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fenris-77 said:


> constantly dismissing arguments and positions based solely on a word or two.




Look in the mirror. People on my side of the fence spent the better part of the thread having to defend their use of the two words "Living World". This isn't just me coming in and storming a happy and productive thread


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, as I mentioned upstream, this isn't personal. You should take to heart though that I am fully as frustrated with you as I imagine you are with me. I wouldn't have bothered taking you to task without good cause. The problem remains that you don't seem to see your part in this at all. So rather than trying to reflect or divert blame, why not spend a second thinking about the idea that my post above was actually an entirely accurate description of your posting in this thread, and not some rhetorical construct designed to hurt your feelings?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Bedrockgames said:


> You are an naughty word (and that is a fact, not an opinion)



I wouldn't dare disagree.


Bedrockgames said:


> Look in the mirror. People on my side of the fence spent the better part of the thread having to defend their use of the two words "Living World". This isn't just me coming in and storming a happy and productive thread



No one's asked you defend it.  They asked you to _define _it.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> You are an a*****e (and that is a fact, not an opinion)




*Mod Note:*
Okay, that's enough for you.  You're done.  Please go take a breather, and maybe find something to engage with that doesn't grind your gears until you lose your composure.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> Comma, not colon.



*Mod Note:*
And guess what?  You're done too.  This was trolling nonsense. The next time someone disengages from you, _STOP POKING THEM_.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> My problem with the term fiction, is its a loaded term.



Meh - there's various terms that get chucked around here (usually by the same few people) that are pretty loaded, but IMO "fiction" ain't one of 'em.

...he says, 20 pages later...yikes, has this thing gone nuts in the last few days!


----------



## Lanefan

Slowly grinding my way through here... 


hawkeyefan said:


> Which would you say is greater? Player influence on GM's ideas of the fiction, or GM's influence on players' ideas of the fiction?
> 
> 
> It's a genuine question.....one I don't think has an objective answer, but I think it is kind of central to the idea here.



I'd say the answer varies based on scale.

On a large or background scale, the GM's influence is always greater.  On a small here-and-now or character scale, the players' influence may be greater should they choose to use it (not all do, and-or not all the time).

As for the whole "play to find out what's in the GM's notes" business:


hawkeyefan said:


> I get the connotations and why people have an issue with the first. But mostly this thread has just confirmed for me that it's a pretty accurate description. I don't think it must be a pejorative, even if that's how it may seem or may have been intended (although I think it was meant more to provoke a response than to really put a style down).



Every time I see the phrase I also see an implied "just" or "only" or "all you're doing is" in front of it; largely because of all those occasions when one of those preceding pieces has been actually present.  So yes, as IMO the phrase is intentionally and consistently being used as a put-down by a few posters, that sense of belittlement remains even when someone else uses the phrase perfectly neutrally.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Works for me. I just make an effort to have the PCs not encounter the same place twice, even if they go back to a location. And, if the narrative has planted a timeline, I keep track of it. Other than that I don't do background stuff.



Wait, what?

You try to stop your PCs from going back to the same town, or the same tavern, just because they've been there before?

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Interesting.  What role do your notes have in this horrorscape?



Remember _The Monster Book of Monsters_ in Harry Potter?

Now make it bigger.  Mu-u-u-uch bigger.  As in planet-size bigger.....


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> In any standard FRPG, if the PCs find a castle then that castle will have existed in the setting prior to them finding it. And it would have existed even if they had not. In the BW game in which my characters found Evard's Tower, the tower existed before they found it. _How else could they have found it?!_ In fact my PC found evidence in the tower - ie letters apparently written by his mother as a child - which implied the tower had existed from well before he was born.
> 
> So it is not at all distinctive of a sandbox that a castle, or tower, or any other relatively permanent thing should exist in the setting independent of who finds it.
> 
> Similarly for Emerikol's dungeons: presumably if Emerikol decides to use a campaign world for another campaign, set a year or so after the previous campaign, and drops in a new dungeon that is 1,000 years old, then that dungeon existed in the world during the last campaign too (and was about 999 years old when that old campaign finished).
> 
> So when Emerikiol says _it may not have existed in the sandbox earlier_ I think that means _the GM hadn't thought of it yet, and so hadn't written it down_. And when Bedrockgames says _it should exist in a sandbox whether or not they find it_ I think that means _the GM should have thought of it already and written it down, so that (eg) the GM can narrate signs of its existence_.
> 
> I don't know how those two claims - and related claims about verisimilitude, feeling "real", etc - are to be reconciled.



I don't see a need for reconciliation, because in effect the two claims very much support each other: _the GM hadn't thought of it yet and so hadn't written it down [but] the GM should have thought of it already and written it down so [as to be able to] narrate signs of its existence _are part and parcel of what is IMO a blatant and very avoidable GM* error: putting something into the setting later that would unquestionably have previously come up in either in play or narration had it been there earlier.

Solid pre-campaign prep maybe can't completely eliminate this sort of occurrence but it sure helps minimize it.

* - in games where players have some setting control it could also be a player error.


pemerton said:


> This seems to fit with what Bedrockgames said about the castle But I don't see how it is supposed to be reconciled with the possibility of subsequently authoring in a 1,000 year old dungeon. Obviously the GM will not have narrated signs of the existence of that dungeon prior to thinking it up; yet presumably such signs ought to have been present.



Absolutely.  GM mistake, all day long.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Then you'd be wrong. I've run many games with little prep and some with no prep.
> 
> Here are links to games I ran with no prep. The first two were Cthulhu Dark. The third was Wuthering Heights. All went very well: the PCs were created, starting situations were envisaged, events unfolded as imagined by the participants and guided by the action resolution processes; and in each case a satisfying resolution was reached which no one had any anticipation of when we started.



Might I ask how long (as in, how many sessions) those games/campaigns lasted?

Reason I ask is that if the game's only expected/designed to last a few sessions or sort out one story arc (this would include a typical hard-line AP as well) the underlying setting doesn't have to do nearly as much work as if the game's expected to last for many years and have many adventuring parties tromping around in not-always-predictable directions; meaning the shorter game requires massively less (or even no) setting prep, and on a much smaller scale, than does the long one.


----------



## Lanefan

Reading the argument over the word "equivocation", a stray thought wandered by:

Could the difference in how the word is viewed be culture-based?

From what I recall of where some posters are in the world and looking at their takes in this thread, I'm starting to wonder if in the USA the word "equivocation" carries much more of a sense of malicious-intent-to-deceive than it does in the UK.


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> I know you think this.  However, your arguments about how "fiction" will be misconstrued do not show up in the wild, even after more than a decade of it being something not uncommonly used.  If we go by the metric of "does your idea have evidence to back it" and "is there a large body of evidence where it would show up," those answers are no and yes respectively.  So, lots of opportunity, no evidence.  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, however, but at some point, it's pretty convincing.  How long do we need to keep checking to see if your concern comes true to lay this to bed, and remember, I cannot prove a negative, just show there's no positives.



Again, I have also been looking for citations among OSR and sandbox community regarding the term "fiction" as a taboo word associated too closely with "story," and I'm not having any luck. The evidence appealed to is entirely anecdotal conversations. I can find resistance to the word "story" and "storytelling," though typically these circles prefer using "emerging story" instead.



Bedrockgames said:


> My understanding of equivocation is it is merely the shifting from one meaning to another of a word in an argument, which produces a conclusion that just doesn't follow. It is a problem of logic, not a problem of intention. Obviously it is often going to be used intentionally. But I can't get into the head of people equivocating in their arguments. The end result is the same whether the intention to do so is there. You see people equivocate on multiple uses of a word all the time without even realizing they are doing so.



A key point of equivocation is that the shift in meaning produces a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from the premises. A key word simply being lexically ambiguous, with conversation clarifying that ambiguity is not an informal logical fallacy.

What has not been demonstrated or proved "ripe for equivocation" in the case of 'fiction' is that it has been, is, or will be used in a way that does not produce logically coherent conclusions. That a term can mean different things (as _lexical ambiguity_ is highly prevalent in language) is not the same as "the term will be used to mean different things to obfuscate discussion or reach illogical conclusions in a hypothetical conversation that hasn't happened yet." This is mainly why your sense of the problematic in regards to "fiction" is much closer to the simple "ambiguity" side of the spectrum rather than the "equivocation" side.



Bedrockgames said:


> *No a term on its own can't be an equivocation. *My objection was it is a term people tend to equivocate on, and that it is pretty obvious to me, it will lead to lots of the kind of equitation I am talking about.



So why call it a "highly equivocal term" then? That only adds to the confusion.



Bedrockgames said:


> I said the fiction is *equivocal* (which just *means having more than one meaning*), and specifically I said things like "highly equivocal" because it carries so many terms that can be problematic in RPG discussions.









This is equivocating on what "equivocal" means, switching between a possible a synonym for "ambiguity" (more than one interpretation, albeit ignoring that equivocal often connotes duplicitous or evasive language) and an adjectival version of equivocation (switching between meanings in an argument to reach incoherent conclusions).



Bedrockgames said:


> I am just giving my honest opinion Omnomancer. You guys are the ones who have spent nearly ten pages of the thread going after me over this one little point.



Simple Solution: Then don't make it a key point of your argument.



Bedrockgames said:


> and also, frankly because I find the phrasing 'the fiction' to be a little snooty as well).



If anything, to me it's an incredibly plebian and natural one. As I said before, it describes the fiction of the game as "the fiction."


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Meh - there's various terms that get chucked around here (usually by the same few people) that are pretty loaded, but IMO "fiction" ain't one of 'em.
> 
> ...he says, 20 pages later...yikes, has this thing gone nuts in the last few days!



It's loaded. It's snooty. It's highly equivocal. I can't tell you how, but it is. You'll have to trust me on that, Lanefan. But more important than all that: the intellectual snobs who engage in badwrongthink I dislike are using it so it must be wrong. 



Lanefan said:


> Reading the argument over the word "equivocation", a stray thought wandered by:
> 
> Could the difference in how the word is viewed be culture-based?
> 
> From what I recall of where some posters are in the world and looking at their takes in this thread, I'm starting to wonder if in the USA the word "equivocation" carries much more of a sense of malicious-intent-to-deceive than it does in the UK.



This is a good thought that shows awareness of cultural variability with connotations, but I don't think that this is the case with "equivocation." Here are several separate lexical definitions that I found in Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries: 


> The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.





> to talk about something in a way that is deliberately not clear in order to avoid or hide the truth





> a way of speaking that is intentionally not clear and is confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth



The intent to deceive or evade is also often included in US-Canadian understandings of the term as well as for the related words "equivocate" and "equivocal." Now this is also, let it be said, about equivocation, in general use, rather than in regards to an equivocation fallacy, a fallacy of informal logic.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> It's loaded. It's snooty. It's highly equivocal. I can't tell you how, but it is. You'll have to trust me on that, Lanefan. But more important than all that: the intellectual snobs who engage in badwrongthink I dislike are using it so it must be wrong.



You forgot pompous.  It's pompous too, don't'cha know.

Never forget pompous.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Might I ask how long (as in, how many sessions) those games/campaigns lasted?
> 
> Reason I ask is that if the game's only expected/designed to last a few sessions or sort out one story arc (this would include a typical hard-line AP as well) the underlying setting doesn't have to do nearly as much work as if the game's expected to last for many years and have many adventuring parties tromping around in not-always-predictable directions; meaning the shorter game requires massively less (or even no) setting prep, and on a much smaller scale, than does the long one.



I think a separate issue that you inject in here in a discussion of time and duration, namely "have many adventuring parties tromping around." Because I believe the issue of time has been discussed before in regards to these sort of story now games. I believe pemerton and a few others have said that their campaigns have lasted for multiple years, and there isn't reason to doubt their claims. I don't think that time or duration is really a problem with this method, because any fiction added to the game must be accounted for later once it has been introduced into the game. Once the fiction of a castle appearing on a hill has been introduced in the game, the castle is now an established part of the fiction that will not be moved, unless David Xanatos buys the castle, disassembles it, and then rebuilds it to sit atop his skyscraper in New York. 

But I'm not sure if many PC adventuring parties being in the same world as other PC parties has really been discussed. I'm not sure if that means it's incompatible with these techniques though. I vaguely recall mention on Twitter of Steven Lumpkin (Silent0siris) working on a West Marches hack of Blades in the Dark, though I'm not sure of his progress on that project.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> I think a separate issue that you inject in here in a discussion of time and duration, namely "have many adventuring parties tromping around." Because I believe the issue of time has been discussed before in regards to these sort of story now games. I believe pemerton and a few others have said that their campaigns have lasted for multiple years, and there isn't reason to doubt their claims. I don't think that time or duration is really a problem with this method, because any fiction added to the game must be accounted for later once it has been introduced into the game. Once the fiction of a castle appearing on a hill has been introduced in the game, the castle is now an established part of the fiction that will not be moved, unless David Xanatos buys the castle, disassembles it, and then rebuilds it to sit atop his skyscraper in New York.



From the sound of it, then, you end up with much the same amount of work being done in terms of note-taking; only it's mostly being done after the sessions are played rather than before.


Aldarc said:


> But I'm not sure if many PC adventuring parties being in the same world as other PC parties has really been discussed. I'm not sure if that means it's incompatible with these techniques though. I vaguely recall mention on Twitter of Steven Lumpkin (Silent0siris) working on a West Marches hack of Blades in the Dark, though I'm not sure of his progress on that project.



I've got anywhere between two and five PC parties active at any given in-game time, meaning geography and time in particular become relevant as I need to know who is where when in case they bump into each other or try to arrange such.  This can be a delicate juggling act sometimes, when one group gets ahead of another in time (we can only play one group at a time) and I've as yet no idea where/when any others might pop up.

In any case, having a solid setting underneath it all sure helps with this.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> From the sound of it, then, you end up with much the same amount of work being done in terms of note-taking; only it's mostly being done after the sessions are played rather than before.



I suspect hence "story now" rather than "story before." I guess another less glamorous way of putting it is "notes later." From what I gather part of the idea behind this, though not all of it in its entirety _mind you and me both_, is since note-making/taking doesn't occur before play, the GM has less reason or even resources to coerce outcomes and/or player agency using those notes.

Going back to the OP, if we were to think again about "play to discover the GM's notes" (and for sake of conversation, let's gloss over the controversy), we could also ask more generally: _"how, when, and by whom are 'notes' generated in different games?" _

Some games will say, "the GM should prep notes for play." Some games will say, "the GM should use _these notes_ and keep players focused on them." Some games will say, "here are guidelines/procedures for GM note generation." Other games will make note generation _mostly_ an exclusive task of the GM. Other games are more liberal with player note generation.



Lanefan said:


> I've got anywhere between two and five PC parties active at any given in-game time, meaning geography and time in particular become relevant as I need to know who is where when in case they bump into each other or try to arrange such.  This can be a delicate juggling act sometimes, when one group gets ahead of another in time (we can only play one group at a time) and I've as yet no idea where/when any others might pop up.
> 
> In any case, having a solid setting underneath it all sure helps with this.



I can see how that would be a potential issue. A lot of this, IMHO, will vary between the actual games that are being played, as myth vs. no myth will vary even between PbtA/FitD/etc. games. But again, I'm not sure if it's necessarily as incompatible as one would imagine, since I could easily see a FitD game work for a West Marches style campaign, especially since every "gig," adventure site, or dungeon basically exists as a "heist" scenario. Instead of trying to take over territory in a city, you are trying to expand territory from your point of light in the frontier. Instead of law enforcement, the pressure comes from other oppositional forces that are competing for similar grounds and resources (e.g., BBEG, hordes of monsters, chaos cultists, etc.).

In other PbtA games, this won't be possible. For example, if one were running Stonetop (a Dungeon World-modified game), you are all residents of a vaguely Celto-Germanic iron age village called "Stonetop." There can't really be multiple parties or multiple PCs of the same "class" because your playbooks establish that you are THE Heavy (fighter), THE Marshal (warlord), THE Ranger (ranger), THE Fox (rogue), THE Would-Be-Hero, etc. of the village of Stonetop. One could definitely run the Stonetop game such that other parties are inhabitants of other settlements (e.g., Marshedge, Gordin's Delve, etc.).


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> From what I recall of where some posters are in the world and looking at their takes in this thread, I'm starting to wonder if in the USA the word "equivocation" carries much more of a sense of malicious-intent-to-deceive than it does in the UK.




Edit: Never mind, Aldarc beat me to it

For the US, we can use Merriam-Webster.com
Definition of _equivocation_
*: *deliberate evasiveness in wording
*: *the use of ambiguous or equivocal language
*: *an ambiguous or deliberately evasive statement

On the British side, we can use Lexico, the free face of the Oxford English Dictionary:
*Equivocation:* The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

Or perhaps the Cambridge dictionary:
*Equivocation:* a way of speaking that is intentionally not clear and is confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth, or something said in this way

Unless you want to toss aside the OED _and_ Cambridge dictionaries, the intent to obfuscate seems present in the word on both sides of the pond.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Is it? The Phoenix on the Sword is pretty compelling as far as fantasy stories go. And yet REH was pretty much making it up as he went along.



Yes.  That is why I said "on average".  If you read books that are teaching author's how to write they all suggest you get to know your world well before writing about it.  

And I am taking for granted that I'd agree that "Phoenix on the Sword" is an entertaining book.  I suspect in many cases we'd tend to disagree.   But when I say "on average" I am leaving open the fact there are outliers.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> This is why I think the use of "living world" as a style of game rather than a goal is kind of useless except by those who have accepted is as shorthand for something more specific. Because it applies to a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World as readily as it does to D&D or more traditional sandbox games. And I expect that is not its intended use.



A living world is a world that changes without PC stimuli.   It will of course also change due to PC stimuli but that alone doesn't make it a living world.

Think of a dead body.  if I pick up the corpse arm and move it, the corpse is still dead.  If the arm starts moving all by itself then it's not dead.   (Maybe in D&D it's undead but that's not what I mean here ;-)).

How it changes without PC stimuli can vary of course but I would absolutely dismiss the idea that it can be done as just in time response to PC action.   That is a PC stimuli.   A living world will over time have events that occur and are never seen by the PCs and never reacted to by the PCs.    I achieve that affect within the sandbox by using a calendar.   I map the movements and actions of my NPCs based upon those NPCs personalities and agendas.  When the party interacts with an NPC in some significant way, I change the calendar for that NPC.   If the party interacts with the entire sandbox in some significant way, like burning down the entire village, then of course I have a lot of calendar changes to make.  Many of those might just be marking NPCs as dead who lived in the village.

So the key is that events happen that do not always affect the PCs.  That is a living world.  If you try to make it look like the world was changing but it really wasn't, then I'd say that is similar to what a novelist does to simulate a living world in his writing but it would not be a living world.


----------



## Emerikol

innerdude said:


> Something like, "If I can just keep the players from trying to do all of the scene and history extrapolating, and keep that behind my curtain, it will make it easier for them to mentally envision/enmesh/insert their consciousness into the world. They're not having to jump out from their segmented character mindset to worry about the 'dynamism' of the setting, or feel pressure to make things work...



This is likely true.  I think though the primary goal of being in character is that we find that the funnest way to play the game.  Maybe it's funner for us because of what you say but the fun came before the analysis for us.



innerdude said:


> ....Furthermore, it's too easy for external inputs that I-as-GM haven't envisioned to disrupt the balance/harmony of the ur-state 'external model' I've already spent so much time building.



Well, of course if you have players able to change wholesale any fiction that is not established by the GM pretty much destroys the ability to have a living world (as I defined it elsewhere).   You can't have truth apart from the players knowledge of things if by definition the only truth is the players knowledge of things.  When Story Now defines truth as only what is known to the group, it runs counter to off camera truth.



innerdude said:


> "If we can just keep the characters immersed 'playing as their character', I can more fully enable and maintain the fine balance of managing the verisimilitude of the SIS, while also having the secondary benefit of reducing distractions in getting the players into our desired 'immersion flow.'"



If you mean that changing from character to player and back frequently is dissociating then yes.  We would want to escape into a world and become the character in the same way we escape into a novel and become the protagonist.   Becoming an author and a character at the same time would be conflicting for us.



innerdude said:


> Is there any accuracy to this?



So I think you've hit close to the truth.  



innerdude said:


> *Side note: I've mentioned it already, but the biggest paradigm shift (and I mean that in the absolute, literal sense of the world) for me came when I finally let go of the notion of there being an "objective external model" of the SIS. As soon as I could lay that conceit aside, and recognize that the "objective external model" was just as much a constructed fiction as everything else, my entire mindset changed.



I get that.  To me though the value of that constructed external model is higher given it's been carefully prepared than something done off the cuff.  That valuation though may not hold true for you.  In fact, I've asked myself recently if perhaps another genre might fit Story Now better than my play.  I'm very much a fantasy player and I think I am because it preserves a lot of the style I prefer.

For example, I wondered if a super heroes game might be a Story Now fit.  Skill challenges for supers often seems to not be a good fit.  Also advancing levels and gaining powers does not seem very super hero like.   But I'm not sure.  I was just mulling over such thoughts.  

I also wondered that it is likely there is far less note taking, mapping, etc... going on in Story Now so would it fit situations where you don't have a table and are playing theatre of the mind exclusively.  Like a roadtrip across country.  

For me, when I'm going to play once a week for three or four hours, for perhaps a few years, the commitment level is so high timewise that I just don't want to waste it on what FOR ME would be a less than optimal approach.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> A living world is a world that changes without PC stimuli.   It will of course also change due to PC stimuli but that alone doesn't make it a living world.
> 
> Think of a dead body.  if I pick up the corpse arm and move it, the corpse is still dead.  If the arm starts moving all by itself then it's not dead.   (Maybe in D&D it's undead but that's not what I mean here ;-)).
> 
> How it changes without PC stimuli can vary of course but I would absolutely dismiss the idea that it can be done as just in time response to PC action.   That is a PC stimuli.   A living world will over time have events that occur and are never seen by the PCs and never reacted to by the PCs.    I achieve that affect within the sandbox by using a calendar.   I map the movements and actions of my NPCs based upon those NPCs personalities and agendas.  When the party interacts with an NPC in some significant way, I change the calendar for that NPC.   If the party interacts with the entire sandbox in some significant way, like burning down the entire village, then of course I have a lot of calendar changes to make.  Many of those might just be marking NPCs as dead who lived in the village.
> 
> So the key is that events happen that do not always affect the PCs.  That is a living world.  If you try to make it look like the world was changing but it really wasn't, then I'd say that is similar to what a novelist does to simulate a living world in his writing but it would not be a living world.




Right. So what RPGs don’t do this?


----------



## Aldarc

hawkeyefan said:


> Right. So what RPGs don’t do this?



The ones I'm not familiar with. Out of sight, out of mind, out of existence.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> You try to stop your PCs from going back to the same town, or the same tavern, just because they've been there before?
> 
> Or am I missing something?



I explained it in another post, but the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread isn't the best. "You can't step into the same river twice." If the PCs go back to Embernook, Embernook is (in principle) not as they left it. Clearly I wasn't at my clearest, sorry.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> I explained it in another post, but the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread isn't the best. "You can't step into the same river twice." If the PCs go back to Embernook, Embernook is (in principle) not as they left it. *Clearly I wasn't at my clearest, sorry*.



At least you were transparent with your apology.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> At least you were transparent with your apology.



I assure you, I knew what I had done, there.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> Right. So what RPGs don’t do this?



Games where the players focus and steer the fiction around their dramatic needs and the GM is constrained to only create fiction in response to said steering and dramatic needs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Games where the players focus and steer the fiction around their dramatic needs and the GM is constrained to only create fiction in response to said steering and dramatic needs.




So which games are those?


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> So which games are those?



Well one thats been discussed on this thread is BitD. But honestly that is a playstyle I'm not really a fan of so maybe those who are can list more.

EDIT: For clarification I am speaking to games with high levels of protagonism (as the word was defined earlier in the thread by... I believe...Ovinomancer??)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Well one thats been discussed on this thread is BitD. But honestly that is a playstyle I'm not really a fan of so maybe those who are can list more.
> 
> EDIT: For clarification I am speaking to games with high levels of protagonism (as the word was defined earlier in the thread by... I believe...Ovinomancer??)




I’m familiar with Blades in the Dark. And although I would say that the focus is on the characters, there is still plenty involved with establishing a living world. 

This is why I don’t find the “living world” as an approach to be all that  enlightening. It would appear to include all manner of games that otherwise have some significant differences. 

It doesn’t seem to do anything more than the term sandbox, which is something that all kinds f games can be.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> I suspect hence "story now" rather than "story before." I guess another less glamorous way of putting it is "notes later." From what I gather part of the idea behind this, though not all of it in its entirety _mind you and me both_, is since note-making/taking doesn't occur before play, the GM has less reason or even resources to coerce outcomes and/or player agency using those notes.
> 
> Going back to the OP, if we were to think again about "play to discover the GM's notes" (and for sake of conversation, let's gloss over the controversy), we could also ask more generally: _"how, when, and by whom are 'notes' generated in different games?" _
> 
> Some games will say, "the GM should prep notes for play." Some games will say, "the GM should use _these notes_ and keep players focused on them." Some games will say, "here are guidelines/procedures for GM note generation." Other games will make note generation _mostly_ an exclusive task of the GM. Other games are more liberal with player note generation.



And there my own personal preference comes in: I'd far rather do as much of the work ahead of time as I can - ideally before the campaign even begins - such that during play I can somewhat sit back and enjoy running the game in the moment without having to worry about remembering and-or writing down any more than I asbolutely have to.


Aldarc said:


> I can see how that would be a potential issue. A lot of this, IMHO, will vary between the actual games that are being played, as myth vs. no myth will vary even between PbtA/FitD/etc. games. But again, I'm not sure if it's necessarily as incompatible as one would imagine, since I could easily see a FitD game work for a West Marches style campaign, especially since every "gig," adventure site, or dungeon basically exists as a "heist" scenario. Instead of trying to take over territory in a city, you are trying to expand territory from your point of light in the frontier. Instead of law enforcement, the pressure comes from other oppositional forces that are competing for similar grounds and resources (e.g., BBEG, hordes of monsters, chaos cultists, etc.).
> 
> In other PbtA games, this won't be possible. For example, if one were running Stonetop (a Dungeon World-modified game), you are all residents of a vaguely Celto-Germanic iron age village called "Stonetop." There can't really be multiple parties or multiple PCs of the same "class" because your playbooks establish that you are THE Heavy (fighter), THE Marshal (warlord), THE Ranger (ranger), THE Fox (rogue), THE Would-Be-Hero, etc. of the village of Stonetop. One could definitely run the Stonetop game such that other parties are inhabitants of other settlements (e.g., Marshedge, Gordin's Delve, etc.).



Yeah, that Stonetop model would never work for me for anything longer than a one-off in that I always assume two things about any ongoing setting: one, there's other adventurers in the setting beyond just the PCs and two, there's going to be some character recruitment/turnover and the replacements have to come from somewhere.

As for the West Marches scenario, it'd be cool if the oppositional force faced by one party is in fact one of the players' other parties!


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I’m familiar with Blades in the Dark. And although I would say that the focus is on the characters, there is still plenty involved with establishing a living world.
> 
> This is why I don’t find the “living world” as an approach to be all that  enlightening. It would appear to include all manner of games that otherwise have some significant differences.
> 
> It doesn’t seem to do anything more than the term sandbox, which is something that all kinds f games can be.



So in BitD do you create fiction, progress timeliness and so on that are unknown and/or not influenced by the players? I haven't played in a while but I don't remember doing anything for it away from the table.

My thoughts are that you provide a curated world but not a living one by the definition I gave.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> I explained it in another post, but the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread isn't the best. "You can't step into the same river twice." If the PCs go back to Embernook, Embernook is (in principle) not as they left it. Clearly I wasn't at my clearest, sorry.



I try to keep some semblance of stability in the setting, even though there's also ongoing change.  Embernook would still be there as a town, for example, after a year away; and the PCs' favourite tavern would welcome them once more, but there might be a new temple going up in the main square and some tension could have escalated between the local Hobbits and the local Humans...that sort of thing.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> I assure you, I knew what I had done, there.



Oh, yeah.  I totally saw through what you did and was just jumping on board.


----------



## Campbell

Imaro said:


> So in BitD do you create fiction, progress timeliness and so on that are unknown and/or not influenced by the players? I haven't played in a while but I don't remember doing anything for it away from the table.
> 
> My thoughts are that you provide a curated world but not a living one by the definition I gave.



Each faction has these progress clocks. During downtime the GM is supposed to roll to advance the ones they are interested in. You are also supposed to come up with new ticking clocks based on what's going on in the fiction.


----------



## Imaro

Campbell said:


> Each faction has these progress clocks. During downtime the GM is supposed to roll to advance the ones they are interested in. You are also supposed to come up with new ticking clocks based on what's going on in the fiction.



But these results are all known by the players... right?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> But these results are all known by the players... right?




@Campbell has it right about clocks.

Are they all player facing? I’m not 100% on if it’s specifically stated to be such in the book, but in my experience most if not all are.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> @Campbell has it right about clocks.
> 
> Are they all player facing? I’m not 100% on if it’s specifically stated to be such in the book, but in my experience most if not all are.



So these are things that influence and are influenced by the players. Basically everything the GM creates is for PC or from PC stimuli.


----------



## Campbell

I think a lot of this commentary is being remarkably uncharitable when it comes to the depth of the fiction experienced in Story Now play. It basically paints Story Now GMs as remarkably lazy and undisciplined. We're not space aliens. We're just directing our energy to a different place. Assuming an equal amount of effort there is going to be more depth / detail where you spend your energy.

In any game some elements of the setting are going to more tangible based on where effort gets expended. Some will be less so. That's why it is so important to be mindful of where we spend our energy. Platonic sandbox play tends to feel more tangible to me when looking at things that are further away from the PCs' present situation because the GM is spending a lot more time and mental energy on those things. Platonic Story Now play tends to have a lot more detail and depth devoted to things that are related to the current situation and especially the things that are important to the Player Characters'. Again assuming equal effort here which I think is fair.

I'm not completely crazy about comparisons to novels, but a great example to me is the Lord of the Rings trilogy compared to the Witcher novels. Tolkien expends a great deal of effort on world building, but not much on developing his characters as fleshed out people. Sapkowski, like Howard before him, is far more interested in developing individual characters. Dandelion, Yennifer, and Geralt feel far more familiar to the reader than Aragorn. Gandalf, and Frodo. You know what they've been through, who they are as people. The relationships they have to various side characters. The overall setting and history while still addressed in the novels does not have nearly the depth of Middle Earth.

It's all about how we focus our energy.


----------



## Campbell

The text of Blades is mostly silent about what should or should not be shared. It does address "known faction projects" which does indicate that there might be unknown faction projects. I personally share some clocks, but not others. In the games I have seen John Harper run online it seems he has some hidden clocks and others he is more transparent about.


----------



## darkbard

Campbell said:


> In the games I have seen John Harper run online it seems he has some hidden clocks and others he is more transparent about.



I was just about to point this out as well, the mix of "open" vs. "hidden" clocks in Harper's home games/playtests.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Campbell said:


> I personally share some clocks, but not others. In the games I have seen John Harper run online it seems he has some hidden clocks and others he is more transparent about




I thought so, but couldn’t remember if it was specifically stated in the book. I thought I remembered Harper mentioning that he had some clocks that the players didn't know about. 

I share the majority, but I do keep some unknown. 



Imaro said:


> So these are things that influence and are influenced by the players. Basically everything the GM creates is for PC or from PC stimuli.




Do GMs usually create stuff that’s not meant for the PCs? 

I would think anything that a GM crafts has to be crafted with at least the possibility that the PCs will engage with it. If they wind up not, then so be it, but it’s there for them.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I think that the issues with "living world" are due to people having slightly different ideas of what it entails.  At its core, though, the primary thing that makes a word living or not is that some NPC activities, events, etc., happen offscreen and the PCs learn about those things after the fact.  The world goes on outside of the view of the PCs.



Let's unpack this.

First, in all RPGing the _PCs_, ie imaginary people that are elements of the shared fiction, learn about things after they occur. In KotB the PCs learn that humanoids _have_ settled in the Caves of Chaos (past tense italicised). In the 2nd ed AD&D WoG module Five Shall be One, the PCs learn that some magical Viking swords _have been_ scattered across the northlands (past tense italicised). In one of the Cthulhu Dark sessions that I GMed the butler PC _had _learned that his master was missing (past tense italicised).

Second, in each of the examples I've given in the previous paragraph, and in innumerable others across the history of RPGing, _those events happened offscreen_ in the sense that they are established via one participant's stipulation of setting or backstory, rather than as the product of actual play at the table in the form of action declarations and resolution.

Third, from the previous two paragraphs _it is impossible to tell_ whether the games described were played "story now", or were railroads, or "living worlds", or something else. Even the most abject railroad, like a hard railroad approach to the DL modules, involves _NPC activities, events etc that happen offscreen_ (such as the movement of the dragon armies) and which the PCs learn about after the fact (eg by encountering refugees or whatever).

To get from what @Maxperson has said to something like a standard sandbox we need to add in things like: _the GM updates his/her notes on a periodic basis_;_ that updating mostly takes the form of bringing forward the "present" of the imagined setting_; _this is done by adding new information about what various NPCs etc are doing_; _this new information will be drawn upon for the purposes of framing, and also in the course of resolving players' declared actions for their PCs_. There's probably more to be said, but I think what I've said is a start.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> Ovinomancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any of these details might be able to be revealed to players by them asking questions, like "I observe the square from the shadows and see if the guards leave any gaps in their patrol routes," which prompts the GM to provide their answer to this question. Or investigate guards to see if they're bribable, which prompts the GM to tell the players what they think about this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about whether players can engage in observation like this in Blades? What would happen? I'm very fuzzy on these non-traditional games, but here's what I imagine based on following some of these conversations. The player can't just fish for information with no outcome in mind. So instead of saying, "I observe the guards to see if I notice anything useful," they could say, "I secretly observe the guards and discover a gap in their patrol route which I then exploit." Something like that?
Click to expand...


I haven't played BitD and don't know it well enough to answer your question in relation to it. In Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, the player can _read a charged situation_ or _discern realities_ and on a successful check is able to ask questions of the GM (eg _who is in charge here?_ or _what is the biggest danger here?_) and the GM has to answer these "truthfully" ie in such a way as to establish fiction that is then honoured. The player receives a bonus if then acting on that information.

In Cortex+ Heroic, to pick a quite different system, the player can declare an action that establishes an Asset which is a bonus die in the pool. In one of our sessions the scout PC climbed the steading wall to gain an Asset _Overview of the Setting_. I imagine that I narrated some stuff that he could see, but that is essentially colour - it will only matter in play if I spend Doom Pool dice to build it into a Scene Distinction or to add a bonus die to a NPC pool. (Unlike D&D, victory in Cortex+ Heroic doesn't depend on attrition and so it can be rational to use actions to build one's pool so as to enable a one-shot victory.)

In Burning Wheel, the player needs an intent to his/her task: so if observing the guards some intention has to be stated, such as _to see if there is a gap in their patrol route that I can exploit_. "Anything useful" is in my view a bit to vague as an intent.



uzirath said:


> When I've been a player in a traditional game, a significant amount of the fun has been in gathering information. Which seems to be an effort to transferring as much of the GM's conception to the players as possible before declaring a high-stakes action.



This is what I would describe as _finding out the content of the GM's notes_. Or _finding out the GM's conception of the fiction_. I've played and GMed a fair bit of this sort of RPGing, though not so much in the past 15 or so years.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> First, in all RPGing the _PCs_, ie imaginary people that are elements of the shared fiction, learn about things after they occur. In KotB the PCs learn that humanoids _have_ settled in the Caves of Chaos (past tense italicised). In the 2nd ed AD&D WoG module Five Shall be One, the PCs learn that some magical Viking swords _have been_ scattered across the northlands (past tense italicised). In one of the Cthulhu Dark sessions that I GMed the butler PC _had _learned that his master was missing (past tense italicised).



Yes, but in the case of a living world, the players know that it has happened after gameplay started and at a time in the fiction after their PCs started adventuring.  It gives the players a sense that the world is moving along outside of their bubble.


pemerton said:


> Second, in each of the examples I've given in the previous paragraph, and in innumerable others across the history of RPGing, _those events happened offscreen_ in the sense that they are established via one participant's stipulation of setting or backstory, rather than as the product of actual play at the table in the form of action declarations and resolution.



Sure, but the swords might have been scattered centuries ago in the fiction and the humanoids may have settled the Caves of Chaos a decade before the PC's started adventuring.


pemerton said:


> Third, from the previous two paragraphs _it is impossible to tell_ whether the games described were played "story now", or were railroads, or "living worlds", or something else. Even the most abject railroad, like a hard railroad approach to the DL modules, involves _NPC activities, events etc that happen offscreen_ (such as the movement of the dragon armies) and which the PCs learn about after the fact (eg by encountering refugees or whatever).



I'm not sure what that proves. Players in a living world are going to know whether it was a living world or not, and really, that's all that matters.  I'm also not sure why you included two playstyles along with the living world.  Story now and railroads are playstyles.  Living world is a goal that can be applied to various playstyles.


pemerton said:


> To get from what @Maxperson has said to something like a standard sandbox we need to add in things like: _the GM updates his/her notes on a periodic basis_;_ that updating mostly takes the form of bringing forward the "present" of the imagined setting_; _this is done by adding new information about what various NPCs etc are doing_; _this new information will be drawn upon for the purposes of framing, and also in the course of resolving players' declared actions for their PCs_. There's probably more to be said, but I think what I've said is a start.



What I said can be applied to sandbox, railroad, linear games, and probably some types of story now.  You don't need to get to a sandbox from what I said, since I'm talking about the goal of having a living world, not a playstyle.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> And there my own personal preference comes in: I'd far rather do as much of the work ahead of time as I can - ideally before the campaign even begins - such that during play I can somewhat sit back and enjoy running the game in the moment without having to worry about remembering and-or writing down any more than I asbolutely have to.



Your personal preference is valid, but it's obviously not the concern, focus, or preference for those that adopt a more story now ("notes later") approach. If someone prefers prep for this reason or is not as able with "notes later," then I probably wouldn't suggest that these other games would be better suited for them. I would still suggest that they try playing or running in such a game, because you can learn a lot from doing so and can occasionally surprise yourself by how easy it can be. I also would like to stress is that just because the story now approach sits out of your own personal preferences or strengths/weaknesses, it obviously doesn't mean that "story now" approaches don't work or are invalid. 



Lanefan said:


> Yeah, that Stonetop model would never work for me for anything longer than a one-off in that I always assume two things about any ongoing setting: one, there's other adventurers in the setting beyond just the PCs and two, there's going to be some character recruitment/turnover and the replacements have to come from somewhere.



So I can tell you that in Stonetop you would have to get rid of one of your core assumptions: D&D-style adventurers. Stonetop is not about a wandering band of murderhobo, grave-robbing adventurers or mercenaries, but, rather, it focuses on a small cadre of adventurous characters living in the village of Stonetop (pop. ~300) who are trying to improve the livelihood of Stonetop and their fellow kin, friends, and associates in the village. The successes and failures of the PCs will impact the growth, prosperity, and problems that Stonetop will face. It's referred to as "hearth fantasy." 

Incidentally, Stonetop was a spin-off of D&D 4e that was converted to Dungeon World that then gradually became its own thing, though still closely hewing to DW. You can tell particularly with some of the classes that have been reskinned (e.g., Warlord -> Marshal) and the gods (e.g., Erathis -> Aratis; Pelor -> Helior). 



Lanefan said:


> As for the West Marches scenario, it'd be cool if the oppositional force faced by one party is in fact one of the players' other parties!



I'm not sure why you seem to relish pvp in your roleplaying games.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> This whole thread feels like a veiled attack on the intelligence of posters people disagree with.



Interesting. To me it feels like a handful of posters, particularly you, object to any word or phrase anyone else comes up with - _GM's notes_, _fiction _(_shared_ or otherwise), _authorship_, etc - that makes it clear without equivocation or metaphor that the fiction in RPGing has to be invented, and that in your favoured playstyle it is the GM who is doing the bulk of that invention.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Yes, but in the case of a living world, the players know that it has happened after gameplay started and at a time in the fiction after their PCs started adventuring.  It gives the players a sense that the world is moving along outside of their bubble.



This happens in all RPGing that I'm aware of.

For instance, in my Burning Wheel game the PCs heard rumours of a pending marriage of the Gynarch of Hardby to Jabal, leader of a sorcerous cabal. This occurred while they spent time resting and recuperating in a ruined tower in the Abor-Alz. There was no news of this wedding at the earlier period, in play, when the PCs were in Hardby.

Does this make my BW game a "living world"? It certainly doesn't use the prep methods that eg @Emerikol or @Bedrock games has discussed. My memory is a bit hazy, but I think I made up this idea of a marriage when the PCs dealt with some travelling merchants while staying in their tower. The arrival of the merchants was itself the result of a successful Circles check by one of the players for his PC.



Maxperson said:


> Living world is a goal that can be applied to various playstyles.



Is it? @hawkeyefan and @Ovinomancer have asserted as much in this thread. @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames have denied as much, and they claim to be experts on "living world" RPGing. Who should I believe?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This happens in all RPGing that I'm aware of.
> 
> For instance, in my Burning Wheel game the PCs heard rumours of a pending marriage of the Gynarch of Hardby to Jabal, leader of a sorcerous cabal. This occurred while they spent time resting and recuperating in a ruined tower in the Abor-Alz. There was no news of this wedding at the earlier period, in play, when the PCs were in Hardby.
> 
> Does this make my BW game a "living world"? It certainly doesn't use the prep methods that eg @Emerikol or @Bedrock games has discussed. My memory is a bit hazy, but I think I made up this idea of a marriage when the PCs dealt with some travelling merchants while staying in their tower. The arrival of the merchants was itself the result of a successful Circles check by one of the players for his PC.



No it doesn't make it a living world. You don't really prep much ahead of time, so that rumor was introduced for their benefit(ie into the PC bubble), rather than as part of the world moving on its own. The players, knowing that they are playing Burning Wheel are aware of that, which alters the feel of the game.


pemerton said:


> Is it? @hawkeyefan and @Ovinomancer have asserted as much in this thread. @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames have denied as much, and they claim to be experts on "living world" RPGing. Who should I believe?



I'm not sure that @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames do disagree, or at least not completely.  I haven't read all that they were talking about, but a lot of what they were saying was about sandbox, not necessarily living world.  I think the vast majority of living worlds are sandbox games as well, but the DM of a railroad game can have NPCs react on their own in response to both the PCs and world events, as well as initiate world events outside of the PCs.  Nothing about living world restricts it to only sandbox play.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.





hawkeyefan said:


> So my regular group just started a new campaign with the intention of rotating GMs periodically. So we crafted many of the NPCs in our starting town as a group. We established who knew whom and why.
> 
> Each of the PCs feels like they have their own place in the setting...like they existed beforehand instead of springing to life spontaneously at the start of the game.



This is interesting.

Here is the background I wrote for Thurgon, my BW PC:

​Thurgon is the descendant of earls (arms: a bear rampant above a sword dividing a shield), but Auxol, his ancestral estate (1½ days on foot, or about 25 miles, South-east of Adir, the nearest large town) fell to the darkness 66 years ago. Thurgon has not set foot there for over 5 years, since he left to take service with the Iron Tower.​​Thurgon’s father is deceased, but his mother Xanthippe (now 61 years old) still lives on the estate. So does his older brother Rufus (40 years old)., the 9th Count of Adir (although for the past 66 years that title has counted for little, having been usurped by others).​​Thurgon’s 23 year old younger brother, Vuryang, also lives on the estate, with his 18 year old bride Eisette. Thurgon has never met her, but heard news of the wedding 8 months ago.​​Although Auxol is now owned by servants of evil, the family continues to manage it. Xanthippe ensures that the estate serves as a bolthole for refugees. Rufus is sympathetic to their plight, but sees them ultimately as someone else’s problem. His interests are more mundane (it is fairly common knowledge that he has a 3 year old illegitimate son with a middle class townswoman).​​Thurgon trained in the Iron Tower, a stronghold of those who serve the Lord of Battle. The arms of the tower are crossed battle axes in front of a shield with the sun rising above it. Thurgon left the Iron Tower only weeks ago. The Knight Commander of the order sent him forth into the wilderness. He does not know why.​
I don't know if that counts as "long" or not.

BW is a lifepath PC build system, and Thurgon's Life Paths are Born Noble, Page, Squire, Religious Acolyte, and Knight of a Holy Military Order. To give the background further teeth, I picked up the following character elements in PC building (using the resource points earned from my lifepaths):

Relationship: Xanthippe (Mother, on family estate)​​Reputation: +1D last Knight of the Iron Tower​​Affiliations: +1D von Pfizer family; +1D Order of the Iron Tower​
The _relationship_ with Xanthippe means that I (Thurgon's player) can bring her into play whenever the fictional positioning is apt. With my other relatives, I have to make a Circles check with the bonus die from my affiliation. The same process applies to meet members of my Order.

For me, this all gives me a sense of who Thurgon is. And the dynamics of play reinforce it: with those build assets invested in the reputation and affiliation, I as a player have an obvious incentive to lean into Circles checks as a way of engaging the situations the GM establishes. Which I do. So these elements of Thurgon's life figure prominently in play.

This is further reinforced by the GM doing the job the rules instruct him to do, and framing situations that play on Thurgon's relationships (ie his mother, and family more broadly) and Beliefs (which include a Belief about the family estate, Auxol, as well as a statement of faith - _The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory_ - and one that reflects membership of the Order - _I am a Knight of the Iron Tower: by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory_).

For me at least, the feel is very different from when I first rolled up a D&D character and entered the world of B2 KotB with no personality or history besides a name. And it's also different from games I've played where the PC had a backstory but the actual focus of play was basically unrelated to that (eg going on a fetch quest for a powerful NPC).

A module like Dragonlance obviously tries to be closer to what I like about BW and my BW PC, but it relies on completely different methods - "story before" - to do it. I think the BW approach is superior, both from the point of view of immersion in character and from the point of view of player agency.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> No it doesn't make it a living world. You don't really prep much ahead of time, so that rumor was introduced for their benefit(ie into the PC bubble), rather than as part of the world moving on its own. The players, knowing that they are playing Burning Wheel are aware of that, which alters the feel of the game.



Is it possible to actually state this aspect of the "living world" method independent of making the contrast with my BW campaign?



Maxperson said:


> I think the vast majority of living worlds are sandbox games as well, but the DM of a railroad game can have NPCs react on their own in response to both the PCs and world events, as well as initiate world events outside of the PCs.  Nothing about living world restricts it to only sandbox play.



But if my reasons in BW stop that from being a "living world" game, wouldn't the same be true in the railroad game? The GM would be doing the stuff you describe for different reasons.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Interesting. To me it feels like a handful of posters, particularly you, object to any word or phrase anyone else comes up with - _GM's notes_, _fiction _(_shared_ or otherwise), _authorship_, etc - that makes it clear without equivocation or metaphor that the fiction in RPGing has to be invented, and that in your favoured playstyle it is the GM who is doing the bulk of that invention.



To be clear: I have no problem admitting that I author the vast majority of the world in the games I run, but I dislike the phrasing "the GM's notes" because it feels as though it is implying that the GM has planned a story, which seems like a railroad--or at least railroad-adjacent. I have less problem with your construction "the GM's conception of the world," but I realize it's both less pithy and less provocative.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Is it possible to actually state this aspect of the "living world" method independent of making the contrast with my BW campaign?



I already did stated it independently of BW and you used your BW campaign as an example.  I needed to use your example combined with mine to show how yours didn't reach living world.


pemerton said:


> But if my reasons in BW stop that from being a "living world" game, wouldn't the same be true in the railroad game? The GM would be doing the stuff you describe for different reasons.



No it's not the same as a railroad.  In a railroad, the DM is forcing the players down a line.  He can be introducing events that happen as a logical result of PC actions or as events that happen in other areas of the world.  He would then either force them towards or away from the events.  The world can go on independently of the PCs, but it wouldn't be the players' choice whether or not to engage with what they hear.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I dislike the phrasing "the GM's notes" because it feels as though it is implying that the GM has planned a story, which seems like a railroad



I don't understand this. I've run RPGs with lots of notes: maps and keys; calendars and annals of past years; NPC descriptions and stats; possible actions those PCs will take if not disturbed by the PCs; etc. Those were all notes. When the players were having their PCs move through the lost pyramid in the Sea of Dust trying to find Vecna's tomb (or something like that - it's been a long while) a lot of what was happening was that they were declaring actions which prompted me to reveal elements of my notes.

But there was no planned story. I don't feel the force of the implication that you are pointing to. At all.


----------



## Fenris-77

Yeah, for me GM notes is like 'fiction' - they're both neutral terms that shouldn't give anyone the yips. Regardless of game we all have notes, and those notes have content. Yay! What gets done with that is separate from the notes themselves.


----------



## innerdude

Maxperson said:


> No it doesn't make it a living world. You don't really prep much ahead of time, so that rumor was introduced for their benefit(ie into the PC bubble), rather than as part of the world moving on its own. The players, knowing that they are playing Burning Wheel are aware of that, which alters the feel of the game.




I don't really see how the timing of when something enters the fiction as being relevant to whether the label "living world" can be applied to a given play structure.

So what if he made it up on the spot?


----------



## Maxperson

innerdude said:


> I don't really see how the timing of when something enters the fiction as being relevant to whether the label "living world" can be applied to a given play structure.
> 
> So what if he made it up on the spot?



If he made it up on the spot, then things did not happen independent of the PCs.  It happened because of the PCs and is just a part of the PC bubble.  That prevents it from being part of a living, breathing world.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> If he made it up on the spot, then things did not happen independent of the PCs.  It happened because of the PCs and is just a part of the PC bubble.  That prevents it from being part of a living, breathing world.



Bollocks. Things happening because of the PCs and their actions is half of what makes a living world. The other half is things progressing apace despite of or not in connection with their actions.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Bollocks. Things happening because of the PCs and their actions is half of what makes a living world. The other half is things progressing apace despite of or not in connection with their actions.



Sure, but with the caveat that it happens outside of their knowledge and they may not ever learn of it.  If you're making it up on the spot, it's to tell them, which makes it PC centric. There's no real possibility of them not learning about it.  You're just coming up with something and hitting the PCs with it as part of their bubble.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but with the caveat that it happens outside of their knowledge and they may not ever learn of it.  If you're making it up on the spot, it's to tell them, which makes it PC centric. There's no real possibility of them not learning about it.  You're just coming up with something and hitting the PCs with it as part of their bubble.



Being PC centric doesn't make in not a living world unless that's the _only_ way anything happens.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Being PC centric doesn't make in not a living world unless that's the _only_ way anything happens.



If you're making it up on the spot, then it is the only way that it happens.

For example, if the PCs have wandered through a village 5 times and the last time through they gave a man who was down on his luck 200 gold.  The man used it to buy a building and start a tavern and now the village which previously did not have tavern, has one.  That's not the sort of information that travels from town to town.  In a living, breathing world, that was created off screen and the next time the PCs come through, they will discover what their actions wrought.  However, they may never go through that village a sixth time and may never find out.  If the DM makes it up on the spot, though, it's because the PCs did go through the village a sixth time and the creation is therefore, part of the PC bubble(that which happens around them.).  Things created as part of the PC bubble are not part of a living, breathing world.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this. I've run RPGs with lots of notes: maps and keys; calendars and annals of past years; NPC descriptions and stats; possible actions those PCs will take if not disturbed by the PCs; etc. Those were all notes. When the players were having their PCs move through the lost pyramid in the Sea of Dust trying to find Vecna's tomb (or something like that - it's been a long while) a lot of what was happening was that they were declaring actions which prompted me to reveal elements of my notes.
> 
> But there was no planned story. I don't feel the force of the implication that you are pointing to. At all.



So, I believe that you don't mean it to have the meaning of a pre-planned story (or railroad), and that the inference is entirely on my end. I do think the phrase "GM's notes" fails to capture what goes on with some more-improvisational GMing, but that's a different objection--and I know you consider "GM's notes" to include "stuff the GM makes up on the spot," but that's ... not obvious to someone who hasn't discussed it with you.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> If you're making it up on the spot, then it is the only way that it happens.
> 
> For example, if the PCs have wandered through a village 5 times and the last time through they gave a man who was down on his luck 200 gold.  The man used it to buy a building and start a tavern and now the village which previously did not have tavern, has one.  That's not the sort of information that travels from town to town.  In a living, breathing world, that was created off screen and the next time the PCs come through, they will discover what their actions wrought.  However, they may never go through that village a sixth time and may never find out.  If the DM makes it up on the spot, though, it's because the PCs did go through the village a sixth time and the creation is therefore, part of the PC bubble(that which happens around them.).  Things created as part of the PC bubble are not part of a living, breathing world.




So you think there is a difference between the GM imagining the tavern being built before the PCs return to the town and the GM imagining it being built when they return to the town? 

What are the differences? What’s the benefit of one approach over the other?


----------



## Fenris-77

hawkeyefan said:


> So you think there is a difference between the GM imagining the tavern being built before the PCs return to the town and the GM imagining it being built when they return to the town?
> 
> What are the differences? What’s the benefit of one approach over the other?



I'm anticipating an unsatisfactory reply on this item...


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> So you think there is a difference between the GM imagining the tavern being built before the PCs return to the town and the GM imagining it being built when they return to the town?
> 
> What are the differences? What’s the benefit of one approach over the other?



I think a GM who's more comfortable prepping things should prepare the taven, and a GM who's more comfortable ad-libbing things should ad-lib it. GM comfort is a thing. Also, if the players tend to want to know all about every tavern in the city before going to one, it makes sense to have at least names and top-level information for a number of taverns ready.

Somehow I don't think that's the kind of answer you were asking after, though.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So you think there is a difference between the GM imagining the tavern being built before the PCs return to the town and the GM imagining it being built when they return to the town?
> 
> What are the differences? What’s the benefit of one approach over the other?



The feel.  One feels like a living world and the other, while it can still be a great addition to the game, just doesn't.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> The feel.  One feels like a living world and the other, while it can still be a great addition to the game, just doesn't.



Hmm, this sounds like your opinion of some specific instances in play rather than something grander. You can;t really speak for how other people feel about, right? Whole games manage quite well without much in the way of established change in the background the way I think you mean. And I mean living world games there, not random stuff. Sometimes the time that makes sense to roll change is when the PCs push that button. It doesn't have to be made-up either, most GMs would rely on randomization there, in some fashion.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I think a GM who's more comfortable prepping things should prepare the taven, and a GM who's more comfortable ad-libbing things should ad-lib it. GM comfort is a thing. Also, if the players tend to want to know all about every tavern in the city before going to one, it makes sense to have at least names and top-level information for a number of taverns ready.
> 
> Somehow I don't think that's the kind of answer you were asking after, though.




I may not have been expecting that answer, but it’s probably the only one that really makes any sense. It seems a very subjective thing.



Maxperson said:


> The feel.  One feels like a living world and the other, while it can still be a great addition to the game, just doesn't.




Is this from the GM perspective? Or player perspective?


----------



## AnotherGuy

My humble opinion on this _living world_ matter is
GMs who focus on _living world_ as their stated goal, would likely prepare more off-screen notes than those who run _player-centric_ (or _story now_) focused games where much of the fiction is created in the moment.

The best people to ask as to which is more _living_ are players that have experienced both styles, hopefully from similar GMs to best compare. We all have our biases.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> I’m familiar with Blades in the Dark. And although I would say that the focus is on the characters, there is still plenty involved with establishing a living world.
> 
> This is why I don’t find the “living world” as an approach to be all that  enlightening. It would appear to include all manner of games that otherwise have some significant differences.
> 
> It doesn’t seem to do anything more than the term sandbox, which is something that all kinds f games can be.



You see we invented a term that you argue is inappropriate just like you guys have invented many terms that go too far.  But in fairness, living world as I defined it above, was pretty much the definition for decades before Story Now existed.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> This happens in all RPGing that I'm aware of.



Not as it was originally defined.  At least not nowadays.  Probably not then either with many low effort DMs who were still ostensibly playing that style.

So we all know that the world is not really living right?  It's not a real world.  The only living world we know about is our own real universe.   

So the term like most gamist terms was adopted and morphed for purposes of talking about gaming.  This was done a long time ago.  At least the 80s.   

At that time, the definition would be:  Things are happening in the world off camera.  Could a stranger walk up to a DM and ask him what is happening in another part of the world that the PCs have never went anywhere near and have never talked about in game session and the DM could answer?  That would make it a living world.   Things are happening "off camera".   Off camera meaning when the PCs are not looking at it.

Now that is just a gamist definition.  No roleplaying game meets the real definition above.  For decades though that term has been the way we describe these sorts of campaigns.  We didn't make it up last week.

It's just like protagonism, fiction, bla bla bla that have been appropriated by the Story Now community to mean something that they don't mean in real life.  They turned them into gamist terms.  Well right back at you on living world.   We can all agree to be careful with these terms or we can just consider them placeholders for a particular playstyle and ignore the underlying english meaning of the word.   I don't care which but it has to hold for all sides.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Could a stranger walk up to a DM and ask him what is happening in another part of the world that the PCs have never went anywhere near and have never talked about in game session and *the DM could answer*?  That would make it a living world.   Things are happening "off camera".   Off camera meaning when the PCs are not looking at it.



I've bolded the bit I'm curious about. What makes it the case that _the GM could answer?_ Is this because the GM has written it down in his/her notes? Or is there some other reason.


----------



## uzirath

I'm curious about @pemerton's question too. I have always liked the phrase "living world" to describe my ideal for what an imaginary world should "feel" like. As my discretionary time has dwindled with the increasing responsibilities of career and family, however, I find myself doing far less prep than I used to. I rarely spend much time writing notes about things that I don't think will impact the PCs. But, I have enough of a sense of the world that I could probably field most hypothetical questions from strangers. Is making up the answer on the spot "good enough" to count as a living world, if the answer is consistent with the rest of the known facts of the world? Or does it need to have been written down somewhere first?


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I've bolded the bit I'm curious about. What makes it the case that _the GM could answer?_ Is this because the GM has written it down in his/her notes? Or is there some other reason.



Short answer: Yes.

Long answer:
Recorded or abstracted.  So weather or random monsters could be defined as a table you roll on for any given day.  Although with weather I'd probably still like it rolled in such a way that it's realistic but that is more about realism than living world.   And when I say realistic, I really mean just plausible and not super scientific.  I have no issue though with DMs that want to declare their worlds as different than ours on fundamental levels.   I do that on occasion but not with weather.

So the DM should know a good bit about the off camera world and it should be changing over time.  That is the minimum for me to think it is a living world as I've used the term.   The off camera world is the world unseen by anyone during an actual play session.


----------



## Emerikol

uzirath said:


> I'm curious about @pemerton's question too. I have always liked the phrase "living world" to describe my ideal for what an imaginary world should "feel" like. As my discretionary time has dwindled with the increasing responsibilities of career and family, however, I find myself doing far less prep than I used to. I rarely spend much time writing notes about things that I don't think will impact the PCs. But, I have enough of a sense of the world that I could probably field most hypothetical questions from strangers. Is making up the answer on the spot "good enough" to count as a living world, if the answer is consistent with the rest of the known facts of the world? Or does it need to have been written down somewhere first?



Well I've said on numerous occasions that the best improv is that which is built upon a solid foundation.  This is not an exact science though so it's hard to define precisely where the line is at.  I'd say if you are doing very little prep at all AND you aren't using a third party world then you aren't really doing a living world by my definition.   

Now what you can effectively hold inside your head varies so the line varies.  You may have an excellent memory and be able to remember a lot of details that you've thought out.  My memory isn't that good.  

I do think that the detail of knowledge you have lessens as you expand out from the sandbox.  So the sandbox is pretty detailed.  And other areas outside the sandbox don't have nearly that level of detail.  I like to say I keep one level down from a Grayhawk gazateer level of detail.   Meaning I know all of that stuff pretty much across the continent.  I know the trade routes, the nations, even the rulers and some ideas about the history.   I may not have the capital city of a nation far away mapped out.   So if the parties sandbox was Greyhawk city, then I'd have that detailed down to the building and the NPCs in the building but I don't have Rauxes detailed out and may not even have a good map.  I do though likely have a map of the neighboring cities and nations.  

I also know my religions inside out.   A lot of this gets handed to the players ahead of time if they know about it.   So they can familiarize themselves with what their character knows.

Those DMs with less time can do several things to help themselves
1.  Use a third party setting for the big detail including the religions, factions, nations etc...
2.  Reuse a world that they create.  Meaning you do the hard work once but you reuse the world.

Also if the PCs have played in the world already that may help them with world knowledge in a future campaign with a different character.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> You see we invented a term that you argue is inappropriate just like you guys have invented many terms that go too far.  But in fairness, living world as I defined it above, was pretty much the definition for decades before Story Now existed.




That's not the issue at all. I don't have any kind of problem with the idea of trying to portray a living world; I've been pretty clear I think that's a goal that most of us here would shoot for. My complaint is the use of the term to describe methods to achieve that goal that are only loosely defined. 

Many types of games have the portrayal of a living world as a goal. Just as many games have fun as a goal. But if you ask someone how they GM if they said "using the fun style" you might feel like grabbing them and shaking them. 

Also, in my opinion, when that happens, folks are saying "THIS is the only way to achieve a living world because it's the living world method", which implies that other games are not concerned about that goal, and I don't think that's accurate. 

So it's not that I think there's a problem with the term itself, so much as in how it has been used.



Emerikol said:


> At that time, the definition would be: Things are happening in the world off camera. Could a stranger walk up to a DM and ask him what is happening in another part of the world that the PCs have never went anywhere near and have never talked about in game session and the DM could answer? That would make it a living world. Things are happening "off camera". Off camera meaning when the PCs are not looking at it.




So I asked this of @Maxperson and I'm waiting on some clarity from him, but I'll ask you as well. 

Is there a difference when asked about what's on the far side of the world if the GM has been thinking about this in his free time and has an answer prepared, or if he simply makes one up on the spot? 

I'll break it down a little more. From the player's perspective, is there if a difference? If so, what is it and how would the player even be aware of it? From the GM perspective, is there a difference? If so, would you say that it's totally subjective and a matter of preference, or do you think there is an objective answer?



Emerikol said:


> Now that is just a gamist definition. No roleplaying game meets the real definition above. For decades though that term has been the way we describe these sorts of campaigns. We didn't make it up last week.




I've heard that term for years, but always more as a goal rather than as a method. If it's a method, then what is the method? Because from what I can see, different games go about striving for that goal in different ways. 

But if something is meant to be a method or a style.....like "Story Now", for example.....then it should have a pretty uniform application. I don't think that's been shown in this thread at all.



Emerikol said:


> It's just like protagonism, fiction, bla bla bla that have been appropriated by the Story Now community to mean something that they don't mean in real life. They turned them into gamist terms. Well right back at you on living world. We can all agree to be careful with these terms or we can just consider them placeholders for a particular playstyle and ignore the underlying english meaning of the word. I don't care which but it has to hold for all sides.




Those words were used with the known definitions. Fiction means make believe. that's the only way it's been used in this thread. There was no need to change the word in any way for it to mean what it means. 

Living world does seem to be meant as a placeholder as you suggest....but when asked what it is a placeholder for, it's been a struggle. Most of the time, references are made to a GM's prep and in advancing that based on passing time within the world. Okay, fine.....but then there was resistance to the idea of playing to learn what the GM has determined.



Emerikol said:


> Well I've said on numerous occasions that the best improv is that which is built upon a solid foundation. This is not an exact science though so it's hard to define precisely where the line is at. I'd say if you are doing very little prep at all AND you aren't using a third party world then you aren't really doing a living world by my definition.




What is your definition?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So I asked this of @Maxperson and I'm waiting on some clarity from him, but I'll ask you as well.
> 
> Is there a difference when asked about what's on the far side of the world if the GM has been thinking about this in his free time and has an answer prepared, or if he simply makes one up on the spot?



I must have missed this, because I don't recall it.  

If the DM has come up with an event that happens on the far side of the world, say a meteor hitting a city and taking half of it out, and word reaches the PCs, it's still something he decided on prior to session 8 when the players hear about it, even if it wasn't written down.  Obviously in this case the DM is a prep DM, but didn't put what he prepared into written form.  That doesn't change the fact that it was still prepared ahead of time. 

For an improv DM, there was no preparation of the event ahead of time.  He's simply inserting something for the PCs into the PC bubble that has to do with the other side of the world.  Something made up on the spot isn't part of a living, breathing world, because the world didn't continue moving without the PCs.  It moved because the PCs moved and is squarely in their bubble.

The timing matters a great deal to the feel.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> For an improv DM, there was no preparation of the event ahead of time.  He's simply inserting something for the PCs into the PC bubble that has to do with the other side of the world.  Something made up on the spot isn't part of a living, breathing world, because the world didn't continue moving without the PCs.  It moved because the PCs moved and is squarely in their bubble.



Does any DM keep track of all of it though?  Do you know what's going on in every place the PCs have ever visited in case they want to teleport back there some day?   Is it not living world when you pause when they say where they're going and imagine how it would have developed?


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> Does any DM keep track of all of it though?  Do you know what's going on in every place the PCs have ever visited in case they want to teleport back there some day?   Is it not living world when you pause when they say where they're going and imagine how it would have developed?



No, and as I said before, there's no need to.  No one can track everything they interact with in every place they do so and figure it all out.  Heck, when they save a town from an attack, they've impacted pretty much everyone and altered many courses.  

If the DM is planning events that happen now and again, whether selected, from a random table or some combination, and has some interactions develop into more, the feel of the world moving around them, but outside of them is generated.  Nobody can expect more than that from a DM.  There's only so much time in the DM's life and he has other priorities.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> No, and as I said before, there's no need to.  No one can track everything they interact with in every place they do so and figure it all out.  Heck, when they save a town from an attack, they've impacted pretty much everyone and altered many courses.
> 
> If the DM is planning events that happen now and again, whether selected, from a random table or some combination, and has some interactions develop into more, the feel of the world moving around them, but outside of them is generated.  Nobody can expect more than that from a DM.  There's only so much time in the DM's life and he has other priorities.




So, both the prep DM and improv DM are very likely to answer using the same process for much of the world (namely, the vast majority of it that the prep DM hasn't prepped for)?


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> So, both the prep DM and improv DM are very likely to answer using the same process for much of the world (namely, the vast majority of it that the prep DM hasn't prepped for)?



Nobody can prep for everything, so some amount of improv is necessary.  We aren't gods.  Prep DMs, though, when he can see that players are headed to an area of the world he doesn't have prepped in great detail, has time to prepare a lot more while they travel there.  Thankfully 5e made teleport so unreliable that it's not often used for travel outside of emergencies, so the DM has more time to know where the group is going.  

Outside of general prep, the prep DM trying to create a living world(Many prep DMs don't, and that's not inherently a bad thing) will also prep some events and other aspects of the world that show it moving along outside of the PC bubble.  Those thing are intended for the PCs to learn about, because DMs don't just do work that nobody will ever see, but doesn't always come to the PCs attention.

The Improv DM doesn't really generate anything outside of the PC bubble. Everything is in response to them and for them, even rumors of an event on the other side of the world.  The focus of everything is the PCs/players.


----------



## uzirath

I'm curious to flip this around a bit and think of my experiences as a player. I don't typically care much if a GM prepares ahead of time or not. I care, of course, if the game is a fun experience that was worth my time. With some GMs, that seems to require prep: if they don't have time to prepare, they get flustered and spend too much time looking things up or changing their mind or whatever. Others seem to do fine with little prep. 

I have in the past gotten frustrated when the fiction becomes inconsistent. If my notes about a past session say one thing but the GM forgets, that tends to push me out of my happy place as a player. Similarly if some mechanic worked one way and now it works a different way for no apparent reason, that can be frustrating too. If the GM is creative and humble enough to incorporate corrections or provide a post hoc explanation, I'm good with that (and I strive to do that as a GM myself). I did have one GM, though, who played very fast and loose all the time. I found his games really fun for short adventures. When I played in a longer campaign, however, it didn't work as well for me. There were so many inconsistencies that it started feeling like our choices didn't matter.

At the time of that game, I was annoyed that the GM wasn't more organized. I felt like he should have been doing more to prepare and keep track of locations and NPCs. (It was a space opera setting where we were always galavanting around the galaxy.) After reading many of these threads, I think it may also have been that the RPG we were playing at the time (a small indie game called _Persona_) didn't have enough structure around who was empowered to drive the fiction. It was, in some ways, a traditional GM-driven game trying to be more oriented toward protagonism.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I must have missed this, because I don't recall it.
> 
> If the DM has come up with an event that happens on the far side of the world, say a meteor hitting a city and taking half of it out, and word reaches the PCs, it's still something he decided on prior to session 8 when the players hear about it, even if it wasn't written down.  Obviously in this case the DM is a prep DM, but didn't put what he prepared into written form.  That doesn't change the fact that it was still prepared ahead of time.
> 
> For an improv DM, there was no preparation of the event ahead of time.  He's simply inserting something for the PCs into the PC bubble that has to do with the other side of the world.  Something made up on the spot isn't part of a living, breathing world, because the world didn't continue moving without the PCs.  It moved because the PCs moved and is squarely in their bubble.
> 
> The timing matters a great deal to the feel.




Okay, so there's a meteor that's struck a far off city in the game world. 

In one game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM references his knowledge of the game world and replies "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"

In another game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM decides then and there that "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"

How in the hell would a player know the difference? 

Now, I was using the example you offered.....and maybe a meteor crashing into a far off city isn't the best way to gauge if there is some benefit to prep versus improv because it's totally out of the blue.....but I really don't see how from the player view when this was decided really matters, or how I'd even know when it was decided if the GM didn't tell me.

From the GM side, I think it's safe to say this is a matter of preference. Some GMs like to have things like this decided ahead of time, others prefer to think off the cuff. I don't see how either is really more geared toward portraying a living world.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> How in the hell would a player know the difference?



I have a suspicion that at the table, you'd be able to tell whether the GM was pulling that out of world-prep (as opposed to session-prep) or doing an ass-pull. I have a stronger suspicion that as a player, you'd know if your GM habitually ran from prep or ad-lib. That's not set in stone, of course, and both approaches work.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay, so there's a meteor that's struck a far off city in the game world.
> 
> In one game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM references his knowledge of the game world and replies "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"
> 
> In another game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM decides then and there that "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"
> 
> How in the hell would a player know the difference?



So first, in "one game", the status of the city doesn't come up and then they learn it was hit by a meteor.  They just learn it was hit by a meteor.  The information comes to them.  They also know that they are in a prep game where the DM preps events like this.  

In "another game" it's unlikely that the information comes to them on its own like in the prep game.  More likely they ask if they've heard anything interesting and get the response. They went looking for something interesting and it got fed into their PC bubble. They also know that they are playing an improv game and that information was made up on the spot.


hawkeyefan said:


> From the GM side, I think it's safe to say this is a matter of preference. Some GMs like to have things like this decided ahead of time, others prefer to think off the cuff. I don't see how either is really more geared toward portraying a living world.



In a living world, stuff happens outside of the PC bubble, much of which doesn't center on the PCs(hence outside of the bubble).  In an improv game, everything centers on the PCs(is inside the bubble), so it doesn't allow living world.  A combination prep and improv game can allow a living world, but it depends on if the DM is prepping world events outside the bubble or not.


----------



## chaochou

"Hey, Guys! You'll never guess what just happened 200 miles away in a place you don't know exists with people you've never heard of! It was so cool! The whole scene just unfolded in my mind and there was a huge fight, and then people you'll never meet had an argument about what it all meant and now they're doing stuff you'll never know about!

"And then to top it all I rolled this crazy weather roll in those lands you don't care about. All that snow's playing havoc with the yachting contest which will never be mentioned. Seriously, you won't believe what's gonna happen next in the game you're not playing!"


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I have a suspicion that at the table, you'd be able to tell whether the GM was pulling that out of world-prep (as opposed to session-prep) or doing an ass-pull. I have a stronger suspicion that as a player, you'd know if your GM habitually ran from prep or ad-lib. That's not set in stone, of course, and both approaches work.




It’s possible you may know either because you’re familiar with the GM or because he gives some indication about how it was determined; like sayin “geez I dunno...it got hit by a meteor, I guess.”

Now the question of how this really matters....


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> So first, in "one game", the status of the city doesn't come up and then they learn it was hit by a meteor. They just learn it was hit by a meteor. The information comes to them. They also know that they are in a prep game where the DM preps events like this.




So the GM just tells them about this? What do you mean “it doesn’t come up, they just learn of it”?

And this recitation by the GM of events entirely unrelated to anything the PCs are doing somehow helps portray a living world? 

Doesn’t there need to be some kind of context for the GM to present this kind of information to them? 



Maxperson said:


> In "another game" it's unlikely that the information comes to them on its own like in the prep game. More likely they ask if they've heard anything interesting and get the response. They went looking for something interesting and it got fed into their PC bubble. They also know that they are playing an improv game and that information was made up on the spot.




So if something’s made up on the spot, then that can't be a living world? What if a roll on a random table is made? I’ve seen a lot of living world proponents endorse random tables. 



Maxperson said:


> In a living world, stuff happens outside of the PC bubble, much of which doesn't center on the PCs(hence outside of the bubble). In an improv game, everything centers on the PCs(is inside the bubble), so it doesn't allow living world. A combination prep and improv game can allow a living world, but it depends on if the DM is prepping world events outside the bubble or not.




What if I’m playing a new game of 5E D&D with a GM I don’t know well yet. He shares details and I’m not sure if they’re made up ahead of time or on the spot.

Am I not allowed to say “wow this GM is good at portraying a living world”?


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s possible you may know either because you’re familiar with the GM or because he gives some indication about how it was determined; like sayin “geez I dunno...it got hit by a meteor, I guess.”
> 
> Now the question of how this really matters....



I think it matters if the players are expecting the GM to know/prep this stuff, and/or if the GM is telling them he is. I know I'd be a little baffled and/or disappointed if a city were hit by a meteorite on the GM's whim (I'd be far happier if the GM stopped with "I dunno").

Edit: Phrased differently, it matters if the GM doing an ass-pull violates the players' expectations or the GM's promises/claims.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So the GM just tells them about this? What do you mean “it doesn’t come up, they just learn of it”?
> 
> And this recitation by the GM of events entirely unrelated to anything the PCs are doing somehow helps portray a living world?



The DM probably says something about hearing rumors of blah blah blah.  Something that big would be talked about all over.  The players wouldn't need to inquire.

And yes it does.  It's also not a recitation.  The players are free to investigate or not as they please.


hawkeyefan said:


> Doesn’t there need to be some kind of context for the GM to present this kind of information to them?



What do you mean?


hawkeyefan said:


> So if something’s made up on the spot, then that can't be a living world? What if a roll on a random table is made? I’ve seen a lot of living world proponents endorse random tables.



Yes, but they roll it and establish those events prior to the PCs learning about it and set the timing of the event.  It happens independently of the PCs.


hawkeyefan said:


> What if I’m playing a new game of 5E D&D with a GM I don’t know well yet. He shares details and I’m not sure if they’re made up ahead of time or on the spot.
> 
> Am I not allowed to say “wow this GM is good at portraying a living world”?



You can say whatever you like.  Free speech and all that. 

But seriously, nothing is perfect.  You might mistake a living world for not or vice versa before you get to know a DM.


----------



## Campbell

From my perspective (speaking as a relatively prep intensive GM) time of creation has far less of an impact on the play experience than the actual creative process, What's actually going on in the GM's mind when they are designing the material in question. Are they being a curious explorer of fiction, really considering how things would be? Are they setting things up for a planned story beat? Are they creating a provocative situation related to the PCs for players to respond to? Are they creating something they expect to be interesting for players to think about (like abstractly)? What's the creative agenda?

Timing of when something is created can have an impact on GM mindset for some GMs. It can allow for more hygienic decision making in the case of not wanting to be too influenced by what's currently happening at the table. Sometimes GMs find it easier to embrace different mindsets at different times. That's all deeply personal though.

Material that is given more time to go through the creative process will tend to be more polished, but that's really irrespective of GM agenda.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> The DM probably says something about hearing rumors of blah blah blah.  Something that big would be talked about all over.  The players wouldn't need to inquire.
> 
> And yes it does.  It's also not a recitation.  The players are free to investigate or not as they please.
> 
> What do you mean?




I meant how do these things come up? Is it the result of the PCs asking around, or perhaps an interaction with an NPC or some similar action? Do the PCs somehow elicit this information from the GM? Or does the GM simply decide to tell them some random stuff?

Because I would expect the context to matter quite a lot. And if it's in some way elicited by the PCs, what places it "outside of their bubble"?




Maxperson said:


> Yes, but they roll it and establish those events prior to the PCs learning about it and set the timing of the event.  It happens independently of the PCs.
> 
> You can say whatever you like.  Free speech and all that.
> 
> But seriously, nothing is perfect.  You might mistake a living world for not or vice versa before you get to know a DM.




So would you say that, ultimately, it's the players or the GM who determines if a world feels living?


----------



## innerdude

From where I sit, it's becoming clear that the "living world" descriptor is apparently about the same as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity---"you'll know it when you see it."

There's some arbitrary time frame in which a GM must have prefabricated some significant percentage of the world, but there's no firm definition of what percentage has to be prefabricated to cross the line from "improv" to "living world." Furthermore, elements cannot be introduced to the players any earlier than 10 business days after being prefabricated, otherwise you're just "improv-ing" and not "staying true to a living world," and abandon all hope, ye who enter therein.

And of course, any GM who isn't attempting to live up to the arbitrary standards of "living world" play is having shallow, trite roleplaying experiences, and GMs playing those hippie-dippie, baloney "Story Now" games (which barely qualify as RPGs at all, if even) should just go away and leave the purity of the "living world" experience alone, and stop ruining gaming groups and causing contention with all of this "game theory" nonsense.

Listening to "living world" proponents try and describe actual play processes reminds me of a scene in the U2 concert movie _Rattle and Hum_, where the movie director is interviewing the band.

Phil Joanou (the director): "So what's the film about?"

Larry Mullen Jr. (the drummer): "It's sort of a musical journey, really . . . you know . . . ."

<The whole band giggles and scofflaws at the pretentious inanity of Larry's comment>

Adam Clayton (the bassist): What the movie is about . . . is, when a band is developing, it goes through certain stages. And for us, we're not the same band as we were when we recorded the _War_ album, for instance, and that was . . . we captured that with _Under a Blood Red Sky_. And we just wanted to capture this period of the band to . . . oh f*** it, I don't know . . . ."

<Band laughs and banters>

Phil Joanou (more insistent): "What's the film about?"

Larry Mullen Jr.: <already giggling> "It's a musical journey!"


So until we get a better definition, the programmer in me is going to define it as,

_const livingWorld = "It's a musical journey!"_


----------



## AnotherGuy

For my part, the _living, breathing world_ goal is used in an attempt to (1) heighten immersion and to (2) infer some measure of _Skilled Play_. Enough people have spoken about (1) in this thread so I'm not going to focus on this at all - but I did try address (2) upthread with a question to @Manbearcat which got lost in the posts.

Again for me, I'm not interested in _secret GM notes_ which do not impact the game in some way, so in the example of this meteorite event that wiped out 1/2 a city, in my game it would have to some sort of knock-on effect, whether it is an influx in refugees, perhaps a shortage of a certain material or two, rising costs of equipment...etc. It needs to affect decision making otherwise as a DM I'm just doing a Meg Ryan.

Essentially the techniques used for one's typical D&D version of _living, breathing world_ are DM decides, rolling off tables (if a DM is that industrious) and/or rolling out pre-planned specific timed events. The last two IMO infer some measure of _Skilled Play. _I liken this to BitD which has the clocks system, and as we have heard in this thread, not all clocks are player-facing.


----------



## Manbearcat

AnotherGuy said:


> For my part, the _living, breathing world_ goal is used in an attempt to (1) heighten immersion and to (2) infer some measure of _Skilled Play_. Enough people have spoken about (1) in this thread so I'm not going to focus on this at all - but I did try address (2) upthread with a question to @Manbearcat which got lost in the posts.
> 
> Again for me, I'm not interested in _secret GM notes_ which do not impact the game in some way, so in the example of this meteorite event that wiped out 1/2 a city, in my game it would have to some sort of knock-on effect, whether it is an influx in refugees, perhaps a shortage of a certain material or two, rising costs of equipment...etc. It needs to affect decision making otherwise as a DM I'm just doing a Meg Ryan.
> 
> Essentially the techniques used for one's typical D&D version of _living, breathing world_ are DM decides, rolling off tables (if a DM is that industrious) and/or rolling out pre-planned specific timed events. The last two IMO infer some measure of _Skilled Play. _I liken this to BitD which has the clocks system, and as we have heard in this thread, not all clock are player-facing.




I must have missed this or forgotten it.  Can you send me the question again, please (apologies)?


----------



## Aldarc

hawkeyefan said:


> So if something’s made up on the spot, then that can't be a living world? What if a roll on a random table is made? I’ve seen a lot of living world proponents endorse random tables.
> 
> What if I’m playing a new game of 5E D&D with a GM I don’t know well yet. He shares details and I’m not sure if they’re made up ahead of time or on the spot.
> 
> Am I not allowed to say “wow this GM is good at portraying a living world”?



This seems at odds with how Bedrockgames described how his living world sandbox games work, which involved, in his own words, making stuff up on the spot based upon the player questions asked or the actions taken, albeit with the goal of making it believable.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> the DM should know a good bit about the off camera world and it should be changing over time.  That is the minimum for me to think it is a living world as I've used the term.   The off camera world is the world unseen by anyone during an actual play session.



This sounds like what @Manbearcat upthread called "setting solitaire".



Emerikol said:


> I do think that the detail of knowledge you have lessens as you expand out from the sandbox.  So the sandbox is pretty detailed.  And other areas outside the sandbox don't have nearly that level of detail.





Maxperson said:


> No one can track everything they interact with in every place they do so and figure it all out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the DM is planning events that happen now and again, whether selected, from a random table or some combination, and has some interactions develop into more, the feel of the world moving around them, but outside of them is generated.





Maxperson said:


> Nobody can prep for everything, so some amount of improv is necessary.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Outside of general prep, the prep DM trying to create a living world(Many prep DMs don't, and that's not inherently a bad thing) will also prep some events and other aspects of the world that show it moving along outside of the PC bubble.  Those thing are intended for the PCs to learn about, because DMs don't just do work that nobody will ever see, but doesn't always come to the PCs attention.





Maxperson said:


> If the DM has come up with an event that happens on the far side of the world, say a meteor hitting a city and taking half of it out, and word reaches the PCs, it's still something he decided on prior to session 8 when the players hear about it, even if it wasn't written down.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For an improv DM, there was no preparation of the event ahead of time.  He's simply inserting something for the PCs into the PC bubble that has to do with the other side of the world.



I don't know what is meant by _the PC bubble_.

How is that different from _word reaching the PCs_?

And given that the "living world"/sandbox GM doesn't (and can't) prep everything, and has to improvise some stuff eg by relying on random tables or extrapolation, how is that different from (say) me GMing Classic Traveller using random tables or me GMing Prince Valiant making decisions about what might be interesting?



Maxperson said:


> So first, in "one game", the status of the city doesn't come up and then they learn it was hit by a meteor.  They just learn it was hit by a meteor.  The information comes to them.  They also know that they are in a prep game where the DM preps events like this.
> 
> In "another game" it's unlikely that the information comes to them on its own like in the prep game.  More likely they ask if they've heard anything interesting and get the response. They went looking for something interesting and it got fed into their PC bubble. They also know that they are playing an improv game and that information was made up on the spot.
> 
> In a living world, stuff happens outside of the PC bubble, much of which doesn't center on the PCs(hence outside of the bubble).  In an improv game, everything centers on the PCs(is inside the bubble), so it doesn't allow living world.



How do the players learn the city was hit by a meteor? Personally I think the players asking if their characters have heard anything interesting is far more likely to take place in a "prep"/"living world" game than in an "improve" game.



Maxperson said:


> The timing matters a great deal to the feel.



Can you explain in what way?



uzirath said:


> I'm curious to flip this around a bit and think of my experiences as a player. I don't typically care much if a GM prepares ahead of time or not.



As a player, I want interesting situations and interesting consequences.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> This seems at odds with how Bedrockgames described how his living world sandbox games work, which involved, in his own words, making stuff up on the spot based upon the player questions asked or the actions taken, albeit with the goal of making it believable.



Outside of Toon, Paranoia etc what GM _doesn't_ have the goal of making it believable?


----------



## pemerton

The key element of the "living world" as I am making sense of it is that the fiction is _created by the GM_. This is what makes it possible for the players to _learn it_ without also _creating it_. And the fact that players can _learn it_ is what makes skilled play relevant.

In Prince Valiant, by way of contrast, and even moreso (say) Cthulhu Dark, there is really no skilled play in the D&D/Gygaxian sense. There is the skill of knowing your character and engaging the situation, but that's a completely different skill. It's about picking up the trajectory of the fiction and running with it.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I also know my religions inside out.



I wanted to pick up on this separately.

No one on earth knows any single religious tradition "inside and out". Even if they devote their whole life to that goal - whether as a practitioner or a scholar - there will be aspects of the tradition that escape their comprehension, either literally in the sense that they're ignorant if those aspects, or in the more metaphorical sense that they can't make sense of them and integrate them into their understanding.

So I don't think it can be possible to for one person to know imaginary religions inside out.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> Outside of Toon, Paranoia etc what GM _doesn't_ have the goal of making it believable?



I was parphrasing what Bedrockgames had previously said about their own games and approaches.


----------



## AnotherGuy

pemerton said:


> Outside of Toon, Paranoia etc what GM _doesn't_ have the goal of making it believable?




I think _believable_ may be the wrong word, I think the word should be _immersive._
Different games put their focus on particular elements of the game to make things more immersive.
Those that pursue this _living world _ideal would attempt to frame a continuous sense of change that would occur in the setting despite PC actions.


----------



## Imaro

prabe said:


> To be clear: I have no problem admitting that I author the vast majority of the world in the games I run, but I dislike the phrasing "the GM's notes" because it feels as though it is implying that the GM has planned a story, which seems like a railroad--or at least railroad-adjacent. I have less problem with your construction "the GM's conception of the world," but I realize it's both less pithy and less provocative.




Honestly I don't like it because it draws no appreciable difference between a railroad and a dynamic game.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> The key element of the "living world" as I am making sense of it is that the fiction is _created by the GM_. This is what makes it possible for the players to _learn it_ without also _creating it_. And the fact that players can _learn it_ is what makes skilled play relevant.
> 
> In Prince Valiant, by way of contrast, and even moreso (say) Cthulhu Dark, there is really no skilled play in the D&D/Gygaxian sense. There is the skill of knowing your character and engaging the situation, but that's a completely different skill. It's about picking up the trajectory of the fiction and running with it.



I don't believe there is a conflict between a GM-created setting and the skill you describe in your second paragraph--"picking up the trajectory of the fiction and running with it." Nor do I believe it's impossible for the GM to exercise that skill: It seems necessary by my understanding (and limited experience) of explicitly Story Now games, and when I prep (or run) a session I have the previous session or two and the general narrative direction in mind.


----------



## Fenris-77

Probably hear rumours? Come on. You aren't foreshadowing every event in your game world with rumours. Even hard core prep only gets you so far. Lets not get silly in our valorization of heavy prep.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I meant how do these things come up? Is it the result of the PCs asking around, or perhaps an interaction with an NPC or some similar action? Do the PCs somehow elicit this information from the GM? Or does the GM simply decide to tell them some random stuff?
> 
> Because I would expect the context to matter quite a lot. And if it's in some way elicited by the PCs, what places it "outside of their bubble"?



I said in the portion you quoted that the PCs wouldn't need to inquire.  Something like that would ball over everyone's tongue.  They'd simply over hear it no matter where they went, so the DM just sort of announces, "You overhear people all over the city talking about a meteor that struck Calamityville."


hawkeyefan said:


> So would you say that, ultimately, it's the players or the GM who determines if a world feels living?



The methods used determine if the world is living or not. Players will feel what they feel, and if they are with a new DM and don't know his methodology(improv, prep or combination), they might be thrown off by that.


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Honestly I don't like it because it draws no appreciable difference between a railroad and a dynamic game.




What about:

*Persistent, Objective Sandbox*

That doesn't connote Railroad.

That implies dynamism (Sandbox).

That connotes "content generation is not orbiting around the PCs."

That connotes a hefty Story Before factor (generation of content before play) and a continuous content generation thereafter.

That admits to play-space boundaries (a Sandbox has borders) where prepped material ends.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't know what is meant by _the PC bubble_.



The PC bubble is the sphere that sort of surrounds the PCs.  The part where things happen wherever they go and they are central to pretty much everything.  

If you are coming up with a rumor of a meteor striking a city as something interesting to entice the PCs, it's part of that bubble.  It only happened because of the PCs.  If the meteor strike happens independently of the PCs, because the DM is planning events of the world without it being about the PCs in some way, it part of a living world.  

In the case of the meteor, the DM knows that the PCs will almost definitely hear about it.  The "almost definitely" is the key there, because they might not ever learn of it.  The DM having planned it out in advance, knows that it will happen on April 27th(insert date on setting calendar here).  He doesn't control the PCs, though, so while it's probable that they will learn of the meteor strike, because news travels fast, it's also possible that on April 26th they decided to go to Sigil and do some research into an artifact rumored to be on Ysgard.  They spend 6 months of in-fiction time researching and adventuring, and when they return the strike is old news and not really being talked about anymore.  

The possibility for them to miss the event is one of the key elements to the event existing outside of the PC bubble.


pemerton said:


> And given that the "living world"/sandbox GM doesn't (and can't) prep everything, and has to improvise some stuff eg by relying on random tables or extrapolation, how is that different from (say) me GMing Classic Traveller using random tables or me GMing Prince Valiant making decisions about what might be interesting?



Do you use those tables to generate events outside the PC bubble?  Or are you rolling on them to inform the PCs of interesting things, thereby inserting those events into the PC bubble?


pemerton said:


> Can you explain in what way?



See above.  If you are making it up on the spot, it's almost definitely to insert it into the PC bubble as something interesting to tell the PCs.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The key element of the "living world" as I am making sense of it is that the fiction is _created by the GM_. This is what makes it possible for the players to _learn it_ without also _creating it_. And the fact that players can _learn it_ is what makes skilled play relevant.



No.  They can learn anything the DM makes up.  Existence outside the PC bubble is the key element.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Many types of games have the portrayal of a living world as a goal. Just as many games have fun as a goal. But if you ask someone how they GM if they said "using the fun style" you might feel like grabbing them and shaking them.



Well I get that these terms on all sides are divisive at times.  I was pointing out that living world means something that absolutely would exclude a Story Now game.   I also admit that it means what it means purely in a metagame way.  It's just a term picked up and used.   So I can see how on both sides of the fence these terms in English mean different things than their metagame definition.

So sure anyone in any game could feel a strong sense of verisimilitude and a sense that the imaginary world feels real to them.  They may even liken that to the idea of a living world.

But, historically the term has taken on a metagame meaning.  Perhaps it took on this meaning in an era where that was the well known way to get to the previous paragraphs feeling about a game.





hawkeyefan said:


> Also, in my opinion, when that happens, folks are saying "THIS is the only way to achieve a living world because it's the living world method", which implies that other games are not concerned about that goal, and I don't think that's accurate.



It is accurate when you consider that as a gamist term it means that.  That is my point.  




hawkeyefan said:


> So it's not that I think there's a problem with the term itself, so much as in how it has been used.



There is a problem with the term because it's gamist understanding doesn't fit perfectly with it's English definition.   Just like fiction, protagonism, etc etc etc....




hawkeyefan said:


> So I asked this of @Maxperson and I'm waiting on some clarity from him, but I'll ask you as well.
> 
> Is there a difference when asked about what's on the far side of the world if the GM has been thinking about this in his free time and has an answer prepared, or if he simply makes one up on the spot?



Yes.  There is a difference.  The answer should be in most instances something the GM knows because it's been established by being put in his notes.   Now if on some rare occasion, the GM has to improv then that is an unfortunate result if it's anything beyond trivial details.   If it is the kind of question a PC could ask about a nation three hundred miles away, then you should know the answer.  Some questions are things a PC likely wouldn't know.



hawkeyefan said:


> I'll break it down a little more. From the player's perspective, is there if a difference? If so, what is it and how would the player even be aware of it? From the GM perspective, is there a difference? If so, would you say that it's totally subjective and a matter of preference, or do you think there is an objective answer?



I think objectively for people playing in my style that a GM who has it written down will give better answers on average over time.   I will say that theoretically it is possible to present a world in the exact same way whether it is ad lib or not.  I suspect if God were a GM he could do this.  I've never met a GM who I couldn't spot doing this in a single session and often within ten minutes.   I will also say that there are those who do write stuff down who still do it poorly.  




hawkeyefan said:


> I've heard that term for years, but always more as a goal rather than as a method. If it's a method, then what is the method? Because from what I can see, different games go about striving for that goal in different ways.
> 
> But if something is meant to be a method or a style.....like "Story Now", for example.....then it should have a pretty uniform application. I don't think that's been shown in this thread at all.



Don't equate life limitations with a lack of desire.  Some GMs are limited on time and they play frequently.  I tend to design a world far in advance of even letting anyone know I am starting a campaign.   And when I do create a new world I tend to either be using another or taking a break.  I do think a good campaign setting carefully crafted can be used across more than one campaign.

So yes it is a dial.  Some do more and some less.  Perhaps for some people it's based on their comfort level.   Ideally this is the order of preference for information flowing from the GM.    

Written in Notes > 
Generated Randomly but based on Notes > 
Improv'd but with strong input from notes > 
Improv'd

I would always prefer to move up if it is possible.  But the only way to really model a world would be on a complexity level equal to a world which of course we cannot do.  

So we circle out.
Sandbox Area -  A great level of detail.  Tons of detailed NPCs with motivations and personalities including good and bad guys.   Lots of adventures of different sorts.   You improv here very little.  Even so if one of my PCs approaches an NPC in a tavern, I likely won't have his favorite drink recorded.  I will likely just randomly roll based on his wealth.

Surrounding Nations/Cities -  Here the detail is Gazateer+.   If the nations are close by then I know the big shots and the movers and shakers.  Those will enter and leave my sandbox on occasion.  I will have at least a map of the major cities.   I'll know what they trade, what industry they are into, there level of lawlessness, their religions, etc....

Farther afield Nations - Here the detail is Gazateer level.  Maybe I'd detail an NPC who is so significant that he could influence the sandbox.  

Over time I am constantly improving and expanding.  So the sandbox might eventually include a nearby city in which case I'd have it detailed at that point.




hawkeyefan said:


> Those words were used with the known definitions. Fiction means make believe. that's the only way it's been used in this thread. There was no need to change the word in any way for it to mean what it means.



Sure.  Your words are perfect English uses.   That is why everyone just accepted them and no one pushed back.  Oh wait.



hawkeyefan said:


> Living world does seem to be meant as a placeholder as you suggest....but when asked what it is a placeholder for, it's been a struggle. Most of the time, references are made to a GM's prep and in advancing that based on passing time within the world. Okay, fine.....but then there was resistance to the idea of playing to learn what the GM has determined.



I've said it on a variety of occasions.  



hawkeyefan said:


> What is your definition?




A world that 
1. Exists in places the PCs have not been or even know about.  Exists as in detailed in the notes.  
2. Changes over time even without PC stimuli.

I would say that you might think of it as a dial.  Meaning it's more living the more you have it detailed and the better you have it change.  Our goal is to simulate well a world so the PCs can move around in it and live their lives in a realistic way.   You are wanting a boolean answer when in reality it's like saying a movie was good.  Well how good?  Casablanca good or just good enough to watch but not great?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Honestly I don't like it because it draws no appreciable difference between a railroad and a dynamic game.



This difference doesn't necessarily seem applicable to the scope of the analysis. The differences between cats and dogs isn't really going to be much of a concern in a discussion more broadly focused on the differences between synapsids and diapsids. If one wanted to draw differences between railroads and dynamic games within the broader family of "discovering GM notes" then one certainly could do so with greater specificity.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I said in the portion you quoted that the PCs wouldn't need to inquire.  Something like that would ball over everyone's tongue.  They'd simply over hear it no matter where they went, so the DM just sort of announces, "You overhear people all over the city talking about a meteor that struck Calamityville."




Thank you this is what I was asking. "They just learn it" is vague; "the GM tells the players that the PCs overhear chatter about the event" is specific. 

So now that the idea has been introduced to the PCs, is it not within their bubble?



Maxperson said:


> The methods used determine if the world is living or not. Players will feel what they feel, and if they are with a new DM and don't know his methodology(improv, prep or combination), they might be thrown off by that.




See I would think it would have to be the players that would decide if a world felt like a living breathing world since they're the ones "experiencing" it. 

If it's solely the methods that determine it, then I think the whole concept would be easier to define....we could establish a list of the methods.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> This difference doesn't necessarily seem applicable to the scope of the analysis. The differences between cats and dogs isn't really going to be much of a concern in a discussion more broadly focused on the differences between synapsids and diapsids. If one wanted to draw differences between railroads and dynamic games within the broader family of "discovering GM notes" then one certainly could do so with greater specificity.



So what is the scope of this analysis... because I thought the op was concerned about the purpose of DM notes... so I'm not sure why different results using notes wouldn't be within scope?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Thank you this is what I was asking. "They just learn it" is vague; "the GM tells the players that the PCs overhear chatter about the event" is specific.
> 
> So now that the idea has been introduced to the PCs, is it not within their bubble?



It's enters it, but it didn't originate there.  If the DM improvs it in due to wanting to give the PCs something interesting to know, it originates in the bubble as it is centered around the PCs, even if the location is far away. 

Look at it this way.  If the PCs leave the city they are in the day before the information arrives and go for an extended planar journey, it will never reach their bubble, but it still reaches the city they just left.  It's something independent of the PCs and their bubble.


hawkeyefan said:


> See I would think it would have to be the players that would decide if a world felt like a living breathing world since they're the ones "experiencing" it.



You can't control feelings.  Everyone is wired differently.  If you ran the game for a sociopath, he wouldn't feel much of what normal people feel about the game, because he can't empathize with the things the DM is relaying to him.  

I'm not saying that the players have social disorders, but everyone is different and even if 8 people feel that a world is living, the 9th and 10th may not for reasons.  A living world is designed to evoke a certain feel, but that doesn't mean that it will be successful in everyone.  Lack of success doesn't mean that it isn't a living world.  It just means that it's lost on the person who doesn't feel it.  I personally love art and going to the Getty museums is one of my favorite things to do.  I don't get modern art, though.  Anything a giant red ball sitting all by itself is supposed to evoke in me is just plain lost.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> So what is the scope of this analysis... because I thought the op was concerned about the purpose of DM notes... so I'm not sure why different results using notes wouldn't be within scope?



Sure, but "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" doesn't appear in the OP either. 

In a reply to Lanefan a few pages back, I did ask a question tying into the OP about differences between games in terms of who, how, and why notes are generated, but no one picked up on that or engaged it.


----------



## Imaro

I think this thread is interesting from the living world/non-living world perspective.  It's asking the question what do you do if your players choose to ignore a world shattering threat... The answers have a pretty wide range and many of them are not concerned with the appearance of a dynamic or living world at all.

World Shattering events that the PC's ignore


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Well I get that these terms on all sides are divisive at times.  I was pointing out that living world means something that absolutely would exclude a Story Now game.   I also admit that it means what it means purely in a metagame way.  It's just a term picked up and used.   So I can see how on both sides of the fence these terms in English mean different things than their metagame definition.
> 
> So sure anyone in any game could feel a strong sense of verisimilitude and a sense that the imaginary world feels real to them.  They may even liken that to the idea of a living world.
> 
> But, historically the term has taken on a metagame meaning.  Perhaps it took on this meaning in an era where that was the well known way to get to the previous paragraphs feeling about a game.




Then perhaps as a term it's outdated? 

Your second paragraph here is how I've always understood it. Perhaps because a lot of times it's also used to describe works of fiction like novels or movies? It would seem to have the same application for RPGs or just about any other kind of fiction.

I've honestly only heard "living world" as an approach as opposed to a goal when discussing in this thread, and a couple of others like it. I don't think it's so ubiquitous that its meaning is apparent.



Emerikol said:


> There is a problem with the term because it's gamist understanding doesn't fit perfectly with it's English definition.   Just like fiction, protagonism, etc etc etc....




No, not just like fiction and protagonism because those words already have definitions, and those are the definitions being used. Fiction means "make believe" and always has, and that's how it has been used in this discussion. No new gaming specific definition is needed for either one. So that's why when people say "I don't know what you mean by fiction" all anyone should have to say is "I mean make believe stuff" and we're good.

So no. it is not the same. Living world is a phrase that has no specific definition prior to gaming, and the definition for gaming seems pretty nebulous.



Emerikol said:


> Yes.  There is a difference.  The answer should be in most instances something the GM knows because it's been established by being put in his notes.   Now if on some rare occasion, the GM has to improv then that is an unfortunate result if it's anything beyond trivial details.   If it is the kind of question a PC could ask about a nation three hundred miles away, then you should know the answer.  Some questions are things a PC likely wouldn't know.




Why is it unfortunate if the GM doesn't know what has happened in a nation three hundred miles away? 

I think you're assuming that Prep is always good and the more prep the more good. But why? 

Surely, from the players' perspective, if they ask you what's going on in the far off city, and you answer them based on your copious notes, your answer is likely not going to be any "better" than if they ask me and I make it up on the fly. 

If the far off city hasn't mattered to play in any way, then how does it matter if the GM has prepared anything there?



Emerikol said:


> I think objectively for people playing in my style that a GM who has it written down will give better answers on average over time.   I will say that theoretically it is possible to present a world in the exact same way whether it is ad lib or not.  I suspect if God were a GM he could do this.  I've never met a GM who I couldn't spot doing this in a single session and often within ten minutes.   I will also say that there are those who do write stuff down who still do it poorly.




I think the only way this matters is based on expectation. Which will largely depend on the game and the goals of play. So an old school dungeon delve, sure, having a map and key is going to make sense. This is the purpose of the GM notes for that kind of game.

But in my 5E game, I'm not really worried about skilled play in the sense of old school dungeon delves; we're not worried about inventory and spell loadout in order to navigate a defined dungeon space. It's not the focus of play.

So in my 5E game, I don't worry about my players knowing if I've made something up on the fly or if I've prepared it ahead of time. Why would I? It's made up either way. What does the timing of its creation really matter, unless it impacts the goals of play?



Emerikol said:


> Sure.  Your words are perfect English uses.   That is why everyone just accepted them and no one pushed back.  Oh wait.




It sounds to me like you're blaming me for the mistake of others. 

I would say that I received pushback on my use of fiction to mean make believe because of some unfounded fear that it could mean a novel or work of literature. 

Oh, and because it's snooty.



Emerikol said:


> A world that
> 1. Exists in places the PCs have not been or even know about.  Exists as in detailed in the notes.
> 2. Changes over time even without PC stimuli.
> 
> I would say that you might think of it as a dial.  Meaning it's more living the more you have it detailed and the better you have it change.  Our goal is to simulate well a world so the PCs can move around in it and live their lives in a realistic way.   You are wanting a boolean answer when in reality it's like saying a movie was good.  Well how good?  Casablanca good or just good enough to watch but not great?




So you would say that the purpose of a GM's notes in a Living World style is to provide a setting for the players to explore with their characters? Does that sum it up?


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Probably hear rumours? Come on. You aren't foreshadowing every event in your game world with rumours. Even hard core prep only gets you so far. Lets not get silly in our valorization of heavy prep.



While foreshadowing should occur only naturally as the PCs go about their business.  Meaning a DM shouldn't go out of his way to provide the info if it's the sort of event people are talking about then I think they will hear about it.  At least in my campaign.   Again, the event is like a stone in a pond.  Far enough away and you don't notice unless it's a big event.   Close by you get more events as that is your area of interest.

I think on world events it helps to build out a calendar using a combination of common sense and random rolls.   So natural catastrophes do happen just not often.  Nations go to war far more often but still not hyper frequently by day to day standards.   But that sort of stuff happening in the background without PC involvement is what we mean by a living world.


----------



## Fenris-77

My point was that not matter how much prep you do there are _always_ going to be things you have to make up on the spot, and that's not limited to small details. So rather than us pretending that a living world somehow escapes that reality, which it does not, maybe we should instead look at what to do there. Personally, I tend to use clocks and random charts, or a roll of some kind, depending on what exactly we're talking about. I try to avoid just picking off the top of my head when I can help it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> It's enters it, but it didn't originate there.  If the DM improvs it in due to wanting to give the PCs something interesting to know, it originates in the bubble as it is centered around the PCs, even if the location is far away.




But here's what I'm struggling with......the Prep GM and the improv GM could introduce this news in the exact same way. One had it written down ahead of time, and the other just thinks it up in the moment. So i get that the method is different. 

What is the impact on play? How is actual play impacted differently using one method over the other?

It would seem to me to be identical. Here is some news your PCs have heard of a far off place and what is going on there. Perhaps this will be interesting enough fo you to want to go there. Or perhaps as things progress in the game, the context of this news will become more obvious. 




Maxperson said:


> Look at it this way.  If the PCs leave the city they are in the day before the information arrives and go for an extended planar journey, it will never reach their bubble, but it still reaches the city they just left.  It's something independent of the PCs and their bubble.




Okay, but the same could be said if the GM is just making it up on the fly. The PCs leave home city on their planar adventure, and so they don't overhear news of far off places.



Maxperson said:


> You can't control feelings.  Everyone is wired differently.  If you ran the game for a sociopath, he wouldn't feel much of what normal people feel about the game, because he can't empathize with the things the DM is relaying to him.
> 
> I'm not saying that the players have social disorders, but everyone is different and even if 8 people feel that a world is living, the 9th and 10th may not for reasons.  A living world is designed to evoke a certain feel, but that doesn't mean that it will be successful in everyone.  Lack of success doesn't mean that it isn't a living world.  It just means that it's lost on the person who doesn't feel it.  I personally love art and going to the Getty museums is one of my favorite things to do.  I don't get modern art, though.  Anything a giant red ball sitting all by itself is supposed to evoke in me is just plain lost.




Right, this is because it's subjective. What will feel like a living world to one person may not feel like that to another. The goal, I would expect, is to find the techniques and methods that would somehow evoke the living world feeling from as many people as possible. 

So far, when it comes to those methods, it seems like: 

*LIVING WORLD TRAITS*

GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Then perhaps as a term it's outdated?







hawkeyefan said:


> Your second paragraph here is how I've always understood it. Perhaps because a lot of times it's also used to describe works of fiction like novels or movies? It would seem to have the same application for RPGs or just about any other kind of fiction.
> 
> I've honestly only heard "living world" as an approach as opposed to a goal when discussing in this thread, and a couple of others like it. I don't think it's so ubiquitous that its meaning is apparent.



It strikes me that striving for the sort of living world I like is not something you've ever cared a lot about.  My own experience though is that I can use the term in my circles and it is instantly understood what I mean.  



hawkeyefan said:


> No, not just like fiction and protagonism because those words already have definitions, and those are the definitions being used. Fiction means "make believe" and always has, and that's how it has been used in this discussion. No new gaming specific definition is needed for either one. So that's why when people say "I don't know what you mean by fiction" all anyone should have to say is "I mean make believe stuff" and we're good.



You can keep belaboring this point and perhaps fiction is not the most divisive of the lot but no all of your gamist uses of words are not perfect English equivalents.  It's just not true.  You've come to understand these terms as you do because they are the meta language in your circles and that is fine.  



hawkeyefan said:


> So no. it is not the same. Living world is a phrase that has no specific definition prior to gaming, and the definition for gaming seems pretty nebulous.



It's not that nebulous.  I've defined it for you many times now.



hawkeyefan said:


> Why is it unfortunate if the GM doesn't know what has happened in a nation three hundred miles away?
> 
> I think you're assuming that Prep is always good and the more prep the more good. But why?
> 
> Surely, from the players' perspective, if they ask you what's going on in the far off city, and you answer them based on your copious notes, your answer is likely not going to be any "better" than if they ask me and I make it up on the fly.



That is the point.  From our experience, it is not true that people who make it up on the fly provide as consistent and immersive world.   Just the opposite.  My own experience, anecdotal just like yours, is that such worlds are trite and lack depth.   Now I've never met you so I am not saying you world is that way.  I'm saying that is my experience of people who put no effort into their worlds.



hawkeyefan said:


> If the far off city hasn't mattered to play in any way, then how does it matter if the GM has prepared anything there?
> 
> I think the only way this matters is based on expectation. Which will largely depend on the game and the goals of play. So an old school dungeon delve, sure, having a map and key is going to make sense. This is the purpose of the GM notes for that kind of game.



This is the most trivial case not the most significant case.  It trivializes the goals of living world proponents.



hawkeyefan said:


> But in my 5E game, I'm not really worried about skilled play in the sense of old school dungeon delves; we're not worried about inventory and spell loadout in order to navigate a defined dungeon space. It's not the focus of play.
> 
> So in my 5E game, I don't worry about my players knowing if I've made something up on the fly or if I've prepared it ahead of time. Why would I? It's made up either way. What does the timing of its creation really matter, unless it impacts the goals of play?



Well you may be the grandmaster of improv.  You may be the smartest man I've ever not met.  I'm just saying I don't see it pulled off successfully other than as a theoretical.   So practically I've never seen a GM improv most things and have anything but a shambles of a world that I can't believe in at all.   So I'm not arguing with you theoretically.  I am arguing with you practically.




hawkeyefan said:


> It sounds to me like you're blaming me for the mistake of others.
> 
> I would say that I received pushback on my use of fiction to mean make believe because of some unfounded fear that it could mean a novel or work of literature.
> 
> Oh, and because it's snooty.



I was just trying to point out that the terms, and you are hardly the only person on here arguing terms so don't take everything as directly solely at you every time,  are gamified terms.   



hawkeyefan said:


> So you would say that the purpose of a GM's notes in a Living World style is to provide a setting for the players to explore with their characters? Does that sum it up?



No.  I gave you my definition in previous posts.   I would say that an outcome of my approach is that the world is more believable and immersive for some people.  I target those people for my campaigns and we have fun.   If someone doesn't care about a living world, that would be a clue to me that such a person may not be a good fit for my campaign.   That doesn't mean they are bad people, that they are roleplaying wrong, or that preferences lack validity.   They just like different things.  

I suppose we could delve deep into psychology and perhaps even philosophy to try and figure out why we prefer things as we do.  Not sure it would bear any fruit other than acrimony.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement
> 
> What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?



I'm glad you at least acknowledged my prior explanations.

I think you could go on about practical ways of achieving the above but the above is definitely what we are seeking.  It's what we mean by a living world.  You could also dial it up or down by GM.  I'm sure I am dialed a bit higher than average but I find doing it to be a pleasure so perhaps it's easier for me.  

At the point where the dial goes too low?  Not sure I have an absolute line but if I were in a game I'd recognize pretty quick that the setting was lacking or not.  I don't have to know the answer though as I game with people who are on the same page.  I don't worry about other games all that much other than as points of interest and fun ways to have an occasional debate.


----------



## chaochou

hawkeyefan said:


> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement
> 
> What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?




The purpose is the 'immersion' of the GM in their setting, not of the players in the game


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> But here's what I'm struggling with......the Prep GM and the improv GM could introduce this news in the exact same way. One had it written down ahead of time, and the other just thinks it up in the moment. So i get that the method is different.
> 
> What is the impact on play? How is actual play impacted differently using one method over the other?



The impact is hopefully the feel that you invoke.  The response from the players is likely to be identical.  They will respond or ignore the rumor of the meteor impact as they see fit.  That's why I say that living, breathing is a goal and not a playstyle.  A playstyle is about more than just the feel of what you are trying to do, and living, breathing can be applied to multiple different playstyles.


hawkeyefan said:


> It would seem to me to be identical. Here is some news your PCs have heard of a far off place and what is going on there. Perhaps this will be interesting enough fo you to want to go there. Or perhaps as things progress in the game, the context of this news will become more obvious.



Again, the feel is what you are going for.  Most of the time the group is going to know what kind of DM that they are playing with, so they will have a very good idea whether or not it was made up on the fly or in the notes.  

I'm personally a mixture of improv and notes, mostly because I just don't have time to prep as much as when I was younger.  However, the vast majority of the improv that I do is just filling in the details, not major stuff, so my players still know that a meteor hitting a city is something that was set up in my notes and not done on the fly.  


hawkeyefan said:


> Okay, but the same could be said if the GM is just making it up on the fly. The PCs leave home city on their planar adventure, and so they don't overhear news of far off places.



In theory I guess the DM might say to himself, "Hmm.  I have an idea.  I'm going to have a meteor strike a city, but news won't come to this town until after the PCs leave, so they will never hear about it."  In practice, though, that just doesn't happen.  DMs as a rule don't create things that they know will never see the light of day.  Even the prep DM intended for the PCs to learn about the meteor strike, he just didn't account for the players deciding to skip to another plane for a long time.  If an improv DM comes up with it, it will be to let the PCs know about it at the time he comes up with it.


hawkeyefan said:


> Right, this is because it's subjective. What will feel like a living world to one person may not feel like that to another. The goal, I would expect, is to find the techniques and methods that would somehow evoke the living world feeling from as many people as possible.
> 
> So far, when it comes to those methods, it seems like:
> 
> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement
> 
> What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?



The first one is a trait of a sandbox.  Significant prepping ahead of time is more to have a lot of world detail for the players.    The second trait is pretty much what goes into the living world.  I'm not sure you can get much more specific than that.  There are different ways you can achieve it, such as random tables, choice or a combination.  Heck, you could throw darts at a piece of paper if you wanted.  The primary thing, though, is that the events or situations happen outside of the PC bubble.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> The purpose is the 'immersion' of the GM in their setting, not of the players in the game



Almost, but not quite.

The GM is securing their own suspension of disbelief, so they can then enable their players'.

At least, that's the way I see it, as someone who doesn't claim to run that type of game.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> The GM is securing their own suspension of disbelief, so they can then enable their players'.



Since you don't claim to run this kind of game, on what basis are you now suggesting you get to correct my understanding?



prabe said:


> Almost, but not quite.



Close, but no cigar.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Almost, but not quite.
> 
> The GM is securing their own suspension of disbelief, so they can then enable their players'.
> 
> At least, that's the way I see it, as someone who doesn't claim to run that type of game.



I don't immerse or suspend disbelief when I'm prepping the game.  During the game I will immerse myself in NPCs and monsters to better play them, but that doesn't have anything to do with the living world.

The feel I hope to evoke with living world methods is something that I think aids the players immerse into the world, though.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> It strikes me that striving for the sort of living world I like is not something you've ever cared a lot about. My own experience though is that I can use the term in my circles and it is instantly understood what I mean.




I would say that portraying a living world is a pretty big priority for me as a GM, actually. 

I think perhaps I simply maintain that it is a fictional thing....a creation.....and so I don't feel the need to determine everything ahead of time in some attempt to emulate how the real world works. That there are other ways that may work to make a fictional setting seem more real or inhabitable rather than predetermination of as much as possible.



Emerikol said:


> You can keep belaboring this point and perhaps fiction is not the most divisive of the lot but no all of your gamist uses of words are not perfect English equivalents. It's just not true. You've come to understand these terms as you do because they are the meta language in your circles and that is fine.




I'm not belaboring a point. I am continually correcting your error that I used "fiction" in any way other than it's most common and applicable definition, and not in some game specific jargon way. If you stop making that error, I won't comment any further.  



Emerikol said:


> It's not that nebulous. I've defined it for you many times now.




Pretty loosely, though, no? And in contrast (perhaps only seeming contrast?) to others who have also advocated for the living world approach. This is why to me, it seems somewhat poorly defined.



Emerikol said:


> That is the point. From our experience, it is not true that people who make it up on the fly provide as consistent and immersive world. Just the opposite. My own experience, anecdotal just like yours, is that such worlds are trite and lack depth. Now I've never met you so I am not saying you world is that way. I'm saying that is my experience of people who put no effort into their worlds.




Sure. But this just plays to my point that it's all a matter of preference. 

I would agree that for some GMs, having as much prepared ahead of time will suit them and it's what they prefer in order to perform the role as best they can. 

I disagree that worlds that are not prepared ahead of time to the extent you're talking about feel trite and lack depth. While it's possible, I'd also say that I've seen plenty of fictional settings that are incredibly detailed and which are trite or lack depth. 

I also think that, when it comes to gaming....and in this case I mean specifically the group activity and not anything done by the GM in between sessions......I don't think as much prep is needed as we tend to think. Very often, less is more. Players will often simply accept a fact without some 1000 year backstory of why it is the case. 

So I say to my players, "The sun is shining" and they get it without needing to know whether it's a giant ball of gas or if it's Apollo flying his chariot across the sky.



Emerikol said:


> This is the most trivial case not the most significant case. It trivializes the goals of living world proponents.




I agree it's a terrible example, but it was brought up so I ran with it. 

Give me a significant example. Can you describe an example of play where you had something determined ahead of time and that enhanced the game with your players?



Emerikol said:


> Well you may be the grandmaster of improv. You may be the smartest man I've ever not met. I'm just saying I don't see it pulled off successfully other than as a theoretical. So practically I've never seen a GM improv most things and have anything but a shambles of a world that I can't believe in at all. So I'm not arguing with you theoretically. I am arguing with you practically.




Right, but I think you said almost all your experience is with one game, right? Or most of it? Perhaps you're approaching the entire discussion through that lens? Which is understandable, sure, but at the same time maybe be aware of it? There are entire games that function without the amount of prep you're describing as "necessary" to achieve the feeling of a living world.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Since you don't claim to run this kind of game, on what basis are you now suggesting you get to correct my understanding?



On the basis of the fact that it's hard to draw a boundary around the games where people claim this as a goal or method, which doesn't exclude mine. At least, every attempt to define "living world" I've seen in this thread has described my campaigns. Some have also included people running published adventures, though, so it's at least as likely the definitions are at fault.

Also on the basis of your "Hey, Guys" post. Kinda hard to take seriously analysis that starts from mockery.


chaochou said:


> Close, but no cigar.



So near, and yet so far.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> The impact is hopefully the feel that you invoke. The response from the players is likely to be identical. They will respond or ignore the rumor of the meteor impact as they see fit. That's why I say that living, breathing is a goal and not a playstyle. A playstyle is about more than just the feel of what you are trying to do, and living, breathing can be applied to multiple different playstyles.




I agree it's a goal not a playstyle. Which is why I think it's a poor term to describe a method or collection of processes. 

 But if I'm understanding what you're saying, then it's really more about what method works for the GM....what makes them comfortable enough to then portray a world that is more likely to feel like a living world to the players, right?



Maxperson said:


> Again, the feel is what you are going for. Most of the time the group is going to know what kind of DM that they are playing with, so they will have a very good idea whether or not it was made up on the fly or in the notes.
> 
> I'm personally a mixture of improv and notes, mostly because I just don't have time to prep as much as when I was younger. However, the vast majority of the improv that I do is just filling in the details, not major stuff, so my players still know that a meteor hitting a city is something that was set up in my notes and not done on the fly.




Well, this is where a specific game would play a big part. Many games don't really allow for "types of GMs"; many have a very specific role for the GM with very specific processes they should be using. Yes, the role always requires judgment, but exactly how the role is carried out is not always vaguely defined by a game, such as it is with many iterations of D&D. 

But the idea of playing Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark and thinking of the use of improv as some kind of lesser GMing is just flawed thinking. 

It would be like a scriptwriter looking at an RPG session and saying "Wait, where's the script? We can't have all these people ad-libbing!!"



Maxperson said:


> In theory I guess the DM might say to himself, "Hmm. I have an idea. I'm going to have a meteor strike a city, but news won't come to this town until after the PCs leave, so they will never hear about it." In practice, though, that just doesn't happen. DMs as a rule don't create things that they know will never see the light of day. Even the prep DM intended for the PCs to learn about the meteor strike, he just didn't account for the players deciding to skip to another plane for a long time. If an improv DM comes up with it, it will be to let the PCs know about it at the time he comes up with it.




So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?



Maxperson said:


> The first one is a trait of a sandbox. Significant prepping ahead of time is more to have a lot of world detail for the players. The second trait is pretty much what goes into the living world. I'm not sure you can get much more specific than that. There are different ways you can achieve it, such as random tables, choice or a combination. Heck, you could throw darts at a piece of paper if you wanted. The primary thing, though, is that the events or situations happen outside of the PC bubble.




I'm struggling to have these last two sections jibe. Things should happen outside the PC bubble, but with the intention that they could become part of the PC bubble? 

Should we revise our list of traits like this?

*LIVING WORLD TRAITS*

GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> I would say that portraying a living world is a pretty big priority for me as a GM, actually.



I didn't say that.  You changed the ground rules.   Read what I wrote again.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think perhaps I simply maintain that it is a fictional thing....a creation.....and so I don't feel the need to determine everything ahead of time in some attempt to emulate how the real world works. That there are other ways that may work to make a fictional setting seem more real or inhabitable rather than predetermination of as much as possible.



I don't think anyone is disputing that you are making this point from your perspective.  Some of us may have no experience of it but we aren't disputing that you are making that point.



hawkeyefan said:


> I'm not belaboring a point. I am continually correcting your error that I used "fiction" in any way other than it's most common and applicable definition, and not in some game specific jargon way. If you stop making that error, I won't comment any further.



Well I should be careful because I can't be 100% sure that you specifically made erroneous comments about fiction.   So let me state what I believe was said in this thread.

The fiction is the shared experience of the characters and GM.   Is this right?   If so then I dispute your definition is the English language definition.




hawkeyefan said:


> Pretty loosely, though, no? And in contrast (perhaps only seeming contrast?) to others who have also advocated for the living world approach. This is why to me, it seems somewhat poorly defined.



No I just replied to you recently.  You wrote it down.  Two easy to understand points.



hawkeyefan said:


> I disagree that worlds that are not prepared ahead of time to the extent you're talking about feel trite and lack depth. While it's possible, I'd also say that I've seen plenty of fictional settings that are incredibly detailed and which are trite or lack depth.



Do you suppose that if ten people took turns extending a story that it would be as coherent as something authored carefully over time?   As I'm building my world, prior to campaign start, I can decide something doesn't fit and change it after I've done more work.  I can "refactor" things until I get them where I want them before starting the game.   I can't imagine just answering questions off the cuff would be as consistent.   I mean there are arguments for your style.  I don't think arguing the consistency line would be a good one to take.   Argue the freedom of choosing as you go and the organic discovery of new things.   That might be a positive for your style at least in your players eyes I'd think.   



hawkeyefan said:


> I also think that, when it comes to gaming....and in this case I mean specifically the group activity and not anything done by the GM in between sessions......I don't think as much prep is needed as we tend to think. Very often, less is more. Players will often simply accept a fact without some 1000 year backstory of why it is the case.



There is an art of choosing what to prep and what not to prep.   Where do you draw the line.  



hawkeyefan said:


> So I say to my players, "The sun is shining" and they get it without needing to know whether it's a giant ball of gas or if it's Apollo flying his chariot across the sky.



yes but if I've handed a religion pamphlet to my cleric player and his beliefs are that it is Apollo then he may feel good about being able to say "Ah Apollo shines forth upon us all".   



hawkeyefan said:


> Give me a significant example. Can you describe an example of play where you had something determined ahead of time and that enhanced the game with your players?



To be honest, almost everything I feel that way about.  I feel if I were making it up as I go it would be of inferior quality.  The first thing that pops into my head is not always the best thing.  



hawkeyefan said:


> Right, but I think you said almost all your experience is with one game, right? Or most of it? Perhaps you're approaching the entire discussion through that lens? Which is understandable, sure, but at the same time maybe be aware of it? There are entire games that function without the amount of prep you're describing as "necessary" to achieve the feeling of a living world.



One style is perhaps more appropriate.  I've played a variety of games of that style.  

I find a lot of these games to be academically interesting.  There could be a time and place where they might be a fun thing to do.   Over the course of a few years, every week?  No.  I don't think that would be very satisfying.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I agree it's a goal not a playstyle. Which is why I think it's a poor term to describe a method or collection of processes.
> 
> But if I'm understanding what you're saying, then it's really more about what method works for the GM....what makes them comfortable enough to then portray a world that is more likely to feel like a living world to the players, right?



Within the restrictions I provided above.  The living world stuff needs to be prepped ahead of time and exist independent of the PC bubble.  The specific methods for achieving that depends on what works for the DM.


hawkeyefan said:


> Well, this is where a specific game would play a big part. Many games don't really allow for "types of GMs"; many have a very specific role for the GM with very specific processes they should be using. Yes, the role always requires judgment, but exactly how the role is carried out is not always vaguely defined by a game, such as it is with many iterations of D&D.



Sure.  If the specific game requires one method of achieving the living world, then that's what will be used.  And it's possible that the game rules will not allow a living world at all.


hawkeyefan said:


> But the idea of playing Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark and thinking of the use of improv as some kind of lesser GMing is just flawed thinking.



I agree.  I said in a post above that not running a living world isn't a bad thing at all.  It's not lesser DMing.  It's different DMing.  I like to run a living world, and I prefer to play in one, but I've played in many games that just weren't run that way and had a fantastic time.  As an analogy, burgers with bacon(living world) on them are delicious, but I've had some fantastically good burgers without bacon and on some burgers, bacon would actually detract from the taste. 


hawkeyefan said:


> So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?



Absolutely.  There's nothing wrong with things, even the vast majority of things existing within the PC bubble.  That's where 99%(or more) of the game is played. 


hawkeyefan said:


> I'm struggling to have these last two sections jibe. Things should happen outside the PC bubble, but with the intention that they could become part of the PC bubble?
> 
> Should we revise our list of traits like this?
> 
> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> *GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting poi*nt
> These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement



Well, again, the bolded part isn't really living world dependent.  That's a trait that applies to any prep playstyle.  It could be sandbox, railroad, linear, etc. The second one seems good.  I would put a "some" in front of events in the third bullet point.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> Should we revise our list of traits like this?
> 
> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
> These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement






Maxperson said:


> Well, again, the bolded part isn't really living world dependent.  That's a trait that applies to any prep playstyle.  It could be sandbox, railroad, linear, etc. The second one seems good.  I would a "some" in front of events in the third bullet point.




I would disagree that the bolded part is optional.  The prep is what makes it a living world.  I would agree that the amount of prep can be debated.  That would be an intramural debate between living world proponents.  

And @hawkeyefan, I think bullet two is probably not necessary.  Of course anything could become player knowledge if they go in that direction but who would dispute that.  I would think it's assumed.


----------



## Doug McCrae

_The following quotations provide examples of the use of “living world” and related terms – “living, breathing campaign world”, “real world”, “living setting” – in D&D._

*Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide (1990)*
The campaign is more than a game world or a clever plot line. It must be a place for the player characters to live, grow, and develop. For their character development to have any meaning beyond inflicting megadeath, acquiring zillions of experience points, and collecting vast, tax-free inventories of gold coins and arcane devices, the characters need a world upon which their actions, the outcomes of their adventures, can have a real effect; a world whose events, in turn, affect the player characters themselves.

When properly created, the campaign is a living, breathing, growing, and most importantly, changing game environment. It is a place that the DM builds, but which gains its life from the continued involvement of both the DM and his players. (pg 51)

*Dragon #200 (1993)*
When players become interested in a campaign world they want to know about its cultures, monsters, and important characters, and additional products make that possible. Players want more than just one evening’s adventure. They want to respond to happenings around them and such actions are part of what is necessary to make a world a living, breathing thing. (pg 82)

*World Builder’s Guidebook (1996)*
In this approach [Microscopic], the DM starts with a dungeon, town, or similar focused setting, and works his way outward… This method for world-building applies when you have a fragment of a world—a small province, town, or dungeon—already prepared, and you're trying to flesh out this one dimensional construct into a living, breathing campaign world. (pg 5)

*3.5e DMG (2003)*
If the PCs come back to buy more horses at the stables, you could have them discover that the man who ran the place went back home to the large city over the hills, and now his nephew runs the family business. That sort of change—one that has nothing to do with the PCs directly, but one that they’ll notice—makes the players feel as though they’re adventuring in a living world as real as themselves, not just a flat backdrop that exists only for them to delve its dungeons. (pg 6)

The most important purpose of a campaign is to make the players feel that their characters live in a real world. This appearance of realism, also called verisimilitude, is important because it allows the players to stop feeling like they’re playing a game and start feeling more like they’re playing roles. When immersed in their roles, they are more likely to react to evil Lord Erimbar than they are to you playing Lord Erimbar. (pg 129)

*4e DMG (2008)*
When characters leave a part of your adventure setting and venture back later, it should change in response to their actions. This kind of detail helps the setting seem more real and alive to the players. Monsters the party has killed should (usually) stay dead—the site shouldn’t just reset to the state it was in the first time around. But the second delve might well present new threats to the characters. Intelligent survivors of the characters’ first intrusion into their domain react appropriately, bolstering their defenses or evacuating the area. New creatures might appear in areas left vacant, such as predators drawn to shelter and prey opportunities. A living setting provides repeat play value and continues to hold the players’ interest. (pg 139)

*5e DMG (2014)*
If the adventurers come back to buy more horses at the stables, they might discover that the man who ran the place went back home to the large city over the hills, and now his niece runs the family business. That sort of change—one that has nothing to do with the adventurers directly, but one that they'll notice—makes the players feel as though their characters are part of a living world that changes and grows along with them. (pg 4) _This is very similar to the quotation from page 6 of the 3.5e DMG._


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> I didn't say that.  You changed the ground rules.   Read what I wrote again.




What's the difference? The bit about how you would do it? In that case, I wouldn't say I've never been interested in running a game that way.....I used to feel similarly to how you do. 




Emerikol said:


> Well I should be careful because I can't be 100% sure that you specifically made erroneous comments about fiction.   So let me state what I believe was said in this thread.
> 
> The fiction is the shared experience of the characters and GM.   Is this right?   If so then I dispute your definition is the English language definition.




My use of fiction was "make believe". Do you think fiction means "make believe"? 

If so, then yes, it would apply to the shared fiction of the game that the GM and players experience together. It would also apply to the GMs notes, whether they make it into play or not. It would also apply to the lie that the Gm told his boss so he could skip work and go play D&D with his friends. 

If you think fiction doesn't mean "make believe" then okay.




Emerikol said:


> Do you suppose that if ten people took turns extending a story that it would be as coherent as something authored carefully over time?   As I'm building my world, prior to campaign start, I can decide something doesn't fit and change it after I've done more work.  I can "refactor" things until I get them where I want them before starting the game.   I can't imagine just answering questions off the cuff would be as consistent.   I mean there are arguments for your style.  I don't think arguing the consistency line would be a good one to take.   Argue the freedom of choosing as you go and the organic discovery of new things.   That might be a positive for your style at least in your players eyes I'd think.




So you're advocating for one creative voice? In a collaborative game? 

And yes, I do think a fictional world can be coherent when it has multiple people contributing. Is it more prone to inconsistencies? That's certainly possible. Do I think the kind of inconsistencies that result are all that meaningful? Very rarely. 

Also, I think that not committing to everything beforehand removes a lot of the risk of inconsistencies. Or maybe that such insonsistencies will exist only for the GM, and so I'm not worried about them.



Emerikol said:


> yes but if I've handed a religion pamphlet to my cleric player and his beliefs are that it is Apollo then he may feel good about being able to say "Ah Apollo shines forth upon us all".




I mean....couldn't he say that with or without your pamphlet?


----------



## hawkeyefan

*LIVING WORLD TRAITS*


*GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting poi*nt
These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement



Maxperson said:


> Well, again, the bolded part isn't really living world dependent. That's a trait that applies to any prep playstyle. It could be sandbox, railroad, linear, etc. The second one seems good. I would put a "some" in front of events in the third bullet point.






Emerikol said:


> I would disagree that the bolded part is optional. The prep is what makes it a living world. I would agree that the amount of prep can be debated. That would be an intramural debate between living world proponents.
> 
> And @hawkeyefan, I think bullet two is probably not necessary. Of course anything could become player knowledge if they go in that direction but who would dispute that. I would think it's assumed.




Here's what I meant by "nebulous", @Emerikol . It's hard to get folks to agree on even the basics. 

Where as if you look at the examples from different D&D books from different editions that @Doug McCrae provided, none of them indicate that heavy prep is required. The closest phrase to something like that is "It is a place that the DM builds, but which gains its life from the continued involvement of both the DM and his players." 

And if we remove the bit about prep, leaving only the second and third bullet points, I don't know if there's a game that wouldn't suggest these two items.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> I would disagree that the bolded part is optional.  The prep is what makes it a living world.  I would agree that the amount of prep can be debated.  That would be an intramural debate between living world proponents.



Do you think prep is part of railroads and linear games?  If so, then it's not specific to living words.  Do living worlds involve prep? Yes, but you can prep sandbox games, railroads, and linear games without having a living world, so prep is a function of the style of game rather than living world.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Here's what I meant by "nebulous", @Emerikol . It's hard to get folks to agree on even the basics.



@Emerikol sees prep as necessary to have a living world and he is correct.  Where he's going wrong is in assuming that prep is what makes a living world.  It doesn't.   You can prep all kinds of games without having a living world.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Within the restrictions I provided above.  The *living world stuff needs to be prepped ahead of time* and exist independent of the PC bubble.  The specific methods for achieving that depends on what works for the DM.



No it doesn't. I have no idea why anyone persists with this bit of fiction. That could be true for some stuff, sure, but it's not universally true, nor even necessary in any given instance.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> On the basis of the fact that it's hard to draw a boundary around the games where people claim this as a goal or method, which doesn't exclude mine.



On the basis of nothing then, since you have no idea of my experiences of this ’style‘ and therefore no basis to claim a better understanding of it.

Fail.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> On the basis of nothing then, since you have no idea of my experiences of this ’style‘ and therefore no basis to claim a better understanding of it.
> 
> Fail.



I can see what seems to be a near miss, and endeavor to provide a nearer one, which I did.


----------



## Fenris-77

chaochou said:


> On the basis of nothing then, since you have no idea of my experiences of this ’style‘ and therefore no basis to claim a better understanding of it.
> 
> Fail.



Perhaps you'd like to fill us in then? It's all about the deets...


----------



## Les Moore

To help the GM adjust the difficulty level or CR to a given sandbox to match the experience level of a party.


----------



## Fenris-77

Les Moore said:


> To help the GM adjust the difficulty level or CR to a given sandbox to match the experience level of a party.



You realize there are whole swathes of the hobby where CR and difficulty of encounter aren't a thing like they are in 5E, right? Like, OSR everything, for example.


----------



## Les Moore

I also drink a lot less coffee, and get a lot more sleep than I used to.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> @Emerikol sees prep as necessary to have a living world and he is correct.  Where he's going wrong is in assuming that prep is what makes a living world.  It doesn't.   You can prep all kinds of games without having a living world.



I didn't say #1 was the only requirement.  I said it was an essential requirement.   My list had two items on it.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> No it doesn't. I have no idea why anyone persists with this bit of fiction. That could be true for some stuff, sure, but it's not universally true, nor even necessary in any given instance.



As the gamist term is used he is right by definition.  Now you can argue that you feel like the world is real using other methods but the gamist term developed as a reaction to campaigns that felt neither real nor immersive back when everyone was essentially using the same style.   Some were just doing it poorly.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
> These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement



As a separate question, could a game have these traits and not be a "living world?" If so, what would such a game be like?


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> 
> *GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting poi*nt
> These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement
> 
> Here's what I meant by "nebulous", @Emerikol . It's hard to get folks to agree on even the basics.




Our difference was whether it alone was sufficient and we both agree that there is more to it than that alone.  The world can't be static and be a living world.  The living part requires dynamism and not just detail.   While #2 is absolutely true, I feel it's redundant because anything in theory "could" enter the PCs sphere.   I suppose if there is no known way to get to the moon then even I don't detail the inhabitants of the moon.  So it's true.  There is no real disagreement.   I just feel it's redundant.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> As the gamist term is used he is right by definition.  Now you can argue that you feel like the world is real using other methods but the gamist term developed as a reaction to campaigns that felt neither real nor immersive back when everyone was essentially using the same style.   Some were just doing it poorly.



You're conflating living world and the idea of gamist play, they aren't synonymous at all. Living world isn't an idea that's limited to one kind of game or even one style of game. The amount of prep needed for game A depends far more on the GM than it does the style of game in question.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> As a separate question, could a game have these traits and not be a "living world?" If so, what would such a game be like?



I suppose if a GM detailed his entire world out at the sandbox level and had hundreds of assistants helping he that it would not invalidate the design as a living world.   As for the second bullet, I suppose if a GM in error created something that was impossible for a group to experience it wouldn't invalidate the rest of the design.  Otherwise it's a pretty practical definition of what I'd call a living world.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> You're conflating living world and the idea of gamist play, they aren't synonymous at all. Living world isn't an idea that's limited to one kind of game or even one style of game. The amount of prep needed for game A depends far more on the GM than it does the style of game in question.



No.  I used the term gamist to mean a term that has taken on special meaning in gaming circles beyond it's pure English meaning.  It has nothing to do with the Forge.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I suppose if a GM detailed his entire world out at the sandbox level and had hundreds of assistants helping he that it would not invalidate the design as a living world.   As for the second bullet, I suppose if a GM in error created something that was impossible for a group to experience it wouldn't invalidate the rest of the design.  Otherwise it's a pretty practical definition of what I'd call a living world.



Phrasing my question differently: Those three requirements for "living world" also seem to me to apply to the campaigns I'm running--which I would not describe as a "living world." How could we tell whether I'm wrong about my own campaigns?


----------



## Campbell

Part of the reason I prefer not to talk about games in terms of play styles is that it has the tendency to join agenda and technique at the hip often to the point of making a fetish out of particular techniques. The particular techniques get treated as the only way to get there instead of just a way (often one not sited to all groups with similar aims). I use to get pretty wrapped up in that way of thinking myself. When I first came across Burning Wheel I thought the only way to get crisp character driven play was the particular techniques found in Burning Wheel. Then I played Dogs in the Vineyard and ran Sorcerer which achieve similar ends in incredibly different ways.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Phrasing my question differently: Those three requirements for "living world" also seem to me to apply to the campaigns I'm running--which I would not describe as a "living world." How could we tell whether I'm wrong about my own campaigns?



Why would you describe it as not being a living world?


----------



## Doug McCrae

_Further to __post #2683__ above, here are two more examples of the use of "living world". The first recommends a significant amount of prep while the second advocates 'Schrodinger's GM-ing' – abandoning one's prep!_

*Dragon #65 (1982), Law of the land by Ed Greenwood*
In the article “Plan Before You Play” (DRAGON™ issue #63), we looked at politics on a large scale… But more important in AD&D play is the to-and-fro of local human interaction, the politics of everyday life in a village or a kingdom…

Development of local politics will give any campaign depth and believability, and at the same time create reasons and impetus for characters to undertake adventures (and players to role-play). Make a world seem real, so that what occurs matters to the players, and you will make play far more enjoyable and memorable — and a DM owes it to his or her players to give them an active, living world to engage their interest, rather than a colorful background of artificial, lifeless immobility through which characters are allowed to rampage.

*Dragon #184 (1992), “You again!” by Scott Sheffield*
During the course of play, PCs invariably suffer various misfortunes. Given time, players might attribute their unfortunate circumstances to the fiendish machinations of their slippery NPC foes. Sometimes their suppositions may indeed be correct, while at other times they may be wildly inaccurate. If a player incorrectly concludes that the party’s nemesis is behind the PCs’ misfortunes, you as the DM shouldn’t disabuse the player of the notion. Instead, permit the players to draw their own conclusions, and have fun.

If the players’ inferences are erroneous but nevertheless intriguing, a nimble DM can modify the story line in that direction. Done well, this enriches play as players start to see the adventuring environment as a living world where happenings are not a collection of random encounters without meaning or connection.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> No.  I used the term gamist to mean a term that has taken on special meaning in gaming circles beyond it's pure English meaning.  It has nothing to do with the Forge.



I think we all know what gamist means in terms of RPGs. Try not to assume that everyone else is a blithering idiot, this will go faster. For a lot of people the boundaries between GNS and the Forge are blurry at best anyway (not that I mentioned the Forge). Now, if you don't mean gamist in terms of GNS theory, then you're the blithering idiot, no offense, because no one is going to have any idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> Phrasing my question differently: Those three requirements for "living world" also seem to me to apply to the campaigns I'm running--which I would not describe as a "living world." How could we tell whether I'm wrong about my own campaigns?



Well, as stated elsewhere, the term Living World took on a meaning long ago and it pretty much aligns with what I've said above.   I'm not saying that people can't feel like their world is living and it not meet those requirements.  I'm just saying the gamist term took on a meaning.   At the time, the two ideas probably overlapped very well.   A lot of time has passed though and others may get that feeling other ways.

So applying the term to your game, I'd say it would be a Living World by definition whatever you thought.   If you want to ignore the term and talk about the plain English usage then I'd assuredly have to interview your players.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> I think we all know what gamist means in terms of RPGs. Try not to assume that everyone else is a blithering idiot, this will go faster. For a lot of people the boundaries between GNS and the Forge are blurry at best anyway (not that I mentioned the Forge). Now, if you don't mean gamist in terms of GNS theory, then you're the blithering idiot, no offense, because no one is going to have any idea what you're talking about.



No.  Gamist existed a term long before the Forge ever existed.  I meant a term that has been drafted for use beyond it's plain English meaning.  The Forge very much did that but the Forge doesn't own the term.   

I think everyone but you got my meaning so take that as you will.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> No.  Gamist existed a term long before the Forge ever existed.  I meant a term that has been drafted for use beyond it's plain English meaning.  The Forge very much did that but the Forge doesn't own the term.
> 
> I think everyone but you got my meaning so take that as you will.



Dude, try not to be a jerk.  It's a GNS term, which I mentioned, and has no currency as a term outside that. Perhaps you should go back and read my entire post instead of just identifying the word Forge and losing your mind. Just a thought...


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Dude, try not to be a jerk.  It's a GNS term, which I mentioned, and has no currency as a term outside that. Perhaps you should go back and read my entire post instead of just identifying the word Forge and losing your mind. Just a thought...



I know it's a GNS term.  I didn't use it that way.  I explained myself.  You apparently just won't relent.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> Why would you describe it as not being a living world?



Minor word-order quibble: I wouldn't describe it as "a living world" not I would describe it as "not a living world."

That out of the way ... (sorry)

Mainly because the world isn't the point, I think. The stories that emerge from play are the point. I don't spend any time between sessions plotting what is or might be happening anywhere on the world other than where the PCs are. The only time/s I consider what's going on outside the PC-bubble (your term, but it's a good one) are if/when the PCs are traveling, or if there's something else that's been kicked off that needs tracking.


Emerikol said:


> Well, as stated elsewhere, the term Living World took on a meaning long ago and it pretty much aligns with what I've said above.   I'm not saying that people can't feel like their world is living and it not meet those requirements.  I'm just saying the gamist term took on a meaning.   At the time, the two ideas probably overlapped very well.   A lot of time has passed though and others may get that feeling other ways.
> 
> So applying the term to your game, I'd say it would be a Living World by definition whatever you thought.   If you want to ignore the term and talk about the plain English usage then I'd assuredly have to interview your players.



Fair enough. I haven't prepped anything anywhere in nearly the detail you do. Which is, I suspect a matter of taste/preference--GMs are allowed to have those, too.

Perhaps in order to be a "living world" that has to be explicitly part of the goal? Does that thinking make sense?


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> I know it's a GNS term.  I didn't use it that way.  I explained myself.  You apparently just won't relent.



So you're saying you used the word gamist on a TTRPG site but don't mean gamist in the way anyone else might assume you mean gamist? Seriously, the person who needs to give their position some thought is you, not me bro. Why not just make up your own words? I just farblegarbled some schvitness into my jabaerol with some gamist flahdereha! 

I'm not sure what you expected when you're making up your own definitions for things (by which I mean _gamist_ has no currency in describing TTRPGs outside of GNS theory).


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> Mainly because the world isn't the point, I think. The stories that emerge from play are the point. I don't spend any time between sessions plotting what is or might be happening anywhere on the world other than where the PCs are. The only time/s I consider what's going on outside the PC-bubble (your term, but it's a good one) are if/when the PCs are traveling, or if there's something else that's been kicked off that needs tracking.



I didn't know this when I responded.  I think not having the world change off camera would be a disqualifier if you look at the two things I've listed previously.   Off camera == Outside the Bubble.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Minor word-order quibble: I wouldn't describe it as "a living world" not I would describe it as "not a living world."
> 
> That out of the way ... (sorry)
> 
> Mainly because the world isn't the point, I think. The stories that emerge from play are the point. I don't spend any time between sessions plotting what is or might be happening anywhere on the world other than where the PCs are. The only time/s I consider what's going on outside the PC-bubble (your term, but it's a good one) are if/when the PCs are traveling, or if there's something else that's been kicked off that needs tracking.



So you don't create the world to be a living world, but your common practices result in it being living anyway?


prabe said:


> Perhaps in order to be a "living world" that has to be explicitly part of the goal? Does that thinking make sense?



I don't think intent is necessary.  Much like I sometimes accidentally end up speeding, even though I intend to drive the speed limit, you can achieve a living world even if you don't intend to.  All it takes is meeting the criteria, much like speeding 

If things are happening outside the PC bubble through being prepped, that's all that is really required.  I'm sure that there are DMs who run living worlds and have never heard of the term.


----------



## Umbran

Fenris-77 said:


> then you're the blithering idiot, no offense,



*Mod Note:*

No offense?  Really?  "you're the blithering idiot, _no offense_"?

Did someone in the past tell you, "Hey, Fenris!  I discovered this cool thing!  You can say whatever rude or insulting things imaginable, but if you add 'no offense intended' to the end, they can't call you on it!"  And you bought that malarky?  Or, did you actually mean you thought you were talking to blithering idiots, who couldn't read past a two-word, disingenuous disclaimer?  I mean, really, I'm not sure which is worse, the insult, or the fact you thought this would fly.

Next time you don't want to cause offense, actually take at least the bog minimum of effort to not cause offense, by not using terms like "blithering idiot", please and thank you.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> So you don't create the world to be a living world, but your common practices result in it being living anyway?



I'm open to the possibility.

I don't think I could be upset about whether anyone would call it a living world or not; I'm just thinking that a definition of "living world" should include my world (or not) based on whether the author of the definition thinks it is (or not). So, someone who doesn't think I run a "living world" needs to explain the differences. @Emerikol above mentioned that the fact I don't prep anything not connected to the PCs is a disqualifier.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I didn't know this when I responded.  I think not having the world change off camera would be a disqualifier if you look at the two things I've listed previously.   Off camera == Outside the Bubble.



The world does change off-camera--I just don't write it up or otherwise track it before the PCs engage with it, if that makes sense. When the party came back to Pelsoreen several months in-game after leaving, I figured out how it had changed then, not ... while they were doing other stuff.


----------



## hawkeyefan

*LIVING WORLD TRAITS*

GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement
 


prabe said:


> As a separate question, could a game have these traits and not be a "living world?" If so, what would such a game be like?




I think there are several examples, to be honest. 

My 5E D&D campaign probably fits into this description. I don't think it's so much that I have prepared the setting ahead of time so much as we're using the D&D cosmology as the setting, and relying on past campaigns in various D&D settings as the backdrop. So it's a bit of a cheat in that sense because a lot of the work was done in earlier campaigns we've played, or in the TSR/WOTC products themselves. The players are free to interact with all of that however they see fit.

The Alien mini-campaign I ran probably fits this description. Again, I didn't have to do a ton of prep myself, instead I just stole it from the Alien IP. Specifically, I used the intro module "Chariot of the Gods" and then the video game Alien: Isolation as the foundation for the game. This game was probably a bit more linear than sandbox because there was a kind of "mission" that was central to things, but if they chose to pursue that mission in some unexpected way, I wouldn't have stopped them. 

My recent Super Hero game using Forged in the Dark  as a system probably fits this description, and such a game is probably the furthest thing many have to a "living world" game as it's being described here. I created the setting entirely, with about 10 districts to the city, and about 25 factions, and a handful of NPCs for each faction. I crafted goals for each faction, and determined some allied factions or opposed factions and the like. Then I crafted an inciting event that began the game, and we went from there. 

I think the list needs to be expanded if it's to actually describe a subset of games with their own preferred processes and the like. Otherwise, it's so broad as to describe all manner of games. Which isn't really a bad thing in and of itself, but seems counter to what many would like it to mean.


----------



## Doug McCrae

The word "gamist" currently has two different meanings in an rpg context. One derives from its use by the Forge in GNS theory, which was itself based on the Threefold Model which dates at least as far back as 1997. This refers to challenge-oriented play ie challenging the players.

The second meaning is, in my opinion, much more recent and means something like a dissociated mechanic or ludonarrative dissonance – a game mechanic that doesn’t refer to anything in the game world or is at odds with the 'reality' of the game world.


----------



## Fenris-77

A call for submissions. Can anyone find me a definition of gamist that has _anything_ to do with TTRPGs that isn't connect to the GNS term? I didn't find any, but perhaps my google-fu is weak.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Fenris-77 said:


> A call for submissions. Can anyone find me a definition of gamist that has _anything_ to do with TTRPGs that isn't connect to the GNS term? I didn't find any, but perhaps my google-fu is weak.



I can't provide any I'm afraid. I can only say I've seen people using it in the second sense on rpg message boards in the last few years.


----------



## tetrasodium

uzirath said:


> I'm curious about whether players can engage in observation like this in Blades? What would happen? I'm very fuzzy on these non-traditional games, but here's what I imagine based on following some of these conversations. The player can't just fish for information with no outcome in mind. So instead of saying, "I observe the guards to see if I notice anything useful," they could say, "I secretly observe the guards and discover a gap in their patrol route which I then exploit." Something like that?
> 
> When I've been a player in a traditional game, a significant amount of the fun has been in gathering information. Which seems to be an effort to transferring as much of the GM's conception to the players as possible before declaring a high-stakes action.



I can't answer for BitD, but I can for fate, it makes wish look limited.
That could place an aspect on the square they patrol like "under bob's watch" which  could be used for  a few mathy things that would take system knowledge or "declare a story detail" , this could be anything from one of the guards was at that shady auction a few weeks back to the guards  are given an aspect like "[armed with only nonlethal melee weapons]".  At the same time though, the gm can tag the aspect bob created on himself by oing that watch to have someone sneak up behind him or even say stuff like "because your so focused on those guards you miss this other important thing going on down the street"  Shared narrative games are a very different beast, but there is a lot of great stuff you can learn from them as a GM, here is a pretty good thread about fate's shared narrative I found on google


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> I've honestly only heard "living world" as an approach as opposed to a goal when discussing in this thread, and a couple of others like it. I don't think it's so ubiquitous that its meaning is apparent.



It's a goal, for sure; and one that goes all the way back to the 1e DMG (if not further) where the idea of "bringing a world to life" was presented.  The means and methods of approaching/achieving said goal don't really themselves have a name, so "living world" by default kinda has to cover those too.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Dude, try not to be a jerk.  It's a GNS term, which I mentioned, and has no currency as a term outside that. Perhaps you should go back and read my entire post instead of just identifying the word Forge and losing your mind. Just a thought...



Capital-g Gamist is the Forge term.  Small-g gamist is the term people used in pre-Forge days to refer to anything done purely for game-mechanical reasons, which is how I for one still use the term today.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> It's a goal, for sure; and one that goes all the way back to the 1e DMG (if not further) where the idea of "bringing a world to life" was presented.  The means and methods of approaching/achieving said goal don't really themselves have a name, so "living world" by default kinda has to cover those too.




Sure, the idea of a LW as a goal is something I think has been around for a long time, and some exampels have just been provided. But as a description of the method to achieving that, I don't know. I am sure some folks use it that way, but it seems poorly suited.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> Capital-g Gamist is the Forge term.  Small-g gamist is the term people used in pre-Forge days to refer to anything done purely for game-mechanical reasons, which is how I for one still use the term today.



So are you saying that there are two very different definitions, or are you saying that the GNS definition is a more specific version of the general use one?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> No.  They can learn anything the DM makes up.  Existence outside the PC bubble is the key element.



Is _learning anything the DM makes up_ the same thing as _learning the content of the GM's notes_? If there's a difference I can't see it.



Maxperson said:


> The PC bubble is the sphere that sort of surrounds the PCs.  The part where things happen wherever they go and they are central to pretty much everything.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The possibility for them to miss the event is one of the key elements to the event existing outside of the PC bubble.



An event in the gameworld that the players don't know about and that is not relevant to the "PC bubble" - which I take to mean the framing of situations and resolution of them during the course of play, as the players declare actions for their PCs - seems the very definition of _setting solitaire_!


----------



## pemerton

chaochou said:


> The purpose is the 'immersion' of the GM in their setting, not of the players in the game



I think this relates, very much, to the notion that when the "living world" GM is improvising, s/he is extrapolating from prepared material.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> The fiction is the shared experience of the characters and GM.   Is this right?



No. I use the word _fiction_ to refer to the imaginative content that is shared by the participants in the game. In other words, _the stuff that they make up together_.

I believe @hawkeyefan is using it in the same way.




Emerikol said:


> Do you suppose that if ten people took turns extending a story that it would be as coherent as something authored carefully over time?   As I'm building my world, prior to campaign start, I can decide something doesn't fit and change it after I've done more work.



I'm not sure how _storytelling_ fits in, Who in this thread thinks that the goal of RPGing is for anyone to _tell_ a story?

Part of the beauty of RPGing is that the fiction isn't very extensively edited at all!


----------



## Fenris-77

So can someone remind we why we're now talking about GM immersion? Never mind whether that's possible or not in the way that player immersion is, why are we even considering it as idea? As a goal of living world play? I find that idea faintly ridiculous, but maybe I'm missing something....


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Is _learning anything the DM makes up_ the same thing as _learning the content of the GM's notes_? If there's a difference I can't see it.



That has never been the issue with what you have been saying.  The issue is that we do not play to find out what is in the DM's notes.  That is not any purpose of our play.


pemerton said:


> An event in the gameworld that the players don't know about and that is not relevant to the "PC bubble" - which I take to mean the framing of situations and resolution of them during the course of play, as the players declare actions for their PCs - seems the very definition of _setting solitaire_!



Except not, as I have explained repeatedly.  It's not intended for the DM alone.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> So are you saying that there are two very different definitions, or are you saying that the GNS definition is a more specific version of the general use one?



I'd say they're different but with overlap.  Big-G Gamist is to me more talking about an overall style of design and-or play (e.g. "4e is more Gamist than other D&D editions") while small-g gamist is talking more about specific non-realistic or game-first elements within any game or setting (e.g. "Hit points are a gamist thing in any system that uses them").

We were calling things like hit points gamist ages before the Forge got hold of the term.


----------



## Fenris-77

That sounds like mostly the same thing to me, with the difference being level of focus. Certainly not an actual different thing.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> So can someone remind we why we're now talking about GM immersion? Never mind whether that's possible or not in the way that player immersion is, why are we even considering it as idea? As a goal of living world play? I find that idea faintly ridiculous, but maybe I'm missing something....



Yeah. I'd figure the goal of "living world play" to be verisimilitude, not immersion; plausibly verisimilitude as a gateway to immersion, but still--verisimilitude first. I think the GMs who have "living world" as a goal maybe think they have a high internal verisimilitude bar, and if they can clear their own internal bar they can almost certainly clear their players' verisimilitude bars. And to the extent their players want immersion, and need verisimilitude to get it, they're helping their players.

It's possible that those GMs are also getting creative yayas from building the setting. I see no reason GMs shouldn't have their fun.


----------



## Fenris-77

I'm not saying that GMs shouldn't have their fun, of course they should or no one would do the job. I just have my doubts about the idea of GM immersion, which sounds to me even more pie in the sky that player immersion as any kind of identifiable specific thing.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not saying that GMs shouldn't have their fun, of course they should or no one would do the job. I just have my doubts about the idea of GM immersion, which sounds to me even more pie in the sky that player immersion as any kind of identifiable specific thing.



Why shouldn't the DM be able to step into an NPC or monster and immerse himself in that role?


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Why shouldn't the DM be able to step into an NPC or monster and immerse himself in that role?



I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the goal of_ immersion_, as it's mostly put forward as a player facing goal, is impossible for GMs. You don't have a character to immerse into.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the goal of_ immersion_, as it's mostly put forward as a player facing goal, is impossible for GMs. You don't have a character to immerse into.



I do have characters to immerse into.  They're called NPCs.  I don't inhabit them for as long of a period as the player as I have to step out a lot to run the rest of the game, but immersion in them does happen for me. Usually for the NPCs that are special in some way, rather than Joe the Baker.


----------



## Fenris-77

That's not immersion that way it's talked about on the player side at all. I'm not suggesting that it isn't similar, it probably is, but the idea of immersion as a player facing thing, by which I mean the usual shizz, isn't going to happen for a GM. Not just because they change characters all the time, although that does mitigate against it, but also because they deal with all the non-character meta level stuff that makes immersion harder, at least by common accounts.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> That's not immersion that way it's talked about on the player side at all. I'm not suggesting that it isn't similar, it probably is, but the idea of immersion as a player facing thing, by which I mean the usual shizz, isn't going to happen for a GM. Not just because they change characters all the time, although that does mitigate against it, but also because they deal with all the non-character meta level stuff that makes immersion harder, at least by common accounts.



And I'm telling you that it is the same.  Yes it's harder, because of the other stuff I deal with.  But it does happen with some of the NPCs.  It's exactly the same as when I immerse as a player, except for the duration.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not saying that GMs shouldn't have their fun, of course they should or no one would do the job. I just have my doubts about the idea of GM immersion, which sounds to me even more pie in the sky that player immersion as any kind of identifiable specific thing.



Yeah, agreed. I didn't think you were saying GMs shouldn't have fun (or even shouldn't have _that_ fun). I was, I think, more trying to take any sting out of the "creative yayas" phrasing.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> And I'm telling you that it is the same.  Yes it's harder, because of the other stuff I deal with.  But it does happen with some of the NPCs.  It's exactly the same as when I immerse as a player, except for the duration.



If you look at the requirements most people cite as necessary for immersion then you'd be wrong. Personally, I don't actually buy immersion like that as a thing anyway. I think that immersion into the game is a much more explicable phenomenon than the mythical immersion into character. The thing I'm talking about is very possible, and desirable for GMs.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> If you look at the requirements most people cite as necessary for immersion then you'd be wrong. Personally, I don't actually buy immersion like that as a thing anyway. I think that immersion into the game is a much more explicable phenomenon than the mythical immersion into character. The thing I'm talking about is very possible, and desirable for GMs.



I don't give a flying fig what people list as "requirements."  I know I immerse as both player and DM.  Period.  I can't be wrong on this.  It's exactly the same except for duration.  Maybe other people need more to get them there than I do.  I don't know.  We're all different.

Being different might explain why you don't buy into immersion.  You might not be able to achieve it.


----------



## Aldarc

hawkeyefan said:


> So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?



Much earlier (maybe midway) in the conversation, Bedrockgames and I had an exchange about the GM as both the computer and software for the game. This discussion included the idea of the GM as the game's chief filter. I can't remember if we talked about it there or not, but there was also vaguely this idea amidst all this computer game talk of "playing the GM" in order for them to generate more world content that the players could interact with.


----------



## Fenris-77

The GM is pretty obviously the vector of new things. Who else is doing that job, even in a player authoring game? Mostly the GM, that's who. Regardless of table expectations and style, the GM still does the heavy lifting, period. We talk about prep and off the cuff, but the weight doesn't change there.


----------



## tetrasodium

Fenris-77 said:


> The GM is pretty obviously the vector of new things. Who else is doing that job, even in a player authoring game? Mostly the GM, that's who. Regardless of table expectations and style, the GM still does the heavy lifting, period. We talk about prep and off the cuff, but the weight doesn't change there.




I talked about gate earlier.   Even in fate the GM has much more control and influence than the players  and often has options they don't.   The tm is still largely driving g things even if it's a passive uber type control.


----------



## Fenris-77

tetrasodium said:


> I talked about gate earlier.   Even in fate the GM has much more control and influence than the players  and often has options they don't.   The tm is still largely driving g things even if it's a passive uber type control.



Sure, what we're talking about is the idea, or maybe even the possibility of something called GM immersion. I would submit its impossible based on descriptions of what people expect out of player immersion, but I also don't really believe that player immersion is a thing the way some people want it to be. I don't think you need nothing but non-meta (whatever that is) mechanics to be able to 'immerse'. I think immersion into the game in a thing, and sometimes that might verge on character immersion, but it's not the holy grail that sandbox zealots want it to be. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Aldarc

I'm watching Questing Beast host a discussion on YouTube with Sandy Petersen, John Wick, and Lindybeige about running sandbox games. At the section bookmarked in the video called "Providing Solutions," the guests talk about the issue of how players solve problems presented to them in sandbox games. In particular, Questing Beast talks about the annoyance he experienced in some games that "the goal is to guess what the game master is thinking. That they have come up with a solution and the goal is to figure out whatever it is they are imagining... and a lot of players have that mentality too..." and then they talk immediately after that about making stuff up on the spot as the GM (e.g., the guard the PCs knocked out having a key in their pocket).

Edit: This also just gets better because they are talking about players establishing facts in the world.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Aldarc said:


> I'm watching Questing Beast host a discussion on YouTube with Sandy Petersen, John Wick, and Lindybeige about running sandbox games. At the section bookmarked in the video called "Providing Solutions," the guests talk about the issue of how players solve problems presented to them in sandbox games. In particular, Questing Beast talks about the annoyance he experienced in some games that "the goal is to guess what the game master is thinking. That they have come up with a solution and the goal is to figure out whatever it is they are imagining... and a lot of players have that mentality too..." and then they talk immediately after that about making stuff up on the spot as the GM (e.g., the guard the PCs knocked out having a key in their pocket).
> 
> Edit: This also just gets better because they are talking about players establishing facts in the world.




I run a D&D sandbox game. With regards to finding keys in the pocket of the guards
The methods I commonly use are _say yes _or _roll a skill check _or _just make a luck roll_ (odds or evens, above 10).
There are ofcourse situations where I may say no to something, for instance if I'm using a map and there is no secret door in the place they are searching for one.

I do not think the above is _establishing facts._
It is more, the player provides an idea and the GM runs with it, which is itself not revolutionary as GMs have often run off player ideas presented at the table, from the existence of keys, to the entire sessions, to massive-story arcs within campaigns (and this even in D&D).


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> *LIVING WORLD TRAITS*
> 
> GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
> These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
> Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement



I agree with this practically.  I would nuance it a little bit.  A sandbox is a contrivance to make the task of running a living world easier (possible?).   Like I said, if you were a billionaire and hired a hundred people to keep the entire world detailed out to sandbox level, you would still have a living world.   So a sandbox is not an absolute necessity though it may be a practical requirement due to the limitations of human DMs.   This nuance though is probably sandblasting a soda cracker.  




Doug McCrae said:


> The word "gamist" currently has two different meanings in an rpg context. One derives from its use by the Forge in GNS theory, which was itself based on the Threefold Model which dates at least as far back as 1997. This refers to challenge-oriented play ie challenging the players.
> 
> The second meaning is, in my opinion, much more recent and means something like a dissociated mechanic or ludonarrative dissonance – a game mechanic that doesn’t refer to anything in the game world or is at odds with the 'reality' of the game world.



I think there is a third definition.   When a regular word becomes a game term.   For example, in D&D there is the concept of advantage.  That means a specific thing in game and it is based upon the idea of the english word but it is far more limited and focused.  I can have many advantages in D&D and not have "advantage" and thus advantage has become a gamist term.  

I think in our discussions we have gotten into a lot of conflict when some people only know the English word and not the gamist term.  Things like Living World, Protagonism, Fiction, and a host of other things have been gamified at times.   And @hawkeyefan, I believe others have used a more limited usage of Fiction than you proposed earlier.   So perhaps you have a broader view but not everyone on that side does.  

I think as long as we can clarify things it's kind of pointless to keep belaboring these terms.  If they are truly offensive I guess we could not use them but as long as we know "what is meant" then I think we are fine.


----------



## AnotherGuy

prabe said:


> Yeah. I'd figure the goal of "living world play" to be verisimilitude, not immersion; plausibly verisimilitude as a gateway to immersion, but still--verisimilitude first. I think the GMs who have "living world" as a goal maybe think they have a high internal verisimilitude bar, and if they can clear their own internal bar they can almost certainly clear their players' verisimilitude bars. And to the extent their players want immersion, and need verisimilitude to get it, they're helping their players.




Great post!

Bouncing off your thoughts - People who engage in Story Now games don't have to clear any of their players' verisimilitude bar since the fiction is developed at the table and everyone is held responsible for clearing the table's verisimilitude.

In non-Story Now games that sole responsibility falls on the GM, therefore the necessity of _GM notes _and prep to ensure no plot holes or lack verisimilitude. This  seems to explain some of the desire for the _living, breathing world_ goal.
I imagine there is nothing worse than a player in a heavy GM prep game pointing out an obvious flaw in the GM's established fiction.

Funny enough many D&D APs suffer from the above and require _fixing _as is evident from the numerous _enhancing abc AP_ threads here_._


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> So are you saying that there are two very different definitions, or are you saying that the GNS definition is a more specific version of the general use one?



Just like narrativist and simulationist are used outside of the Forge so is gamist.   Surely you don't doubt simulationist exists outside of the Forge?   In a post above, there are several ways presented on how it has been used.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> I do have characters to immerse into.  They're called NPCs.  I don't inhabit them for as long of a period as the player as I have to step out a lot to run the rest of the game, but immersion in them does happen for me. Usually for the NPCs that are special in some way, rather than Joe the Baker.



Much as it pains me to agree with Fenris I don't see the GM being immersed in characters all that much.  Obviously, a method actor might argue they try to put themselves in the NPCs shoes and act accordingly no arguing that.  I just think the switching happens so often that it's hard to really be immersed in the way I am thinking.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> Much as it pains me to agree with Fenris I don't see the GM being immersed in characters all that much.  Obviously, a method actor might argue they try to put themselves in the NPCs shoes and act accordingly no arguing that.  I just think the switching happens so often that it's hard to really be immersed in the way I am thinking.



Which is fine.  I'm not arguing that it happens all the time.  Or that it's easy.  I'm saying that it's a fact that I do it, so it doesn't matter what you and @Fenris-77 experience.  That you guys can't do it has no bearing on whether I do it or not.  You two(and as many others as you feel like getting) can agree from here to next Tuesday and it still won't alter that fact.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I'm watching Questing Beast host a discussion on YouTube with Sandy Petersen, John Wick, and Lindybeige about running sandbox games. At the section bookmarked in the video called "Providing Solutions," the guests talk about the issue of how players solve problems presented to them in sandbox games. In particular, Questing Beast talks about the annoyance h*e experienced in some games that "the goal is to guess what the game master is thinking. That they have come up with a solution and the goal is to figure out whatever it is they are imagining*... and a lot of players have that mentality too..." and then they talk immediately after that about making stuff up on the spot as the GM (e.g., the guard the PCs knocked out having a key in their pocket).
> 
> Edit: This also just gets better because they are talking about players establishing facts in the world.



Whoever they are talking about is pretty bad at running a sandbox.  In my game I don't bother to come up with solutions to the problems I put out there.  I used to, but eventually I realized that 1) I can't think of everything, and 2) the players usually come up with things that I didn't think of.  Some solutions just jump out at me, so often there's one or two that I know about, but not because I sat and thought about it.  Last campaign a ghost was terrorizing a town and the players needed to come up with solutions to putting her to eternal rest.  I think I had one solution that jumped out at me.  While the players were brainstorming ideas, they came up with three more that could work(and some that wouldn't or weren't likely), including one that was so good that had they tried it, would have worked with no roll. A well run sandbox shouldn't have players that are trying to guess what the DM is thinking.  It should have players that are figuring out solutions to problems on their own and presenting those solutions to the DM who then adjudicates.


----------



## prabe

AnotherGuy said:


> Great post!



Glad you liked it. I don't think I've ever used the word _verisimilitude_ so many times in so few sentences. 


AnotherGuy said:


> Bouncing off your thoughts - People who engage in Story Now games don't have to clear any of their players' verisimilitude bar since the fiction is developed at the table and everyone is held responsible for clearing the table's verisimilitude.



I don't have a lot of experience with Story Now--and none running it--but this feels about right. Since everyone contributes to the setting, you have the chance--and duty, I suspect--to speak up if something in the setting seems as though it's going to be hard for you to swallow.


AnotherGuy said:


> In non-Story Now games that sole responsibility falls on the GM, therefore the necessity of _GM notes _and prep to ensure no plot holes or lack verisimilitude. This  seems to explain some of the desire for the _living, breathing world_ goal.
> I imagine there is nothing worse than a player in a heavy GM prep game pointing out an obvious flaw in the GM's established fiction.
> 
> Funny enough many D&D APs suffer from the above and require _fixing _as is evident from the numerous _enhancing abc AP_ threads here_._



Yeah. What you describe has been my experience with every AP I've ever played in, and with most of the shorter published adventures, too. There's probably a connection between that and my inability to run published adventures ...


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> In my game I don't bother to come up with solutions to the problems I put out there. I used to, but eventually I realized that 1) I can't think of everything, and 2) the players usually come up with things that I didn't think of. Some solutions just jump out at me, so often there's one or two that I know about, but not because I sat and thought about it.



I usually like to make sure I have at least one solution in mind, in case the players get stuck (because I figure the characters might grasp things the players don't) but otherwise I'm with you on not having a singular solution that will work.

About the immersion thing: As GM, I get immersed in the story and/or the game--I think it was @Fenris-77 who specifically mentioned that possibility--but immersion in a character isn't something I think I've managed as a player or GM in anything, pretty much ever. That doesn't mean I'm going to argue that someone who says they're experiencing immersion in a character or the setting isn't, though.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> I usually like to make sure I have at least one solution in mind, in case the players get stuck (because I figure the characters might grasp things the players don't) but otherwise I'm with you on not having a singular solution that will work.
> 
> About the immersion thing: As GM, I get immersed in the story and/or the game--I think it was @Fenris-77 who specifically mentioned that possibility--but immersion in a character isn't something I think I've managed as a player or GM in anything, pretty much ever. That doesn't mean I'm going to argue that someone who says they're experiencing immersion in a character or the setting isn't, though.



I can be immersed in the NPCs, but as I mentioned, they're generally the special NPCs that I know more about.  I inhabit them just like I do a PC and interact with the players via that immersion.  It's also generally just at the times when we are doing the social roleplaying, not during combats or when I'm trying to figure out how they are going to react to things being done in the world by the PCs and others.


----------



## AnotherGuy

prabe said:


> About the immersion thing: As GM, I get immersed in the story and/or the game--I think it was @Fenris-77 who specifically mentioned that possibility--*but immersion in a character isn't something I think I've managed as a player or GM in anything*, pretty much ever. That doesn't mean I'm going to argue that someone who says they're experiencing immersion in a character or the setting isn't, though.




What do we imagine immersion in a character would mean? I'm merely asking because your post has drawn a distinction between immersion in the story, immersion in a character and immersion in a setting. It is not something I have ever thought before.


----------



## prabe

AnotherGuy said:


> What do we imagine immersion in a character would mean? I'm merely asking because your posts has drawn a distinction between immersion in the story, immersion in a character and immersion in a setting. It is not something I have ever thought before.



Immersion in the story, while gaming, I think of as the same as being immersed in any story in any media. The parallel while reading is the experience of falling into a novel (and missing my subway stop because I didn't hear the announcement). As a GM, this is most likely to happen for me during an extended role-playing scene.

Immersion in the game itself is immersion in the processes of playing it. This is probably more like my experience of losing track of time and everything else while playing in my MIDI space, making "music." The process just consumes all available bandwidth. As a GM, this is most likely to happen for me during a particularly involved combat, or something else making extended extensive use of mechanics and rules.

Immersion in a character seems to me as though it would be experiencing what the character is experiencing, from that character's POV. Even actors have other thoughts in mind while acting--they have to, for practical onstage reasons--so this can't be like acting, exactly. I don't know that I have an analogue in my experience, and I don't know that I've experienced this myself.

Immersion in a setting could mean one of two things. It could be immersion in the setting as though it were a character, or it could be perceiving the setting as though you were there, but not particularly in a character's POV. As with immersion in a character, I don't have a good analogue for this; I'm pretty sure I've never experienced this.

I am willing to be corrected; I hope this helps.


----------



## Aldarc

AnotherGuy said:


> I run a D&D sandbox game. With regards to finding keys in the pocket of the guards
> The methods I commonly use are _say yes _or _roll a skill check _or _just make a luck roll_ (odds or evens, above 10).
> There are ofcourse situations where I may say no to something, for instance if I'm using a map and there is no secret door in the place they are searching for one.
> 
> I do not think the above is _establishing facts._
> It is more, the player provides an idea and the GM runs with it, which is itself not revolutionary as GMs have often run off player ideas presented at the table, from the existence of keys, to the entire sessions, to massive-story arcs within campaigns (and this even in D&D).



Their points being made about players establishing facts about the world does not depend on the "finding keys in the pocket of the guards" example.


----------



## Emerikol

@Lanefan I wasn't denying your experience.  I just gave my own and thought it would be really hard to maintain.  

I think immersion is another word that has been stretched depending on the context.  If I were at a religious conference of some sort immersion could mean being dunked completely under the water and nothing more.   Immersed has to have a context.  Immersed in what?

When I've used the term for players being immersed, or I've said something breaks immersion, I've generally mean the ability to maintain character POV.   I absolutely agree there are other uses even in D&D.  An especially tough combat could immerse you completely as you try to figure out how to win the battle.  Just like a game of chess or any other competitive game.   I'd even say I often get immersed when working on my "living world" as I'll have hours pass and hardly notice.   None of those things though to me are what I've traditionally meant when discussing things breaking immersion.

Staying in character means making decisions that the character would make.  This is where I think sometimes other styles depart from my own.   When the character is a piece in the story, that the player can use and even abuse, it's a different sort of feel to the game.   Now that feel may be a great feel for people.  I understand it.   It's a different feel though from playing strictly in character.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Aldarc said:


> Their points being made about players establishing facts about the world does not depend on the "finding keys in the pocket of the guards" example.



Fair enough.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Whoever they are talking about is pretty bad at running a sandbox.  In my game I don't bother to come up with solutions to the problems I put out there.  I used to, but eventually I realized that 1) I can't think of everything, and 2) the players usually come up with things that I didn't think of.  Some solutions just jump out at me, so often there's one or two that I know about, but not because I sat and thought about it.  Last campaign a ghost was terrorizing a town and the players needed to come up with solutions to putting her to eternal rest.  I think I had one solution that jumped out at me.  While the players were brainstorming ideas, they came up with three more that could work(and some that wouldn't or weren't likely), including one that was so good that had they tried it, would have worked with no roll. A well run sandbox shouldn't have players that are trying to guess what the DM is thinking.  It should have players that are figuring out solutions to problems on their own and presenting those solutions to the DM who then adjudicates.





prabe said:


> I usually like to make sure I have at least one solution in mind, in case the players get stuck (because I figure the characters might grasp things the players don't) but otherwise I'm with you on not having a singular solution that will work.



For me, this raises a couple of questions.

First, _a solution_ implies _a problem_. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean _at the table_.

Second, _what makes a solution one that can work? _Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the _players_ need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, _how do they learn that?_

Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> For me, this raises a couple of questions.
> 
> First, _a solution_ implies _a problem_. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean _at the table_.



I'm not going to try to speak for @Maxperson here, but in the campaigns I'm running ...

If there's a ghost terrorizing a town, it's doing so because I decided it is.
If putting the ghost to rest is a solution (note the indefinite article) it's because I decided that was an approach that would work, that the players might stumble upon.
And I decided that in case the players got stuck, and started looking to skill rolls to give them the answer so that I'd have an answer (again, that indefinite article) ready.


pemerton said:


> Second, _what makes a solution one that can work? _Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the _players_ need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, _how do they learn that?_



As you might guess from above, that all comes to my decisions--either in prepping the scenario or reacting to the players while running it. Generally (in D&D 5E) I'll use skill rolls to determine what the PCs know/understand/can figure out, if the players get stuck; I generally try to make sure there's information available the players can put together, but that doesn't always work (because players). So, to answer your last question: They either learn it through play (what I think you describe as "free narration") or they learn it through skills (because I believe there are things the characters might know about the setting that the players do not).


pemerton said:


> Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?



It's relevant in my campaigns; but remember that I don't claim, or intend, or really even want to be running a "living world" as some of the other posters in this thread use that term.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> For me, this raises a couple of questions.
> 
> First, _a solution_ implies _a problem_. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean _at the table_.



1. I placed the ghost.
2. They decided it should be put to eternal rest.
3. I assume the players wanted to help the townsfolk.  I don't ask for specific motivations.  I just react to what the players tell me that they are having their PCs do.


pemerton said:


> Second, _what makes a solution one that can work? _Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the _players_ need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, _how do they learn that?_



What makes a solution one that could work?  One that makes sense with putting the ghost at rest.  Tossing a rock into the air wouldn't be a solution that could work.  The one that was so good that it would work was to take the townsfolk who had "wronged" the ghost while she was alive to the site of her body, which they found, and have them apologize to her.  She felt wronged by the townsfolk that picked on her and died while asking a goddess of pain and suffering for help in getting revenge.  While she was awake and going after the town, her rage was too strong for her to be reasoned with.  The PCs got a roll, but missed it.  During the day when she was calmer and stuck with her body in the ethereal plane, she would have listened.


pemerton said:


> Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?



That has nothing to do with a living world.  Their plan isn't outside the PC bubble.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> For me, this raises a couple of questions.
> 
> First, _a solution_ implies _a problem_. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean _at the table_.
> 
> Second, _what makes a solution one that can work? _Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the _players_ need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, _how do they learn that?_
> 
> Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?



The backstory comes from the GM.  Either prior to campaign start or as a result of dynamic setting changes across the calendar of events in the world.

First, I think in a living world, there is an expectation that a truth exists as to how the world works.  Primarily that comes from the rules but when it doesn't it comes from the campaign thus the GM.   Ultimately the GM is the arbiter of the function of the world when stimulated by the PCs.

I'm not sure I love this scenario myself.  I definitely would want the standard method of getting rid of a ghost to work.  So figuring out everything and having the villagers apologize would be extra.  A nice extra and maybe even a bonus on x.p. for good roleplaying.  If they don't figure it out though then they just have to kill the ghost or move on.  Nothing aberrant about that outcome either.

This goes to adventure design more than living world but I find I avoid too narrow a path to success when I create adventures.  I also tend to avoid end the world scenarios.   The PCs may not cooperate in solving the adventure and if they don't that has to be okay too.


----------



## Campbell

Emerikol said:


> The backstory comes from the GM.  Either prior to campaign start or as a result of dynamic setting changes across the calendar of events in the world.
> 
> First, I think in a living world, there is an expectation that a truth exists as to how the world works.  Primarily that comes from the rules but when it doesn't it comes from the campaign thus the GM.   Ultimately the GM is the arbiter of the function of the world when stimulated by the PCs.
> 
> I'm not sure I love this scenario myself.  I definitely would want the standard method of getting rid of a ghost to work.  So figuring out everything and having the villagers apologize would be extra.  A nice extra and maybe even a bonus on x.p. for good roleplaying.  If they don't figure it out though then they just have to kill the ghost or move on.  Nothing aberrant about that outcome either.
> 
> This goes to adventure design more than living world but I find I avoid too narrow a path to success when I create adventures.  I also tend to avoid end the world scenarios.   The PCs may not cooperate in solving the adventure and if they don't that has to be okay too.




Where does traditional adventure design fit in here? Isn't the point to build a dynamic sandbox and provide players with complete autonomy so they get to set their own agendas and play the world/setting with integrity? That's my focus whenever I run a sandbox game.


----------



## Emerikol

Campbell said:


> Where does traditional adventure design fit in here? Isn't the point to build a dynamic sandbox and provide players with complete autonomy so they get to set their own agendas and play the world/setting with integrity? That's my focus whenever I run a sandbox game.



I'm not totally sure what you are getting at.   We create dungeons and places of interest to put in our sandbox right?   I called them adventures but that is what I mean.   Of course not every "adventure" if you mean interesting series of events is in a dungeon.  Tussling with the palace guard might not be adventurous but I didn't mean it that way.  

I'm talking about GM placed places of interest like lost tombs, etc...   This goes to NPC villains too.  If you put a powerful NPC villain into the campaign setting with an agenda and give that NPC the tools to achieve his evil aims, you have to be ready for those evil aims to happen.   You can't hope the PCs will stop every foul plot afoot.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, what we're talking about is the idea, or maybe even the possibility of something called GM immersion. I would submit its impossible based on descriptions of what people expect out of player immersion, but I also don't really believe that player immersion is a thing the way some people want it to be. I don't think you need nothing but non-meta (whatever that is) mechanics to be able to 'immerse'. I think immersion into the game in a thing, and sometimes that might verge on character immersion, but it's not the holy grail that sandbox zealots want it to be. YMMV, of course.



And yet you state it so matter of factly as truth.  I absolutely think maintaining character viewpoint is a very desirable goal for a lot of people.  I don't think everyone cares about it and it's clear you don't.   To me, how it breaks out is unknown.  I do think there are enough that want what I want to be a viable group amongst the various groups playing roleplaying games.

And even though we can debate about immersion per se, there can be no debate that at least some people want to maintain character only viewpoint in terms of what they can do as a player.   Whether that is to maintain immersion or just a preference for approaching the world from that stance is really beside the point.  We are getting into feelings or whatever at that point.  I'm not dismissing my viewpoint but just saying what you think or I think about the root cause doesn't matter.  The preference exists.


----------



## Manbearcat

@prabe

You've got 3 sessions (not a ton, but some) of No Myth Story Now play as a player under your belt.  Do you have any thoughts about how your "immersion" (however that works out for you) is affected by the content (the fiction, the shared imagined space, the whatever the eff people want to call it) being procedurally generated through the structured freeform (our conversation being governed by the principles of play + the resolution mechanics) that is governing our play?

Do you have any thoughts about orientation toward your character.  Orientation toward the story that is emerging.  Eg; do you feel like you're following your character, leading your character, inhabiting your character, etc.  Whatever comes to mind.

Do you have any thoughts about how the people in this thread who are advocating for "orientation via character viewpoint only" would feel about our play (both playing it and watching it).

Maybe you could cite a particular moment of play (like when you consulted the spirits in your weapon last night and "downloaded" the ancient tongue for the social conflict) as an anchoring point?


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Do you have any thoughts about orientation toward your character.  Orientation toward the story that is emerging.  Eg; do you feel like you're following your character, leading your character, inhabiting your character, etc.  Whatever comes to mind.



I'd be interested to hear what @prabe says as well.

In fairness, I am not disputing that you and your group are having fun.  I believe you.  There are many ways to have fun though right?  I don't think the play of our two games would resemble each other all that much.  So there is a different feel to those games.  That feel is interpreted differently by different people based on our own viewpoints.  

You may not like the terms I put on that feeling but the difference is real.  So when I use those terms, I am explaining what I think is making the game not as fun for me.   It's my interpretation.   For example,  I played 4e for a while and something about it just didn't sit well with me.  I didn't realize it at the time but I believe I was dissociated from my character but that is my interpretation of a dissatisfaction that already existed.  Since coming to understand such mechanics, I realized that a lot of games I have issues with had them in common.  So my theory that I don't like such things was strengthened.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I'd be interested to hear what @prabe says as well.
> 
> In fairness, I am not disputing that you and your group are having fun.  I believe you.  There are many ways to have fun though right?  I don't think the play of our two games would resemble each other all that much.  So there is a different feel to those games.  That feel is interpreted differently by different people based on our own viewpoints.
> 
> You may not like the terms I put on that feeling but the difference is real.  So when I use those terms, I am explaining what I think is making the game not as fun for me.   It's my interpretation.   For example,  I played 4e for a while and something about it just didn't sit well with me.  I didn't realize it at the time but I believe I was dissociated from my character but that is my interpretation of a dissatisfaction that already existed.  Since coming to understand such mechanics, I realized that a lot of games I have issues with had them in common.  So my theory that I don't like such things was strengthened.




I'm sure you think we're having fun.  But fun is not something I'm interested in talking about.  That goes nowhere.

I'm interested in how the actual machinery of play (the structure of the rules, the focus of the play agenda, the guiding and constraining principles, the procedures that generate content) creates and changes (a) the gamestate, (b) the stuff we're imagining, and (c) the orientation of the participants toward (a) and (b).

Some of that is going to be native to the players themselves for one reason or another (neurological predisposition is no doubt a big part of it).  But, like fun, that isn't a particularly interesting thing to talk about.  So I'm more interested in talking about (a), (b), and (c) across a healthy population distribution of participants.

Like for instance, as you mentioned above, there is no doubt in my mind you would hate being a part of any of the 4 (soon to be 5) games I'm running.  Each of these games have subtly different chemistry/alchemy due to the nature of the participants involved.  But there is a clear and present through line in all of those games (driven by the signal of that a - c above) that would surely make it so Emerikol of the internet would find it impossible to enjoy.  The only feeling about that I have is "that is unfortunate".  I mean, I'd invite you to play in a game I'm GMing, but I'm confident your misery would be an implacable force that makes misery of the entire experience for all involved (like the other night when I was running Blades and the leader of a gang was sword-fighting the ghost of the former gang leader that she murdered in a coup...there were aspects of that sword fight where I'm confident that Emerikol of the internet would have found "jarring").

I totally understand your neurological disposition toward this stuff.  As I've mentioned above, one of my best friends is exactly the same way you are (and you and I have had tons of discussions these last almost 9 years so I'm confident I've got your hardware pinned down pretty well).  But, again, your orientation toward this stuff (like my best friend) is native to you.  Across a large distribution of participants, there will be no evidence of some objective property of play that should engender the disposition that you guys share.  Its the way you're wired (to *orient *yourself toward stimuli from a very specific angle, *model *it in a very specific way, and then *resolve your collisions with it* through that very specific lens...if there is any deviation from that array, you guys "go on tilt" to use the poker euphemism).


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I'd be interested to hear what @prabe says as well.



Tag!


Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> You've got 3 sessions (not a ton, but some) of No Myth Story Now play as a player under your belt.  Do you have any thoughts about how your "immersion" (however that works out for you) is affected by the content (the fiction, the shared imagined space, the whatever the eff people want to call it) being procedurally generated through the structured freeform (our conversation being governed by the principles of play + the resolution mechanics) that is governing our play?



So, upthread I mentioned types of immersion, or different things one could be immersed in while TRPGing. They were story, game, character, and setting. Setting isn't relevant: I've never experienced it, and the possibility of it is dubious.

While I think I understand Toru pretty well, and I think I've been playing him honestly, I don't know that I've been immersed in him during our DW play--but remember, character-immersion isn't something that's a big part of my TRPG experience. Like, I may have never experienced it, ever (so if I don't experience it with Toru, it's not a critique of Dungeon World or you as a GM).

When I mentioned immersion-in-game, I was talking (mostly) about the processes and rules and literal game-stuff taking up so much bandwidth there wasn't room for much else in my head. When I'm running 5E, this is usually during some large set-piece fight where I have a lot to keep track of; it's really like getting head-down in, say, Gloomhaven and losing track of the evening (or like getting head-down in my MIDI space and losing track of time, hunger, sleep ...). From the player's POV, there aren't enough of those kinds of rules and processes in DW for me to get lost in; that's not snark--I think that's in line with the intent of the game.

What there has been (for me, my wife may be having a different experience; I haven't spoken to her about this) is immersion into story. I wouldn't say it's been constant, but for me immersion into story roughly never is constant, in roughly any medium--so that's me, not you or the game.

The experience most-closely tracks with college-age-me sitting in a room with friends, all of us writers, and passing around stories for 15 or 30 minutes at a time, or maybe one of the small handful of times a band I was in set out to write lyrics together. There's a lot of bouncing off each other's ideas, and a lot of curiosity about where the story will be when it gets to be time to contribute. Here, I get to say that as with a writing circle, or a band, chemistry around a gaming table matters, a helluva lot; the time passes quickly for me while we're playing, an awful lot like good band times.


Manbearcat said:


> Do you have any thoughts about orientation toward your character.  Orientation toward the story that is emerging.  Eg; do you feel like you're following your character, leading your character, inhabiting your character, etc.  Whatever comes to mind.



Probably mostly watching Toru.


Manbearcat said:


> Do you have any thoughts about how the people in this thread who are advocating for "orientation via character viewpoint only" would feel about our play (both playing it and watching it).



I have a sneaking suspicion some of the people in this thread would see it as not too much different from "passing the conch." There might be a sense there wasn't much of a way to make much difference to your character's success in the build process. There might be a feeling there wasn't much in the way of tactical choice mattering. There might be the thought that the things that emerge in the story are emerging at the whim of the dice (especially after someone earns 3 XP within 7 minutes of play) and not out of any putatively objective sense of action-consequence--especially not as the result/s of character choice/s.

OTOH, I think anyone observing would see that the three of us are enjoying the hell out of the game.


Manbearcat said:


> Maybe you could cite a particular moment of play (like when you consulted the spirits in your weapon last night and "downloaded" the ancient tongue for the social conflict) as an anchoring point?



Asking the sword for words to speak was ... a result of a concatenation of other things: The decision to describe defeating a spirit as it being pulled into the sword (because that seemed ... cool); the decision to describe throwing off a later possession as involving using the sword to cut myself; the decision (at character advancement) to take the Heirloom move, instead of my more-typical kill-things-more-quickly approach. It wouldn't have worked without the GM's decision that "downloading" the Old Speech from the sword was a plausible use of the move. The decision to go intimidating there was the situation in-game cutting across the player's sense of fairness, in a way that landed more negatively on people mostly like Toru--people who had already lost roughly everything.


----------



## Emerikol

prabe said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion some of the people in this thread wouldn't see it as not too much different from "passing the conch." There might be a sense there wasn't much of a way to make much difference to your character's success in the build process. There might be a feeling there wasn't much in the way of tactical choice mattering. There might be the thought that the things that emerge in the story are emerging at the whim of the dice (especially after someone earns 3 XP within 7 minutes of play) and not out of any putatively objective sense of action-consequence--especially not as the result/s of character choice/s.



I think this is an incredibly insightful way of describing a game that lacks skilled play.  When talking about choices mattering, they obviously matter in all styles of game but do they matter as to succeeding?   So good point.


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> I think this is an incredibly insightful way of describing a game that lacks skilled play.  When talking about choices mattering, they obviously matter in all styles of game but do they matter as to succeeding?   So good point.



I wouldn't so much say that Dungeon World lacks skilled play, as that skilled play in Dungeon World looks radically different than skilled play in Moldvay. (Note--I don't know what you play, and I haven't ever that I know of played Moldvay.)


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Tag!
> 
> So, upthread I mentioned types of immersion, or different things one could be immersed in while TRPGing. They were story, game, character, and setting. Setting isn't relevant: I've never experienced it, and the possibility of it is dubious.
> 
> While I think I understand Toru pretty well, and I think I've been playing him honestly, I don't know that I've been immersed in him during our DW play--but remember, character-immersion isn't something that's a big part of my TRPG experience. Like, I may have never experienced it, ever (so if I don't experience it with Toru, it's not a critique of Dungeon World or you as a GM).
> 
> When I mentioned immersion-in-game, I was talking (mostly) about the processes and rules and literal game-stuff taking up so much bandwidth there wasn't room for much else in my head. When I'm running 5E, this is usually during some large set-piece fight where I have a lot to keep track of; it's really like getting head-down in, say, Gloomhaven and losing track of the evening (or like getting head-down in my MIDI space and losing track of time, hunger, sleep ...). From the player's POV, there aren't enough of those kinds of rules and processes in DW for me to get lost in; that's not snark--I think that's in line with the intent of the game.
> 
> What there has been (for me, my wife may be having a different experience; I haven't spoken to her about this) is immersion into story. I wouldn't say it's been constant, but for me immersion into story roughly never is constant, in roughly any medium--so that's me, not you or the game.
> 
> The experience most-closely tracks with college-age-me sitting in a room with friends, all of us writers, and passing around stories for 15 or 30 minutes at a time, or maybe one of the small handful of times a band I was in set out to write lyrics together. There's a lot of bouncing off each other's ideas, and a lot of curiosity about where the story will be when it gets to be time to contribute. Here, I get to say that as with a writing circle, or a band, chemistry around a gaming table matters, a helluva lot; the time passes quickly for me while we're playing, an awful lot like good band times.
> 
> Probably mostly watching Toru.
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion some of the people in this thread wouldn't see it as not too much different from "passing the conch." There might be a sense there wasn't much of a way to make much difference to your character's success in the build process. There might be a feeling there wasn't much in the way of tactical choice mattering. There might be the thought that the things that emerge in the story are emerging at the whim of the dice (especially after someone earns 3 XP within 7 minutes of play) and not out of any putatively objective sense of action-consequence--especially not as the result/s of character choice/s.
> 
> OTOH, I think anyone observing would see that the three of us are enjoying the hell out of the game.
> 
> Asking the sword for words to speak was ... a result of a concatenation of other things: The decision to describe defeating a spirit as it being pulled into the sword (because that seemed ... cool); the decision to describe throwing off a later possession as involving using the sword to cut myself; the decision (at character advancement) to take the Heirloom move, instead of my more-typical kill-things-more-quickly approach. It wouldn't have worked without the GM's decision that "downloading" the Old Speech from the sword was a plausible use of the move. The decision to go intimidating there was the situation in-game cutting across the player's sense of fairness, in a way that landed more negatively on people mostly like Toru--people who had already lost roughly everything.




That is a really thoughtful, interesting and circumnavigated response.

I'm glad we got these thoughts down now.  I'll be interested in revisiting them in a little bit of time as things get more intense and complex (in terms of stakes and the consequential downstream effects of one approach to a situation or a string of situations vs another).  We're not in "tutorial" mode, but we're definitely just "warming up the engine" for the drag race to come.

Thanks for this response.  I'd be curious what your wife (I know that is weird for me to say that, but I'm not going to name drop her) thinks in comparison to her experience with other systems.

@darkbard , what do you think about the above (you obviously have a TON of experience with Dungeon World at this point as we're probably 20 sessions in or something?) thoughts from prabe.  What do you guys think about the above and how you guys are oriented toward your own characters, each others characters, the unfolding situations/setting/story, the actual play. 

@hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 .  Dungeon World is a different game in particular ways from Blades (some of them extremely meaningful), but there is a huge amount of overlap (as you guys know) in key ways (principles, agenda, level of myth, nature of the action resolution snowballing machinery).  What do you guys think about the above and how you guys are oriented toward your own characters, each others characters, the unfolding situations/setting/story, the actual play. 

Where do you guys agree with prabe and where do you differ?


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> I'm sure you think we're having fun.  But fun is not something I'm interested in talking about.  That goes nowhere.
> 
> I'm interested in how the actual machinery of play (the structure of the rules, the focus of the play agenda, the guiding and constraining principles, the procedures that generate content) creates and changes (a) the gamestate, (b) the stuff we're imagining, and (c) the orientation of the participants toward (a) and (b).



Yes I agree that is why we have a discussion.  I am just trying to assure you that my own preferences are not a condemnation of your preferences.  I do find it easier to discuss these things with you than with many others.



Manbearcat said:


> Some of that is going to be native to the players themselves for one reason or another (neurological predisposition is no doubt a big part of it).  But, like fun, that isn't a particularly interesting thing to talk about.  So I'm more interested in talking about (a), (b), and (c) across a healthy population distribution of participants.



Agree.  I just want perspective so we avoid antagonism.  



Manbearcat said:


> Like for instance, as you mentioned above, there is no doubt in my mind you would hate being a part of any of the 4 (soon to be 5) games I'm running.  Each of these games have subtly different chemistry/alchemy due to the nature of the participants involved.  But there is a clear and present through line in all of those games (driven by the signal of that a - c above) that would surely make it so Emerikol of the internet would find it impossible to enjoy.  The only feeling about that I have is "that is unfortunate".  I mean, I'd invite you to play in a game I'm GMing, but I'm confident your misery would be an implacable force that makes misery of the entire experience for all involved (like the other night when I was running Blades and the leader of a gang was sword-fighting the ghost of the former gang leader that she murdered in a coup...there were aspects of that sword fight where I'm confident that Emerikol of the internet would have found "jarring").



I think you'd be surprised.  While I may not really love a game, I'd try not to be a jerk.  I wouldn't seek to undermine the game or to question the premises.   I might be a bit passive until I understood what was going on.  I've never said I could not play one of your games and have a good time.  I said that given my limited time and the long term commitment I'd prefer to favor what I consider my optimal approach for me.

I don't really have time and I don't generally like players who wander in and wander out after a session.  Such people are risks and as a GM I avoid them.  They aren't invested in the game.  I definitely would not want to ruin your groups experience inadvertently.



Manbearcat said:


> I totally understand your neurological disposition toward this stuff.  As I've mentioned above, one of my best friends is exactly the same way you are (and you and I have had tons of discussions these last almost 9 years so I'm confident I've got your hardware pinned down pretty well).  But, again, your orientation toward this stuff (like my best friend) is native to you.  Across a large distribution of participants, there will be no evidence of some objective property of play that should engender the disposition that you guys share.  Its the way you're wired (to *orient *yourself toward stimuli from a very specific angle, *model *it in a very specific way, and then *resolve your collisions with it* through that very specific lens...if there is any deviation from that array, you guys "go on tilt" to use the poker euphemism).



We all have our preferences.  Some people are broader in the variety of their tastes.  When it comes to literature my tastes are very broad.   I like Classical Literature, Modern Day Literary (think John Irving), Epic Fantasy, Science Fiction, Historical, even some Romance if it's set in one of those other genres.  

When it comes to potato chips, and ice cream my tastes are more limited.  I almost always buy vanilla ice cream and plain Snyders potato chips.   I don't like ruffles.  I like almost any ice create but again I don't want the commitment of eating an entire container of some other unique flavor.  I really love good vanilla so that is what I eat.   If I'm at a birthday party for someone else and they have another flavor, I have no trouble eating it.

If roleplaying were a board game, I'd probably still GM my style but I'd play almost anything.  One nights entertainment is not a great investment.  It's probably why I am willing to play a lot of board games.  It's primarily about the company.   Whereas when you talk rpg campaigns, you are talking a years long investment often so the game is really important.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> That is a really thoughtful, interesting and circumnavigated response.



It is possible that what you see as "circumnavigated" is my awareness that my experience with the game and playstyle is scant, and being well aware there are things--oceans--I do not know.


----------



## Emerikol

And realize folks that I find game rules very interesting and reading them is almost a hobby in and of itself.  I've probably never played a campaign in half the games I own.   

So I follow some of the threads, just to see what people say and how they think about the game.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> It is possible that what you see as "circumnavigated" is my awareness that my experience with the game and playstyle is scant, and being well aware there are things--oceans--I do not know.




I don't mean circumnavigated as to "avoid."  I actually meant you were extremely thorough (as in you went around the whole thing).


----------



## Manbearcat

@Emerikol 

Forget habitation or immersion for a moment.

When you get to play a PC (which it seems is not often) and/or anecdotally from your players:

Is there a sense of "following" the PC?

Is there a sense of "leading/advocating for" the PC?


----------



## Manbearcat

@prabe 

Final question.  How do you think (as in the Fortify Downtime Action I've put in the Dungeon World game) having a limited resource you can spend for extra dice/bonuses/assurances that a 6- result won't stand, but which you have to manage because "tapping out of it" has a cost/imposes a character change, would affect your experience?

This is the Blades model I'm talking about here (and the Fortify rules for Downtime that you can use rather than Rest for HP, Recover for Debilities, Downtime Project, et al).


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> (Note--I don't know what you play, and I haven't ever that I know of played Moldvay.)



It's very moldy.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> Final question.  How do you think (as in the Fortify Downtime Action I've put in the Dungeon World game) having a limited resource you can spend for extra dice/bonuses/assurances that a 6- result won't stand, but which you have to manage because "tapping out of it" has a cost/imposes a character change, would affect your experience?
> 
> This is the Blades model I'm talking about here (and the Fortify rules for Downtime that you can use rather than Rest for HP, Recover for Debilities, Downtime Project, et al).



I ... don't know. I think I'll need to experience it in play to see what difference it makes. We're already playing the characters a little recklessly (IMO) so I don't know how much more we'd push in that direction.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> @Emerikol
> 
> Forget habitation or immersion for a moment.
> 
> When you get to play a PC (which it seems is not often) and/or anecdotally from your players:
> 
> Is there a sense of "following" the PC?
> 
> Is there a sense of "leading/advocating for" the PC?



I would definitely say that it's not following the PC.   

Not sure about the second one.   I see the players as thinking like their characters and having the same motives as their characters.   Now if I as GM just give them exactly what they want the game will fall flat.  So while they behave as if they want to defeat their enemies easily and to turn every battle into something simple, I'm sure subconsciously they know that would not be satisfying long term.   Fortunately, as GM, through the NPC villains I make their life hard.  They in turn never stop trying to win the fastest and easiest way they can.   In the end it becomes a challenge because the NPCs don't cooperate.

I think in asking your questions though you may have dug out an insight.  It's desirable to play characters and have natural motives just like you would if you were that character.  So that's desirable in my style of play I think.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> The experience most-closely tracks with college-age-me sitting in a room with friends, all of us writers, and passing around stories for 15 or 30 minutes at a time, or maybe one of the small handful of times a band I was in set out to write lyrics together. There's a lot of bouncing off each other's ideas, and a lot of curiosity about where the story will be when it gets to be time to contribute. Here, I get to say that as with a writing circle, or a band, chemistry around a gaming table matters, a helluva lot; the time passes quickly for me while we're playing, an awful lot like good band times.





prabe said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion some of the people in this thread wouldn't see it as not too much different from "passing the conch."




These two thoughts here.

I'm assuming what you're talking about the impact on play of the below GMing principle:

Ask questions and use the answers​Part of playing to find out what happens is explicitly not knowing everything, and being curious. If you don’t know something, or you don’t have an idea, ask the players and use what they say.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> These two thoughts here.
> 
> I'm assuming what you're talking about the impact on play of the below GMing principle:
> 
> Ask questions and use the answers​Part of playing to find out what happens is explicitly not knowing everything, and being curious. If you don’t know something, or you don’t have an idea, ask the players and use what they say.



Pretty much, yes. I think it's also a play principle--as in, the players can ask the GM questions, and they can ask the other players questions.

I also was explicitly comparing the process to other things I have enjoyed, and not slagging on it at all; I hope that was clear.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Pretty much, yes. I think it's also a play principle--as in, the players can ask the GM questions, and they can ask the other players questions.
> 
> I also was explicitly comparing the process to other things I have enjoyed, and not slagging on it at all; I hope that was clear.




Yup.  All that was clear.  It just wasn't written explicitly for everyone else so I wanted to make sure that they understood what you were talking about.  And I agree that yes, it is a table principle along with being a GMing principle...this and some of the things you've written above hew exactly to Harper's Player's Best Practices in Blades; "Take Responsibility - as a co-author", "Act Now Plan Later", "Embrace the Scoundrel's Life", "Build Your Character Through Play."

You can look at this in Dungeon World terms - "Go boldly and headlong into danger/don't turtle" and "you're responsible for propelling - or stalling - play" and "follow your character around, be curious about your character and what may come, be curious about other characters and what may come of them."


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Yup.  All that was clear.  It just wasn't written explicitly for everyone else so I wanted to make sure that they understood what you were talking about.  And I agree that yes, it is a table principle along with being a GMing principle...this and some of the things you've written above hew exactly to Harper's Player's Best Practices in Blades; "Take Responsibility - as a co-author", "Act Now Plan Later", "Embrace the Scoundrel's Life", "Build Your Character Through Play."
> 
> You can look at this in Dungeon World terms - "Go boldly and headlong into danger/don't turtle" and "you're responsible for propelling - or stalling - play" and "follow your character around, be curious about your character and what may come, be curious about other characters and what may come of them."



I'll point out that none of those principles are, that I can see, strictly incompatible with 5E, at least as I run it. The two that would be most likely to cause problems would be "Act Now, Plan Later" (because I don't have a hack in place to replicate Flashbacks) and "Embrace the Scoundrel's Life" (because I prefer for the PCs to be willing to be heroes). In neither case do the problems seem insoluble--hacking in something like Flashbacks seems possible, and "Embrace the Hero's Life" seems to work roughly as well.


----------



## Aldarc

The past few pages have been an enjoyable read. Thanks, @Manbearcat and @prabe.


----------



## Campbell

Traditional skilled play of the fiction is fairly important to me, even when it comes to Story Now play. I think it's a big part of my preference for games with more open ended (snowballing) resolution and a decent amount of prepared scenario design over no myth play. I suspect I am probably a more strict referee than Manbearcat when it comes to running Dungeon World (although I would almost always prefer Freebooters to Dungeon World). I would also suspect that when I run Blades I put somewhat more emphasis on the negotiation stage (determining position and effect).

From a player's point of view I would say the biggest difference for me (compared to anodyne D&D) in something like Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Freebooters, or Sorcerer is that the social environment is included in the model and skilled play is seen within the context of first playing an individual character (who has a well developed agenda and place in the world) with integrity. The scope of challenge is defined by the scope of that agenda, but the adversity must be honest.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> I'll point out that none of those principles are, that I can see, strictly incompatible with 5E, at least as I run it. The two that would be most likely to cause problems would be "Act Now, Plan Later" (because I don't have a hack in place to replicate Flashbacks) and "Embrace the Scoundrel's Life" (because I prefer for the PCs to be willing to be heroes). In neither case do the problems seem insoluble--hacking in something like Flashbacks seems possible, and "Embrace the Hero's Life" seems to work roughly as well.



I've found that a lot of the GM principles from DW/Blades are pretty widely useful for running any system, if that kind of game experience is what you're after. You have to make allowances for system of course, whether that's 5E or whatever, but I run mostly run games like that regardless of system. 

There is also, should be interested, a hack for 5E of some Blades stuff including Flashbacks that someone did up to scaffold running Dragon Heist. It's called _Here's to Crime_, and I approve. The inspiration system can be hacked to all manner of wonderful things.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I've found that a lot of the GM principles from DW/Blades are pretty widely useful for running any system, if that kind of game experience is what you're after. You have to make allowances for system of course, whether that's 5E or whatever, but I run mostly run games like that regardless of system.
> 
> There is also, should be interested, a hack for 5E of some Blades stuff including Flashbacks that someone did up to scaffold running Dragon Heist. It's called _Here's to Crime_, and I approve. The inspiration system can be hacked to all manner of wonderful things.



I thought I remembered you talking about such a hack in the past. I had figured that if I felt a need to use such rules, I'd ask you for advice/links. Still might.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> Traditional skilled play of the fiction is fairly important to me, even when it comes to Story Now play. I think it's a big part of my preference for games with more open ended (snowballing) resolution and a decent amount of prepared scenario design over no myth play. I suspect I am probably a more *strict *referee than Manbearcat when it comes to running Dungeon World (although I would almost always prefer Freebooters to Dungeon World). I would also suspect that when I run Blades I put somewhat more emphasis on the negotiation stage (determining position and effect).
> 
> From a player's point of view I would say the biggest difference for me (compared to anodyne D&D) in something like Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Freebooters, or Sorcerer is that the social environment is included in the model and skilled play is seen within the context of first playing an individual character (who has a well developed agenda and place in the world) with integrity. The scope of challenge is defined by the scope of that agenda, but the adversity must be honest.




Bolded the strict there.  Working backwards:

1)  I couldn't say for sure if you put more emphasis on the negotiation stage of Pos/Eff in Blades, but mine is as orthodox as it gets.  Assess Threat for Position (and convey that explicitly) and Assess Factors for Effect (and convey that explicitly).  My guess is that I have players sacrificing Position for Effect at likely the normal rate (if there is one) across the distribution of Blades games; that is to say, a fair bit.  Getting xp for a Desperate Action Roll and then marshaling all your resources to ensure a 6 is likely pretty common among Blades tables (and it fits with the play paradigm/genre tropes).

2)  What work is "strict" doing in the refereeing of DW above?  Are you saying you figure you're more apt to "say no" to a proposed player move?  Or that you're more apt to "not use answers" of players?  Or that your frequency of question asking is reduced by compared to my own?  Some combination of those ?  Something else?

What effect do you feel your increased "strictness" has on play?

3)  I'm very curious about your thoughts on skilled play of the fiction and prepped/encoded scenario design vs No Myth play.  For instance, my thoughts are as follows (you can tell me if you agree/disagree/how):

a)  Skilled Play of the fiction orbits around how granular the spatial and temporal relationships of the system/play-space are.  For instance, Torchbearer's dungeon is procedurally generated and much less "myth-ey" than your typical map and keyed Dungeon Crawl.  However, because all of the relationships work holistically, skilled play is extraordinarily high (honestly, higher than classic D&D for sure). 

If the game's encoded units, spatial relationships, temporal relationships, and/or/either the referees framing and telegraphing (not too much...not too little...provocative but no more) have disagreements, you'll have a (let's call it) "skilled play leakage" that damages the competitive play environment (possibly to the point of no recovery).

b)  Once you get into a situation where granularity of spatial, temporal, game unit relationships change, skilled play changes.  What is the biggest example of this in TTRPGs?

Leaving the dungeon. 

Now here, GM framing, the game's encoded pressure points, deft GM deployment of those pressure points (in both framing and complication rendering), and the action resolution mechanics are absolutely paramount.  

There is not much use for heavy myth/prep here in my opinion (in fact, I suspect it can serve as an impediment in many cases).

For instance...I would all but guarantee that there is no D&D game ever that has a more wilderness Skilled-Play-intensive play loop than my Perilous Journeys (using The Perilous Wilds) in Dungeon World...particularly those Perilous Journeys that involve topographical hazards/obstacles. 

This is because the game works extremely well (and coherently) in all of the ways I mentioned above and because I'm very familiar with (a) outdoor hazards/obstacles and (b) how to mechanize them in Dungeon World action resolution and resource attrition.


----------



## Campbell

I'll have more later, but when it comes to Dungeon World / Freebooters I tend to be pretty strict about the fictional positioning required for moves. It's been awhile since we played together though so I cannot be sure, but I find I have a stronger referee bent than most GMs I have played under when it comes to Dungeon World.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> I'll point out that none of those principles are, that I can see, strictly incompatible with 5E, at least as I run it. The two that would be most likely to cause problems would be "Act Now, Plan Later" (because I don't have a hack in place to replicate Flashbacks) and "Embrace the Scoundrel's Life" (because I prefer for the PCs to be willing to be heroes). In neither case do the problems seem insoluble--hacking in something like Flashbacks seems possible, and "Embrace the Hero's Life" seems to work roughly as well.




Just going to break out some thoughts here and they're going to be a bit all over the place.

*If *

* a 5e game used the Success w/ Complications module

*And*

* a 5e game had every single aspect of action resolution encoded (therefore intuitable before the orient > action declaration phase) and player-facing

*And*

* the 5e game had more pressure points to exert on players than just HPs and Fatigue (the game just doesn't have enough vectors to attack player resources...real resource cost with teeth...and diversity of resource cost with teeth)

*Then*

_Act Now Plan Later _and _Embrace the Soundrel's Life_ (_Go into Danger Boldly....Fall in Love With Trouble_) would be much more portable to 5e.  That is because 5e PCs, like Dungeon World and Blades PCs are extremely robust/potent against threats that can take them out (however, unlike DW/Blades, 5e suffers from (a) lack of parity in noncombat conflict resolution and (b) serious runaway power by some classes in noncombat conflict resolution).

Act Now Plan Later isn't just about marshalling resources/the fiction via Flashbacks.  Its about (a) going heedless into danger because you know you're up to the challenge (you can both play skillfully and the PC build mechanics and action resolution mechanics create robust PCs who can come off the ropes from an early setback) and/or (b) just playing your character recklessly because its fun.  

(a) and (b) above push back hard against orthodox D&D culture.  Overwhelmingly, our culture has stigmatized (b) as unskillful play because D&D has historically (outside of 4e) rewarded extreme planning and extreme turtling and the most careful of resource rationing and dedication to controlling the resource refresh cycle.  Everything about this is different than in Blades and in DW.  And its not just because the game mechanically isn't suited for this (the action resolution mechanics are going to put you on the ropes...its how you deal with being on the ropes that is skillful in DW/Blades...interestingly...this is 100 % the exact same arc as 4e D&D combat), but the game is just fundamentally less fun and not rewarding (from an xp paradigm/advancement paradigm as well) if you play that way. 

So that is a big cultural gap to manage.

So if you can (i) manage that culture, (ii) ensure that the game doesn't get away from you and become way too dangerous because you're using a large number of creatures (5e's bounded accuracy makes #s profoundly more dangerous than D&D of yore), (iii) play with that module, (iv) encode action resolution and make it player facing (so its inferable and modellable for skilled play), (v) develop/hack in more pressure points for complications than is present in 5e...

You do all of those things, then those principles will be considerably more harmonious in their integration with 5e (and when I say harmonious here, I'm meaning both in potency on play and in coherency with the entire loop of play).

But its more complex than just porting them in.  Now, you can port them in, but the potency and coherency is not going to be there like it is for DW/Blades.  The work its doing won't create a through line of play that is both consistently and potently product of the signal of those principles (at least not in the way that it is in the aforementioned games).


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> I'll have more later, but when it comes to Dungeon World / Freebooters I tend to be pretty strict about the fictional positioning required for moves. It's been awhile since we played together though so I cannot be sure, but I find I have a stronger referee bent than most GMs I have played under when it comes to Dungeon World.




Not sure!

Maybe @darkbard has some insight into how strict/not-strict he feels I am about fictional positioning > moves triggered in DW.  If he has an example where he felt I was particularly lenient, particularly strict, or just about right may help anchor the conversation!


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> I'll have more later, but when it comes to Dungeon World / Freebooters I tend to be pretty strict about the fictional positioning required for moves. It's been awhile since we played together though so I cannot be sure, but I find I have a stronger referee bent than most GMs I have played under when it comes to Dungeon World.




Also, our play was play by post.  That isn't remotely representative of how I run games live.  Personally....play by post sucks.  I don't like it unless you're constantly managing a chat with people via phone to clarify details (and then I barely like it).  You're either spending too much time clarifying things or you're eliding things that you would clarify via conversation just to play at all.

So my guess is, there may be an instance of action resolution that happened in our play by post game that isn't remotely how I run games live (merely because of the logistical difficulties of PBP) that is something you're recalling as representative.

So...yeah...sorry for all of you folks who love PBP...I can't stand it and its not remotely how I run games normally.


----------



## Campbell

Manbearcat said:


> 3)  I'm very curious about your thoughts on skilled play of the fiction and prepped/encoded scenario design vs No Myth play.  For instance, my thoughts are as follows (you can tell me if you agree/disagree/how):
> 
> a)  Skilled Play of the fiction orbits around how granular the spatial and temporal relationships of the system/play-space are.  For instance, Torchbearer's dungeon is procedurally generated and much less "myth-ey" than your typical map and keyed Dungeon Crawl.  However, because all of the relationships work holistically, skilled play is extraordinarily high (honestly, higher than classic D&D for sure).
> 
> If the game's encoded units, spatial relationships, temporal relationships, and/or/either the referees framing and telegraphing (not too much...not too little...provocative but no more) have disagreements, you'll have a (let's call it) "skilled play leakage" that damages the competitive play environment (possibly to the point of no recovery).
> 
> b)  Once you get into a situation where granularity of spatial, temporal, game unit relationships change, skilled play changes.  What is the biggest example of this in TTRPGs?
> 
> Leaving the dungeon.
> 
> Now here, GM framing, the game's encoded pressure points, deft GM deployment of those pressure points (in both framing and complication rendering), and the action resolution mechanics are absolutely paramount.
> 
> There is not much use for heavy myth/prep here in my opinion (in fact, I suspect it can serve as an impediment in many cases).




So I think skilled play of the fiction does not necessarily have to rely strongly on geography and physical space. I think what you prep is just as important as how much you prep. When leaving the dungeon behind we can continue to focus on physical space, how well fortified a particular area is, and other such concerns. That definitely benefits from less myth because trying to navigate those sorts of questions beyond a narrowly confined physical space is untenable as the physical space we care about increases. My own games feature less of a focus on those sorts of details.

My favored approach is more what Paul Czege calls a social crawl. Prep looks a lot like the scenario design in Blades in the Dark, town creation in Dogs in the Vineyard, fronts in Apocalypse World and the Sorcerer NPC/location venn diagram thing. A lot of focus on competing factions, NPC agendas, obstacles between PCs and their goals. Not less prep. Different prep.


----------



## Manbearcat

Campbell said:


> So I think skilled play of the fiction does not necessarily have to rely strongly on geography and physical space. I think what you prep is just as important as how much you prep. When leaving the dungeon behind we can continue to focus on physical space, how well fortified a particular area is, and other such concerns. That definitely benefits from less myth because trying to navigate those sorts of questions beyond a narrowly confined physical space is untenable as the physical space we care about increases. My own games feature less of a focus on those sorts of details.
> 
> My favored approach is more what Paul Czege calls a social crawl. Prep looks a lot like the scenario design in Blades in the Dark, town creation in Dogs in the Vineyard, fronts in Apocalypse World and the Sorcerer NPC/location venn diagram thing. A lot of focus on competing factions, NPC agendas, obstacles between PCs and their goals. Not less prep. Different prep.




Agreed with all of that.  My guess is my Dogs, Sorcerer, MLwM (if you play it), and Torchbearer, and Moldvay Dungeon Crawls looks exactly the same as your own (prep and execution).

However, my guess is my D&D 4e, Mouse Guard (if you play it), Blades, and any game PBtA looks different than your own because my prep is virtually nill.  Those games are basically fully no myth except for Duskvol.  My prep in those games is (a) acquaint myself with the dramatic needs of the PCs, (b) keep the game's premise in mind at all time, (c) generate content that interacts with (a) and/or/both (b) constantly (whether its in the framing or in complications/consequences)...just let all accrete into a fine mess.  And write meaningful stuff down as it happens to cement it in my mind.

So if we ever play in real life, we won't be playing 4e, MG, FitD, PBtA!  But my TB and Dogs games are likely right up your alley!


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> So...yeah...sorry for all of you folks who love PBP...I can't stand it and its not remotely how I run games normally.



I feel the same way.  The last time I played by post was literally way back when I had to dial directly to boards on my Apple IIe with its 300 baud modem, rather than just surf a net.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Just going to break out some thoughts here and they're going to be a bit all over the place.
> 
> *If *
> 
> * a 5e game used the Success w/ Complications module
> 
> *And*
> 
> * a 5e game had every single aspect of action resolution encoded (therefore intuitable before the orient > action declaration phase) and player-facing
> 
> *And*
> 
> * the 5e game had more pressure points to exert on players than just HPs and Fatigue (the game just doesn't have enough vectors to attack player resources...real resource cost with teeth...and diversity of resource cost with teeth)



A) I am not convinced that success-with-complication helps if one wants heroic play. In fact, I think I still come down on the side of "it doesn't."

B) I'm also not convinced that the players need to know everything about what they're about to attempt. They should know everything their character should know, without question, but I'm not sure that's what you mean by "[having] action resolution encoded."

C) I have found that 5E has plenty of pressure points, if the players are running their characters honestly; the higher-level party I'm DMing for felt themselves to be enough in debt to an NPC that they fought a mythic (similar to stuff in the Theros book) Death Knight and some of its allies in a cage match, to save the NPC's wife's soul. (When I talk "heroic," that's what I mean.) I've also run gantlet-type adventures, and had the PCs running on fumes by the end.


Manbearcat said:


> _Act Now Plan Later _and _Embrace the Soundrel's Life_ (_Go into Danger Boldly....Fall in Love With Trouble_) would be much more portable to 5e.  That is because 5e PCs, like Dungeon World and Blades PCs are extremely robust/potent against threats that can take them out (however, unlike DW/Blades, 5e suffers from (a) lack of parity in noncombat conflict resolution and (b) serious runaway power by some classes in noncombat conflict resolution).



I haven't run into those problems in 5E to the extent you have, which could come to differences in how we run 5E, or differences in the players. I agree, though that the PCs are extremely robust: That just means I can throw more stuff at them.


Manbearcat said:


> Act Now Plan Later isn't just about marshalling resources/the fiction via Flashbacks.  Its about (a) going heedless into danger because you know you're up to the challenge (you can both play skillfully and the PC build mechanics and action resolution mechanics create robust PCs who can come off the ropes from an early setback) and/or (b) just playing your character recklessly because its fun.



I'm not opposed to letting the PCs plan for things they know are coming. They prepped like hell (heh) for that fight against the Death Knight, and they took like a whole session prepping for the assault on Steeltear and the Masked Ones. I don't mind a PC being played as reckless, so long as it's a character thing; there are some types of characters I'd argue shouldn't/wouldn't be reckless in the ordinary course of things.


Manbearcat said:


> (a) and (b) above push back hard against orthodox D&D culture.  Overwhelmingly, our culture has stigmatized (b) as unskillful play because D&D has historically (outside of 4e) rewarded extreme planning and extreme turtling and the most careful of resource rationing and dedication to controlling the resource refresh cycle.  Everything about this is different than in Blades and in DW.  And its not just because the game mechanically isn't suited for this (the action resolution mechanics are going to put you on the ropes...its how you deal with being on the ropes that is skillful in DW/Blades...interestingly...this is 100 % the exact same arc as 4e D&D combat), but the game is just fundamentally less fun and not rewarding (from an xp paradigm/advancement paradigm as well) if you play that way.



If "turtling" is an extremely cautious playstyle, where no risks are taken, I agree, and I don't encourage it in campaigns I run. I don't mind if someone chooses to optimize for AC. though, which can also be considered a form of turtling, maybe.

And I award XP for the PCs advancing story things. So, I suspect the incentives are operating a bit differently from by-the-book 5E.


Manbearcat said:


> So if you can (i) manage that culture, (ii) ensure that the game doesn't get away from you and become way too dangerous because you're using a large number of creatures (5e's bounded accuracy makes #s profoundly more dangerous than D&D of yore), (iii) play with that module, (iv) encode action resolution and make it player facing (so its inferable and modellable for skilled play), (v) develop/hack in more pressure points for complications than is present in 5e...



So far, so good, but I haven't explicitly hacked in anything from any PbtA or FitD games, either. I haven't felt the need--I just was pointing out that playing that way works in 5E, too, because the players in the campaigns I'm running are doing exactly that--without my having posited them as the principles I want to see.


Manbearcat said:


> You do all of those things, then those principles will be considerably more harmonious in their integration with 5e (and when I say harmonious here, I'm meaning both in potency on play and in coherency with the entire loop of play).
> 
> But its more complex than just porting them in.  Now, you can port them in, but the potency and coherency is not going to be there like it is for DW/Blades.  The work its doing won't create a through line of play that is both consistently and potently product of the signal of those principles (at least not in the way that it is in the aforementioned games).



Oh, if I were going to be explicit about those principles being the ones I want in the game, I'd have to hack in stuff to make them work.

And I'm pretty sure there is a through-line in play, at least narratively, in both campaigns I'm running--though long unplanned campaigns do unquestionably have a tendency to end up kinda on the picaresque side. I'm reasonably OK with that.


----------



## Fenris-77

I don't mind PbP at all, but that's not something I've a lot of with Blades/AW type games. For OSR type games where there's less back and forth about action declarations it works just fine. I'm starting a MotW PbP so we'll see how that goes. We'll probably need to adopt some posting rigour about what to include just to keep down the total number of back and forth posts.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> A) I am not convinced that success-with-complication helps if one wants heroic play. In fact, I think I still come down on the side of "it doesn't."
> 
> B) I'm also not convinced that the players need to know everything about what they're about to attempt. They should know everything their character should know, without question, but I'm not sure that's what you mean by "[having] action resolution encoded."
> 
> C) I have found that 5E has plenty of pressure points, if the players are running their characters honestly; the higher-level party I'm DMing for felt themselves to be enough in debt to an NPC that they fought a mythic (similar to stuff in the Theros book) Death Knight and some of its allies in a cage match, to save the NPC's wife's soul. (When I talk "heroic," that's what I mean.) I've also run gantlet-type adventures, and had the PCs running on fumes by the end.
> 
> I haven't run into those problems in 5E to the extent you have, which could come to differences in how we run 5E, or differences in the players. I agree, though that the PCs are extremely robust: That just means I can throw more stuff at them.
> 
> I'm not opposed to letting the PCs plan for things they know are coming. They prepped like hell (heh) for that fight against the Death Knight, and they took like a whole session prepping for the assault on Steeltear and the Masked Ones. I don't mind a PC being played as reckless, so long as it's a character thing; there are some types of characters I'd argue shouldn't/wouldn't be reckless in the ordinary course of things.
> 
> If "turtling" is an extremely cautious playstyle, where no risks are taken, I agree, and I don't encourage it in campaigns I run. I don't mind if someone chooses to optimize for AC. though, which can also be considered a form of turtling, maybe.
> 
> And I award XP for the PCs advancing story things. So, I suspect the incentives are operating a bit differently from by-the-book 5E.
> 
> So far, so good, but I haven't explicitly hacked in anything from any PbtA or FitD games, either. I haven't felt the need--I just was pointing out that playing that way works in 5E, too, because the players in the campaigns I'm running are doing exactly that--without my having posited them as the principles I want to see.
> 
> Oh, if I were going to be explicit about those principles being the ones I want in the game, I'd have to hack in stuff to make them work.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure there is a through-line in play, at least narratively, in both campaigns I'm running--though long unplanned campaigns do unquestionably have a tendency to end up kinda on the picaresque side. I'm reasonably OK with that.




A lot of stuff!

Let me work backwards (I'll probably miss stuff anyway).

1) By through-line I meant "a through line of Act Now Plan Later and Go Boldly Into Danger potently and consistently propels play from initating gamestate a all the way to endstate z."  Not "a coherent through line of narrative."  I'm sure your game has that!

2) By pressure points I don't mean "Story Stakes/Wins/Losses."  Those are enormously important, but that isn't what I'm talking about here.  Here I'm talking about (if its Dungeon World) complications/costs that feature any/all of the above:

* Oh no I've lost (disarmed or fell down a gorge) my _Spear _so I don't have a weapon at all!

* Oh no I've lost my _Spear _so I've lost my _Reach _tag advantage!

* Oh no, I've lost my _Longknife _and I'm in a deadly grapple without a _Hand _tag weapon!

* Oh no, I've lost _Ammo _so I can't fire my bow (or I won't be able to soon!

* Oh no, I've lost _Rations _and I'm running low and we've got more Camps to make on this Journey!

* Oh no, I've lost _Adventuring Gear_...how am I going to navigate this obstacle (the dark, a climb, et al)!

* Oh no, I've lost my _Bag of Books_ so I lose my bonus to Spout Lore!

* Oh no, my _armor/shield_ was damaged/ruined by the Messy tag!

* Oh no, I've got a _Debility _(any of the 6 ability scores)!

* Oh no, my _Hit Points_!

* Oh no, take -1 forward!

* Oh no, take -1 ongoing to a move!

* Oh no, my hireling/cohort is in trouble!

* Oh no, my Potion/Salve/Antitoxin/Bandages/Poultices is/are lost!

* Oh no, I'm _Stunned_!

* Oh no, _Forceful _tag is throwing me off of this cliff/into this hazard/into this bad position!

* Oh no I've lost a _Spell_!


Many more than that as well.  The game has dozens of Pressure Points that are extremely consequential that can be a straight up cost or an either/or decision-point for the player.  5e (and D&D broadly) just doesn't have this sort of framework of unified and diverse complications/costs that have serious teeth (both now and downstream).

3)  On Action Resolution codification and table orientation (GM or player facing).  I mean I guess a part of this is native to me as an athlete, outdoorsperson, and martial artist my whole life.  But my experience is these sorts of people perform risk assessment and navigate obstacles in a very math-intensive way.  Everything I do physically I can give you a tight percentage spread on whether I'll be able to accomplish it or not.  If that is taken away from me and it becomes much more unbounded...man, I won't have any idea how to orient myself to any obstacle.  If I can't orient myself to an obstacle I can't decide on an approach.  If I can't decide on an approach...I can't act.  If I can't act...I can't act skillfully (yes OODA Loop again!)!

Maybe I'm just a weird though (but I know there are a LOT of other people like me)!


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't mind PbP at all, but that's not something I've a lot of with Blades/AW type games. For OSR type games where there's less back and forth about action declarations it works just fine. I'm starting a MotW PbP so we'll see how that goes. We'll probably need to adopt some posting rigour about what to include just to keep down the total number of back and forth posts.




A game that is wholly freeform would be fine with PBP.

Or a game that is basically like Gloomhaven or a Moldvay Basic Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawl (where everything is encoded and table facing and you're basically taking turns making moves within a very precise action economy).

In my experience, anything between that where the framing > orientation clarification > action declaration > action resolution > complication/cost loop requires a lot of good and clear communication?  That is where the overhead and handling time creep gets sticky!


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Let me work backwards (I'll probably miss stuff anyway).



I'll work forward. I am apparently relentlessly linear.


Manbearcat said:


> 1) By through-line I meant "a through line of Act Now Plan Later and Go Boldly Into Danger potently and consistently propels play from initating gamestate a all the way to endstate z."  Not "a coherent through line of narrative."  I'm sure your game has that!



Fair enough. I think that in any given arc, there's a throughline of causes, effects, decisions, actions, and consequences (in some order) and I think the players I'm DMing for do a really good job of propelling play and/or story.



Manbearcat said:


> 2) By pressure points I don't mean "Story Stakes/Wins/Losses."  Those are enormously important, but that isn't what I'm talking about here.  Here I'm talking about (if its Dungeon World) complications/costs that feature any/all of the above:
> 
> {snip}
> 
> Many more than that as well.  The game has dozens of Pressure Points that are extremely consequential that can be a straight up cost or an either/or decision-point for the player.  5e (and D&D broadly) just doesn't have this sort of framework of unified and diverse complications/costs that have serious teeth (both now and downstream).



What I snipped was, essentially a list of things that can be done to/taken from a PC. As a player, any possession I (or my character) didn't *earn*, I don't really care about; and there are, in principle, a bunch of conditions that could be applied to the PCs--though just doing so randomly wouldn't be kosher in 5E. And in principle a player in 5E can do things to avoid many of those losses/consequences (as build choices, and sometimes as advancement choices) which that I can tell isn't possible in Dungeon World (though some of that might be my dice).

In principle, at least, anything can have downstream consequences.


Manbearcat said:


> 3)  On Action Resolution codification and table orientation (GM or player facing).  I mean I guess a part of this is native to me as an athlete, outdoorsperson, and martial artist my whole life.  But my experience is these sorts of people perform risk assessment and navigate obstacles in a very math-intensive way.  Everything I do physically I can give you a tight percentage spread on whether I'll be able to accomplish it or not.  If that is taken away from me and it becomes much more unbounded...man, I won't have any idea how to orient myself to any obstacle.  If I can't orient myself to an obstacle I can't decide on an approach.  If I can't decide on an approach...I can't act.  If I can't act...I can't act skillfully (yes OODA Loop again!)!
> 
> Maybe I'm just a weird though (but I know there are a LOT of other people like me)!



Oh, that's not weird. Any sort of physical activity, I'll probably tell the player what the DC is--absolutely will if the PC has proficiency in a relevant skill. It's be different in a situation like "you can't know the DC to see the hiding thing" or "you can't know the DC to do this research" or "you can't know the DC to persuade this person of a thing" because there usually aren't plausible ways to know those DCs (the persuasion, I can see a way, but it's not guaranteed).


----------



## Campbell

Manbearcat said:


> A game that is wholly freeform would be fine with PBP.
> 
> Or a game that is basically like Gloomhaven or a Moldvay Basic Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawl (where everything is encoded and table facing and you're basically taking turns making moves within a very precise action economy).
> 
> In my experience, anything between that where the framing > orientation clarification > action declaration > action resolution > complication/cost loop requires a lot of good and clear communication?  That is where the overhead and handling time creep gets sticky!




I'm pretty much not a fan of Play by Post in almost any scenario. It pretty much makes maintaining any sort of appreciable sense of tension extraordinarily difficult, makes clarifying/negotiating details of the fiction damn near impossible, slows pacing down to a snail's crawl, and makes blocking (IEEE with teeth) socially difficult.

Of those the last is particularly important to me. Roleplaying (particularly RPGs) is somewhat unique in that when someone says something happens we can actually block what happens. Where we have the ability to block (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect) and procedures for doing so will vary from game to game. That "No actually" piece is incredibly important to me.

The reason this is socially difficult in Play by Post is that people get really committed to the things they write down. This is particularly true in Play by Post culture because people often write their post as if it were a piece of a novel instead of a proposition. Medium is the message I guess.

That ability to block is also a big part of what is meant by roleplaying as an act of negotiation. That when any participant including the GM says something happens there should be opening to respond.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 . Dungeon World is a different game in particular ways from Blades (some of them extremely meaningful), but there is a huge amount of overlap (as you guys know) in key ways (principles, agenda, level of myth, nature of the action resolution snowballing machinery). What do you guys think about the above and how you guys are oriented toward your own characters, each others characters, the unfolding situations/setting/story, the actual play.
> 
> Where do you guys agree with prabe and where do you differ?




I think the following bit is pretty interesting. I do feel that our Blades game, as well as those I've run, and my experiences with PbtA games, that they do tend to feel more collaborative overall than my D&D (and similar) games. I've never been in a band, but I can see understand the comparison @prabe makes below. 

And that's not to say that it's anything like conch-passing style games, but there are some elements that are more in line with than than a game like D&D would have. I mean, that's pretty much by design, so it's not really surprising....but a lot of folks don't quite realize it until they experience it.



prabe said:


> The experience most-closely tracks with college-age-me sitting in a room with friends, all of us writers, and passing around stories for 15 or 30 minutes at a time, or maybe one of the small handful of times a band I was in set out to write lyrics together. There's a lot of bouncing off each other's ideas, and a lot of curiosity about where the story will be when it gets to be time to contribute. Here, I get to say that as with a writing circle, or a band, chemistry around a gaming table matters, a helluva lot; the time passes quickly for me while we're playing, an awful lot like good band times.




I also agree about the chemistry being super important. Sometimes, that comes with time. My longstanding group has some real varied personality types and player goals in the mix. At different points in our gaming history, we've had some rough patches. But mostly, it's been solid because we've learned each others' goals and methods and expectations. Largely because we went through those rough patches, likely. 

With some folks, though, there is an immediate chemistry. I sat down at two different con games at GenCon about 8 years back. The first one was rough.....the GM and I just didn't click, and it seemed like neither did the other players, one of which was one of my friends. Nothing went smoothly in this game and everyone was asking questions and the GM was getting frustrated, and then we all were. I've had worse gaming experiences, but not a whole lot.

The second game went perfectly. It felt like we were playing with a GM who had been a part of our group for years. I give him a lot of credit as he read the room and I could tell he was adapting to the group, and he was just relaxed and easygoing and prompted every player at different points. The game went smoothly and everyone had a blast. 

I think this chemistry is even more important in the more collaborative minded games.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Aldarc said:


> The past few pages have been an enjoyable read. Thanks, @Manbearcat and @prabe.




I was just going to say that all these thoughtful posts were messing with my head.......we need some terms to define and argue about!!!


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I was just going to say that all these thoughtful posts were messing with my head.......we need some terms to define and argue about!!!



We do not need terms in order to have an argument. In this post I will


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> We do not need terms in order to have an argument. In this post I will




You will what? 

Huh? HUH???


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I was just going to say that all these thoughtful posts were messing with my head.......we need some terms to define and argue about!!!



PC Biometrics.....................................and go!


----------



## Fenris-77

Yeah, Blades isn't about passing the conch at all. When it's great, it's about everyone writing poetry about the conch at the same in an improv circle where you finish each other's sentences. The collaboration that you get in that play ennvironment might, I think, represent a different kind of immersion that the usual single POV sandbox variant.


----------



## Campbell

For me personally that feeling of being in a writer's room is something I have always tried to avoid. For me personally what I have always enjoyed about Story Now play is that by making players responsible for protagonism and GMs responsible for honest adversity we can get to a point where we all get to be an audience and like active participant while keeping the act of authorship in play to a bare minimum.

For me personally authoring is a necessary *evil *with emphasis on the evil. When we start to embrace the authorship side of things we provide like this release valve that can be used to tune the tension down. It opens the game to player side railroading which for my tastes is just as pernicious.

Not saying the writer's room experience is not a valid way to play. Just not one I tend to look for or value personally. I tend to want to ground the player's perspective as much as possible with their character. Selective use of authorship prompts can sometimes aid in this, but I try to keep it somewhat limited. A desire for bleed is part of this, but just as important from my perspective is providing an environment where players (including the GM) get to experience the unfolding narrative as audience members.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> For me personally that feeling of being in a writer's room is something I have always tried to avoid. For me personally what I have always enjoyed about Story Now play is that by making players responsible for protagonism and GMs responsible for honest adversity we can get to a point where we all get to be an audience and like active participant while keeping the act of authorship in play to a bare minimum.
> 
> For me personally authoring is a necessary *evil *with emphasis on the evil. When we start to embrace the authorship side of things we provide like this release valve that can be used to tune the tension down. It opens the game to player side railroading which for my tastes is just as pernicious.
> 
> Not saying the writer's room experience is not a valid way to play. Just not one I tend to look for or value personally. I tend to want to ground the player's perspective as much as possible with their character. Selective use of authorship prompts can sometimes aid in this, but I try to keep it somewhat limited. A desire for bleed is part of this, but just as important from my perspective is providing an environment where players (including the GM) get to experience the unfolding narrative as audience members.



I agree that I want people to be experiencing the events of the game more than consciously writing them. When I compare TRPG experiences to writing experiences, it's because those are the experiences I have to compare them to. As someone who always found writing to be an immersive experience, I obviously don't see authorship as the evil you do--though your viewpoint on that is at least as valid for you as mine is for me, and I'm entirely uninterested in talking you out of it.


----------



## Fenris-77

If my example sounded like a writers room, I apologize (and I see how you'd get there). That wasn't where I was going with that metaphor. It's more like a bunch of guys riffing on the same core stuff, each taking turns at soloing. Not really a writers rooms at all. When it's the best you can't wait for your turn because the thing you want to add is just that cool. It's a harmony, not taking turns so much.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> If my example sounded like a writers room, I apologize (and I see how you'd get there). That wasn't where I was going with that metaphor. It's more like a bunch of guys riffing on the same core stuff, each taking turns at soloing. Not really a writers rooms at all. When it's the best you can't wait for your turn because the thing you want to add is just that cool. It's a harmony, not taking turns so much.



I think your description reminds me why I keep coming back to my time in basement/garage bands as a comparison for TRPGing.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> I think your description reminds me why I keep coming back to my time in basement/garage bands as a comparison for TRPGing.



Yup, for sure. When its good anyway


----------



## Fenris-77

Fenris-77 said:


> Yup, for sure. When its good anyway



So, an example of when its good. The Blades game I'm playing in that MBC is running and @hawkeyefan is the other player. I often really have to hold my piece to talk next because I'm excited about where things are going.


----------



## Manbearcat

The reason why I don't like the comparisons to jazz et al is because there is intense structure, boundaries, constraints, encoded rules in what we're doing.  

I don't know enough about jazz, but it seems much more akin to Unstructured Freeform TTRPGing than Structured (and very rules-and-roles-binding) Freeform in Story Now TTRPGing.

I totally get the comparison because of the "Ask Questions and Use the Answers" aspect of play is pervasive (well south of omnipresent, but its pervasive enough).  But while I'm GMing, the structure of play is sitting in my brain constantly, occupying a not-insignificant part of my mental bandwidth.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> The reason why I don't like the comparisons to jazz et al is because there is intense structure, boundaries, constraints, encoded rules in what we're doing.
> 
> I don't know enough about jazz, but it seems much more akin to Unstructured Freeform TTRPGing than Structured (and very rules-and-roles-binding) Freeform in Story Now TTRPGing.
> 
> I totally get the comparison because of the "Ask Questions and Use the Answers" aspect of play is pervasive (well south of omnipresent, but its pervasive enough).  But while I'm GMing, the structure of play is sitting in my brain constantly, occupying a not-insignificant part of my mental bandwidth.



In my experience ...

Writing songs with more-or-less pop structure is ... intensely structured and constrained. It's not writing sonnets or villanelles, but there are strong, tight limitations. The process of finding the music that goes into those songs is ... often more free than that.

The above holds as true for composing with others as it does for composing alone.


----------



## Manbearcat

Honestly, I can't think of an experience that it reminds me of.  You know what.  

It actually may remind me of rolling with a Blue Belt who I'm better than in all ways but he has a decent bottom game with a good guard and one reliable sweep.  I'm testing him, he's testing me.  But I'm the primary facilitator of what is happening, and he's got enough surprises that I'm on my toes and curious about what is going on next.

And we're both very cognizant of the constraints at play here (because neither of us want to hurt the other person or get hurt while we're sparring).

That is probably what it reminds me of.  Its a creative dance but its absolutely structured and constrained and one party is the primary facilitator of the action.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> In my experience ...
> 
> Writing songs with more-or-less pop structure is ... intensely structured and constrained. It's not writing sonnets or villanelles, but there are strong, tight limitations. The process of finding the music that goes into those songs is ... often more free than that.
> 
> The above holds as true for composing with others as it does for composing alone.




Then that sounds entirely applicable.  What you're talking about I'm entirely ignorant on, but it definitely sounds apt.

I was just bringing up the Freeform Jazz angle (of which I'm nearly equally ignorant on to what you're talking about)!  I understand the sentiment, but my understanding of it is (a) the collective energy is similar to what is happening at a Story Now game but (b) the lack of constraints/structure is particularly different (but, again, I'm willing to concede that I have no idea what I'm talking about here and that Freeform Jazz is actually much more constrained and structured than I know!).


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Then that sounds entirely applicable.  What you're talking about I'm entirely ignorant on, but it definitely sounds apt.
> 
> I was just bringing up the Freeform Jazz angle (of which I'm nearly equally ignorant on to what you're talking about)!  I understand the sentiment, but my understanding of it is (a) the collective energy is similar to what is happening at a Story Now game but (b) the lack of constraints/structure is particularly different (but, again, I'm willing to concede that I have no idea what I'm talking about here and that Freeform Jazz is actually much more constrained and structured than I know!).



I was never a jazz musician, but my understanding is that there's more structure to even the "freest" jazz than it might look like.


----------



## Fenris-77

The music comparison only goes so far. At the surface level I think it has something to say, perhaps, but it falls apart when you push it too hard. Some games are like jazz, where everyone has the central idea and everyone is riffing and playing off that. If you push that simile any farther it falls apart, but that doesn't make it less apt.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> The music comparison only goes so far. At the surface level I think it has something to say, perhaps, but it falls apart when you push it too hard. Some games are like jazz, where everyone has the central idea and everyone is riffing and playing off that. If you push that simile any farther it falls apart, but that doesn't make it less apt.



I think any metaphor comparing one experience to another is likely to fall apart under close examination and/or differ among people. Creative-type experiences aren't really any different.


----------



## Aldarc

prabe said:


> I was never a jazz musician, but my understanding is that there's more structure to even the "freest" jazz than it might look like.



Improv may be an important element of jazz, but there are still jazz standards. Jazz improv often happens within bounds and constrains set by the piece.


----------



## darkbard

Manbearcat said:


> That is a really thoughtful, interesting and circumnavigated response.
> 
> I'm glad we got these thoughts down now.  I'll be interested in revisiting them in a little bit of time as things get more intense and complex (in terms of stakes and the consequential downstream effects of one approach to a situation or a string of situations vs another).  We're not in "tutorial" mode, but we're definitely just "warming up the engine" for the drag race to come.
> 
> Thanks for this response.  I'd be curious what your wife (I know that is weird for me to say that, but I'm not going to name drop her) thinks in comparison to her experience with other systems.
> 
> @darkbard , what do you think about the above (you obviously have a TON of experience with Dungeon World at this point as we're probably 20 sessions in or something?) thoughts from prabe.  What do you guys think about the above and how you guys are oriented toward your own characters, each others characters, the unfolding situations/setting/story, the actual play.
> 
> @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 .  Dungeon World is a different game in particular ways from Blades (some of them extremely meaningful), but there is a huge amount of overlap (as you guys know) in key ways (principles, agenda, level of myth, nature of the action resolution snowballing machinery).  What do you guys think about the above and how you guys are oriented toward your own characters, each others characters, the unfolding situations/setting/story, the actual play.
> 
> Where do you guys agree with prabe and where do you differ?




Been a moment, but I have some time to set down some scattered thoughts in response. 

First off, I have to note that character immersion is not a high priority for me and, like @prabe, I don't think it's ever really been a part of my RPG experience. That said, immersion in story _is_ a high priority, and I think our game propels us perpetually forward into the emerging fiction. Further, I would go so far as to say that our (seemingly everexpanding) cast of NPC characters as part of "the party" (however fraught that term seems to me) is crucial to immersion in/inhabitation of story (as we discussed in another recent thread). It's not just that I want to watch as gameplay develops out of Alastor's actions and their consequences, but I also want to observe how these affect his protege, Rose, for example, and shape the story we imagine revolving around her.

For me, the play process has been much more of leading and following Alastor than being immersed in or inhabiting the character. This is probably quite noticeable as I almost always speak in third person during our sessions, only occasionally speaking directly from Alastor's perspective. (Aside: I don't think person is necessarily equivalent to where inhabitation lies, but it might as well be for me.)

Immersion in story very much comes about by both (1) play principles and agenda, like (a) the GM asking questions and using the answers and (b) filling the characters' lives with adventure and (2) mechanical resolution, where the tension built before the dice determine resolution is more substantial, in my estimation, than the d20 model and its probabilistic and often binary outcomes (I know there are systems that complicate the latter, but those aren't within my personal experience). There are no dull moments in this game! And the snowballing effect of the resolution system ensures that.

My wife has a useful example of how this inhabitation of story helped immerse her in Maraqli's character in the scene of the excavation site of the dragon well. When her wand surged with electrical feedback and ricocheted down the well, she felt the story required Maraqli jump down after it (using the Stormrider aspect of a custom spell Storm Aura), and thus she inhabited Maraqli's impetuosity in the moment, following the story as it demanded her action.

In another vein, my wife has another useful insight into how those who advocate for "in character viewpoint" only might view our game: they might have the perception that her character, at least, is inconsistent (a charge we see plenty of posters level at Story Now gaming broadly) but that on a deeper level the process of "ask questions and build on the answers" has helped her understand Maraqli in ways she didn't earlier in play, that these seeming-inconsistencies are actually more reflective of the Whitmanesque "multitudes" of human complexity. As a specific example of this,  Maraqli from the beginning has been depicted as a bookish and insular (in terms of focusing on study and theory as opposed to the more tangible aspects of the physical and natural world) arcane scholar. But when you and she had some back-and-forth about the nature of the mad dryad's primal and elemental magic, Maraqli discovered (perhaps seeing something of herself in this feminine figure) how turning to Druidic magic can help heal the fraying fabric of the arcane Tapestry that subtends the world. Mechanically, she has taken Expanded Spellbook as an advanced move, but more importantly my wife has learned something new about Maraqli: that she too is connected to the primal powers of the earth (with, perhaps, all the tropes of Great Mother that play out in one of our underlying themes of Girl Power, aka Sisterhood of Vengeance).

Returning to me, I think the priority of immersion in setting has allowed me to shape the PC of Alastor as a legitimate mentor figure to the NPC Rose. By allowing the thread of fostering Rose to become central to play, genuine immersion in a sense of powerlessness to protect her, as when we just faced the ancient blue wyrm Avorandox, rise up in play. And, though we spoke about this "in person" in the post mortem last session, this bears repeating here: If Rose's last Volley against the dragon had struck true, the beast would not have escaped us, and the characters' goals in the scene would have been successfully completed. But the fact she missed led to a much more satisfying situation, for the tension is drawn out, we must lick our wounds quickly and pursue the dragon, and the lack of resolution in the moment feels (oxymoronically) more satisfying and cinematic. Were we "immersed" only in character, I don't think this response would be possible.


----------



## darkbard

prabe said:


> There might be a sense there wasn't much of a way to make much difference to your character's success in the build process. There might be a feeling there wasn't much in the way of tactical choice mattering. There might be the thought that the things that emerge in the story are emerging at the whim of the dice (especially after someone earns 3 XP within 7 minutes of play) and not out of any putatively objective sense of action-consequence--especially not as the result/s of character choice/s.




Because of your rhetorical framing, I can't tell if these are suspicions you yourself entertain or whether you are speculating about outside observers here. Regardless, I'm curious to find out how you feel once your characters advance to fifth, sixth level or so and have an opportunity to see more advanced moves in play, particularly  at the cost of the hard choices of taking some moves over others. I have definitely found that my opinion before playing DW that the mechanics of character build are almost besides the point to the fiction or unimpactful was unfounded, for example.


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> Been a moment, but I have some time to set down some scattered thoughts in response.
> 
> First off, I have to note that character immersion is not a high priority for me and, like @prabe, I don't think it's ever really been a part of my RPG experience. That said, immersion in story _is_ a high priority, and I think our game propels us perpetually forward into the emerging fiction. Further, I would go so far as to say that our (seemingly everexpanding) cast of NPC characters as part of "the party" (however fraught that term seems to me) is crucial to immersion in/inhabitation of story (as we discussed in another recent thread). It's not just that I want to watch as gameplay develops out of Alastor's actions and their consequences, but I also want to observe how these affect his protege, Rose, for example, and shape the story we imagine revolving around her.
> 
> For me, the play process has been much more of leading and following Alastor than being immersed in or inhabiting the character. This is probably quite noticeable as I almost always speak in third person during our sessions, only occasionally speaking directly from Alastor's perspective. (Aside: I don't think person is necessarily equivalent to where inhabitation lies, but it might as well be for me.)
> 
> Immersion in story very much comes about by both (1) play principles and agenda, like (a) the GM asking questions and using the answers and (b) filling the characters' lives with adventure and (2) mechanical resolution, where the tension built before the dice determine resolution is more substantial, in my estimation, than the d20 model and its probabilistic and often binary outcomes (I know there are systems that complicate the latter, but those aren't within my personal experience). There are no dull moments in this game! And the snowballing effect of the resolution system ensures that.
> 
> My wife has a useful example of how this inhabitation of story helped immerse her in Maraqli's character in the scene of the excavation site of the dragon well. When her wand surged with electrical feedback and ricocheted down the well, she felt the story required Maraqli jump down after it (using the Stormrider aspect of a custom spell Storm Aura), and thus she inhabited Maraqli's impetuosity in the moment, following the story as it demanded her action.
> 
> In another vein, my wife has another useful insight into how those who advocate for "in character viewpoint" only might view our game: they might have the perception that her character, at least, is inconsistent (a charge we see plenty of posters level at Story Now gaming broadly) but that on a deeper level the process of "ask questions and build on the answers" has helped her understand Maraqli in ways she didn't earlier in play, that these seeming-inconsistencies are actually more reflective of the Whitmanesque "multitudes" of human complexity. As a specific example of this,  Maraqli from the beginning has been depicted as a bookish and insular (in terms of focusing on study and theory as opposed to the more tangible aspects of the physical and natural world) arcane scholar. But when you and she had some back-and-forth about the nature of the mad dryad's primal and elemental magic, Maraqli discovered (perhaps seeing something of herself in this feminine figure) how turning to Druidic magic can help heal the fraying fabric of the arcane Tapestry that subtends the world. Mechanically, she has taken Expanded Spellbook as an advanced move, but more importantly my wife has learned something new about Maraqli: that she too is connected to the primal powers of the earth (with, perhaps, all the tropes of Great Mother that play out in one of our underlying themes of Girl Power, aka Sisterhood of Vengeance).
> 
> Returning to me, I think the priority of immersion in setting has allowed me to shape the PC of Alastor as a legitimate mentor figure to the NPC Rose. By allowing the thread of fostering Rose to become central to play, genuine immersion in a sense of powerlessness to protect her, as when we just faced the ancient blue wyrm Avorandox, rise up in play. And, though we spoke about this "in person" in the post mortem last session, this bears repeating here: If Rose's last Volley against the dragon had struck true, the beast would not have escaped us, and the characters' goals in the scene would have been successfully completed. But the fact she missed led to a much more satisfying situation, for the tension is drawn out, we must lick our wounds quickly and pursue the dragon, and the lack of resolution in the moment feels (oxymoronically) more satisfying and cinematic. Were we "immersed" only in character, I don't think this response would be possible.




Just want to quote this and say I'd give 20 * the xp if I could.  

This is the kind of response that should be bookmarked for these types of threads so people can reference it easily.  So much of this insight/explanation is apt to dozens of discussions we have around these issues.

I hope participants in this thread (and those who are viewing but not commenting) really look at this, read it twice, and digest what was said (particularly the last two paragraphs).


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> Because of your rhetorical framing, I can't tell if these are suspicions you yourself entertain or whether you are speculating about outside observers here. Regardless, I'm curious to find out how you feel once your characters advance to fifth, sixth level or so and have an opportunity to see more advanced moves in play, particularly  at the cost of the hard choices of taking some moves over others. I have definitely found that my opinion before playing DW that the mechanics of character build are almost besides the point to the fiction or unimpactful was unfounded, for example.




I think this is very apt.

It takes a fair bit of playing DW to understand the implications of move x made vs move y made (and the amplifying effects on situation and setting of a configuration of moves and resolution made vs another set).  Same thing for build choice.  The first order effects and downstream effects are extreme and only get noticed after a certain level of exposure and post-mortem digestion of what has transpired.  

Its certainly not clear from just reading the text (and likely not clear from just a few sessions of play because the paradigm is so different from standard D&D).


----------



## darkbard

Manbearcat said:


> Not sure!
> 
> Maybe @darkbard has some insight into how strict/not-strict he feels I am about fictional positioning > moves triggered in DW.  If he has an example where he felt I was particularly lenient, particularly strict, or just about right may help anchor the conversation!



This is a tough thing to peg down! I mean, one of the great strengths of Story Now gaming is following the fiction in the moment, and if a player paints a compelling picture for fictional positioning, wouldn't anything less than permissive adjudication run counter to the game's principles? Further, the ultimate outcome is offloaded onto the mechanics, so that constrains player advocacy. I think this is one of the beauties of Blades: player decides which attribute is at play, and negotiations set the position and effect.

That said, Alastor the Paladin hardly ever rolls DEX checks. And I like it that way!  (Note: this does not lead to any great degree of success at his action declarations, as his accumulating pile of XPs bears witness.)


----------



## prabe

darkbard said:


> Because of your rhetorical framing, I can't tell if these are suspicions you yourself entertain or whether you are speculating about outside observers here.



Would you believe both? I am genuinely not slagging on the game--my wife and I are enjoying the hell out of the campaign, and I more or less understand why the game works the way it does. (And my enjoyment of the campaign hasn't resolved my deep ambivalence about the game.)


darkbard said:


> Regardless, I'm curious to find out how you feel once your characters advance to fifth, sixth level or so and have an opportunity to see more advanced moves in play, particularly  at the cost of the hard choices of taking some moves over others. I have definitely found that my opinion before playing DW that the mechanics of character build are almost besides the point to the fiction or unimpactful was unfounded, for example.



I'm curious myself. Among other things, I'm curious to see if our characters will survive that long, considering the way dice (mal)function in this house. As far as advancing my character, I'm just sorta going with "the best defense is a good offense" unless something else makes more sense in the narrative.


----------



## Manbearcat

darkbard said:


> This is a tough thing to peg down! I mean, one of the great strengths of Story Now gaming is following the fiction in the moment, and if a player paints a compelling picture for fictional positioning, wouldn't anything less than permissive adjudication run counter to the game's principles? Further, the ultimate outcome is offloaded onto the mechanics, so that constrains player advocacy. I think this is one of the beauties of Blades: player decides which attribute is at play, and negotiations set the position and effect.
> 
> That said, Alastor the Paladin hardly ever rolls DEX checks. And I like it that way!  (Note: this does not lead to any great degree of success at his action declarations, as his accumulating pile of XPs bears witness.)




On this, two thoughts:

1)  I absolutely agree that "how you Defy Danger" is essential to carving out and differentiating thematic archetype in a game like Dungeon World; eg tough/strong Paladins with shields are going to be Defying Danger Con (taking the blow and enduring) when dealing with sword/hammer blows or breath weapons or AoE attacks coming at them from the x axis and will be Defying Danger Strength (powering through/deploying force head on) when dealing with a grapple/overrun/tackle attempt/effect by an opponent/obstacle while the deft + technical + guileful duelist is going to be DDing Dex and Int.

2)  However, there will be rare cases that don't afford them that kind of thematic differentiation; eg they'll be dealing with extreme cold with Defy Danger Con (or perhaps Wisdom for mind over matter) and cave-ins (like last game) with Defy Danger Dex (because you have to get the hell out of the way..."enduring" doesn't do much good in dealing with a cave-in because now you're buried!).


----------



## darkbard

prabe said:


> Would you believe both? I am genuinely not slagging on the game--my wife and I are enjoying the hell out of the campaign, and I more or less understand why the game works the way it does. (And my enoyment of the campaign hasn't resolved my deep ambivalence about the game.)




I would! And I certainly haven't thought you're slagging on your game with @Manbearcat. What's more, I do believe you can enjoy it thoroughly and yet still hold some ambivalence. Again, I will be interested to see how you feel after another half dozen sessions or so....


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> What there has been (for me, my wife may be having a different experience; I haven't spoken to her about this) is immersion into story. I wouldn't say it's been constant, but for me immersion into story roughly never is constant, in roughly any medium--so that's me, not you or the game.
> 
> The experience most-closely tracks with college-age-me sitting in a room with friends, all of us writers, and passing around stories for 15 or 30 minutes at a time, or maybe one of the small handful of times a band I was in set out to write lyrics together. There's a lot of bouncing off each other's ideas, and a lot of curiosity about where the story will be when it gets to be time to contribute.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion some of the people in this thread would see it as not too much different from "passing the conch." There might be a sense there wasn't much of a way to make much difference to your character's success in the build process. There might be a feeling there wasn't much in the way of tactical choice mattering. There might be the thought that the things that emerge in the story are emerging at the whim of the dice (especially after someone earns 3 XP within 7 minutes of play) and not out of any putatively objective sense of action-consequence--especially not as the result/s of character choice/s.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The decision to describe defeating a spirit as it being pulled into the sword (because that seemed ... cool); the decision to describe throwing off a later possession as involving using the sword to cut myself; the decision (at character advancement) to take the Heirloom move, instead of my more-typical kill-things-more-quickly approach. It wouldn't have worked without the GM's decision that "downloading" the Old Speech from the sword was a plausible use of the move. The decision to go intimidating there was the situation in-game cutting across the player's sense of fairness, in a way that landed more negatively on people mostly like Toru--people who had already lost roughly everything.





Campbell said:


> Traditional skilled play of the fiction is fairly important to me, even when it comes to Story Now play. I think it's a big part of my preference for games with more open ended (snowballing) resolution and a decent amount of prepared scenario design over no myth play. I suspect I am probably a more strict referee than Manbearcat when it comes to running Dungeon World





Campbell said:


> when it comes to Dungeon World / Freebooters I tend to be pretty strict about the fictional positioning required for moves. It's been awhile since we played together though so I cannot be sure, but I find I have a stronger referee bent than most GMs I have played under when it comes to Dungeon World.





Campbell said:


> I think skilled play of the fiction does not necessarily have to rely strongly on geography and physical space. I think what you prep is just as important as how much you prep. When leaving the dungeon behind we can continue to focus on physical space, how well fortified a particular area is, and other such concerns. That definitely benefits from less myth because trying to navigate those sorts of questions beyond a narrowly confined physical space is untenable as the physical space we care about increases. My own games feature less of a focus on those sorts of details.
> 
> My favored approach is more what Paul Czege calls a social crawl. Prep looks a lot like the scenario design in Blades in the Dark, town creation in Dogs in the Vineyard, fronts in Apocalypse World and the Sorcerer NPC/location venn diagram thing. A lot of focus on competing factions, NPC agendas, obstacles between PCs and their goals.





Campbell said:


> For me personally that feeling of being in a writer's room is something I have always tried to avoid. For me personally what I have always enjoyed about Story Now play is that by making players responsible for protagonism and GMs responsible for honest adversity we can get to a point where we all get to be an audience and like active participant while keeping the act of authorship in play to a bare minimum.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When we start to embrace the authorship side of things we provide like this release valve that can be used to tune the tension down.



Campbell's posts here spoke quite strongly to me.

I think that by Campbell's standards I am probably not a strict referee in my adjudication of fictional positioning, I have felt this particularly in my GMIng of Cortex+ Heroic - I think I may have begun with too relaxed an approach and then it becomes hard to tighten it up. In Traveller I think I've done a better job - perhaps because the system encourages a bit more of the traditional allocation of roles/responsibilities to players and referee as participants. My Burning Wheel GM is good in this respect (ie strict on fictional positioning)!

I agree that authorship - by which I think @Campbell means _directly deciding outcomes_ rather than _relying on the resolution processes _- defuses tension and makes things easier. This is why I like the BW approach of having Circles and Wises checks be standard action resolution: the player gets to put forward a "suggestion" but if it matters (if there are genuine stakes relative to the PC's agenda) then a difficulty is set and the check is resolved and the player can learn that things are different from how s/he would have hoped them to be.

I'm not 100% sure what is meant be _inhabiting the story_ (cf inhabitation of one's _character_) but I think forcing things through the process of action resolution is a way of making the situation more vivid from the in-character perspective. I don't play much (cf GMing) but again am reminded of my BW game where the GM was trying to force me into a duel of wits with my mother - in which she would try and persuade me to give up my errantry and stay with her on our estate - and I sidestepped by praying to lift the burdens from her. When the dice for prayer were being rolled my heart was in my mouth. If it had failed I would have felt a little bit broken, like my character!

EDIT on this point: most of the prep for this had been done by _me_, as part of my PC building. The GM didn't have to do much in advance. What he did have to do - and what he did - was to bring my prep to bear on me via my character.



prabe said:


> I am not convinced that success-with-complication helps if one wants heroic play.



If "heroic" means something in the neighbourhood of "power fantasy" then I would agree. But I think it is compatible with playing a character who feels like someone committed to heroic goals. _Complications _don't need to be narrated in such a way as to present the character as a loser, or the universe as fundamentally indifferent or even hostile to him/her.


----------



## Emerikol

I do think it is interesting that some acts in Story Now would be viewed as practically cheating in my own style of gaming.  I imagine the same would be true in reverse.  The social compact is just entirely different.


----------



## prabe

I think maybe my comparison to experiences that were pretty explicitly authoring ones--both the collaborative writing exercise, and the experience of making music with others--may have let people to focus on the authorship aspects, when what I was thinking of was more the collaborative parts of those experiences.


pemerton said:


> If "heroic" means something in the neighbourhood of "power fantasy" then I would agree. But I think it is compatible with playing a character who feels like someone committed to heroic goals. _Complications _don't need to be narrated in such a way as to present the character as a loser, or the universe as fundamentally indifferent or even hostile to him/her.



My (very scant) experience with DW has done little to persuade me that persistent partial success feels heroic. Obviously, different people will feel differently about that.


----------



## Maxperson

@pemerton 

Were you planning on responding to this?









						What is the point of GM's notes?
					

I run a D&D sandbox game. With regards to finding keys in the pocket of the guards The methods I commonly use are say yes or roll a skill check or just make a luck roll (odds or evens, above 10). There are ofcourse situations where I may say no to something, for instance if I'm using a map and...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> My (very scant) experience with DW has done little to persuade me that persistent partial success feels heroic. Obviously, different people will feel differently about that.



If you ever roll 7-9s, you'll start collecting sufficient data to know how you feel one way or another!   

Your ability to roll either 6 or less or 10 + is absolutely extraordinary!  In a game that reliably produces a bell curve of results, somehow you've managed to pull off the ultra-rare inverted bell curve!

In all seriousness though, these are the ones off the top of my head for your character.  Any of them beyond these that stick out to you?

* Climb down a 100 ft vertical face.   You get halfway down and your route narrows you to a dangerous, shallow ledge where you're faced with a decision-point of either a more difficult way down in the now sprinkling rain (where you aren't DDing- Strength) or a huge leap into a cave of unknown nature origin/nature adjacent to you.  Its basically a decision-point of "do you want to take to assume the risk of the unknown in trade for the mathematically strong option or do you want to assume the risk of the known with the return of being where you want to be (at the bottom) for the less mathematically strong option."  That sort of answer will tell you/us something about your character.

* An Aid for Discern Realities where you'd be eating the complication if there was one (didn't end up being one).

* A grapple escape in the swamp (this was either Shambler or Dire Croc...don't recall).  This one ended up costing you 2 ruined Rations as you scrambled free, out of trouble in the water, and onto the tiny bit of land.

* The climb down from the steep lip of the watering hole to wade into the reservoir and pick the Bloodwart.  I activated the two Dire Crocs to move toward you for a predation attempt as a result.

* The aforementioned Heirloom weapon move where you consulted your spirits for one of them to help you be proficient with the Ancient Speech.  They did and now its on you to make it useful (you did with a follow-up move that won the social conflict).

Those 5 are the ones that come to mind.  Is there one that I missed or one that particularly stands out?

The only other thing I can recall is a 10+ Hack and Slash that you decided to take the extra d6 damage in return for a counterattack (effectively turning it into a 7-9 for more damage) and you somehow managed to a 1 on a 1d10 and a 1 on your 1d6 and get absolutely nothing done!  Which, by the way, outside of fighting like an Ancient Dragon...this is maybe the 3rd time in all my DW GMing I've seen a Fighter "push" on a 10+ Hack and Slash not yield a kill!  Again, extraordinary!

What sticks out for me (with your character) is an deranged abundance of 6- and bad damage rolls.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I do think it is interesting that some acts in Story Now would be viewed as practically cheating in my own style of gaming.  I imagine the same would be true in reverse.  The social compact is just entirely different.




Another way you might put the above is this:

* In some (not all) Story Now play, these game engines are going to feature powerful player content generation + action resolution capability (see Blades' Flashbacks) that allows them to reframe a situation (not to retcon an outcome, but to add something advantageous to the situation).  This is gives everyone a subtler, less beefy form of the kind of apex Wizard/Cleric spells we're used to in D&D (Fly, Teleport, Divinations, Raise Dead, etc).  In some (not all) Story Now play, these game engines are going to feature powerful player fiat abilities that do effectively let them retcon a moment (Immediate Interrupts in 4e).  In some (not all) Story Now play, "ask questions and use the answers" is a primary principle of GMing whereby the 7-9 result of Spout Lore in DW (the GM will tell you something interesting...its on you to make it useful) is uniformly operationalized except in reverse (the player will tell the table something interesting...its now on the GM and all the other participants, including the initiating player themselves) to make it it useful.

* In Trad and Neo-Trad D&D, the GM's mandate to curate content and oblige either their own (the GM's) conception or a player's conception of "the story" can (not will, but can) manifest in GM Force (the subversion of the system's volition or a non-GM participant's volition when it comes to inputs into the fiction or outputs of action resolution that would change the fiction/gamestate in a way that is perceived as retrograde by the GM).


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Another way you might put the above is this:
> 
> * In some (not all) Story Now play, these game engines are going to feature powerful player content generation + action resolution capability (see Blades' Flashbacks) that allows them to reframe a situation (not to retcon an outcome, but to add something advantageous to the situation).  This is gives everyone a subtler, less beefy form of the kind of apex Wizard/Cleric spells we're used to in D&D (Fly, Teleport, Divinations, Raise Dead, etc).  In some (not all) Story Now play, these game engines are going to feature powerful player fiat abilities that do effectively let them retcon a moment (Immediate Interrupts in 4e).  In some (not all) Story Now play, "ask questions and use the answers" is a primary principle of GMing whereby the 7-9 result of Spout Lore in DW (the GM will tell you something interesting...its on you to make it useful) is uniformly operationalized except in reverse (the player will tell the table something interesting...its now on the GM and all the other participants, including the initiating player themselves) to make it it useful.
> 
> * In Trad and Neo-Trad D&D, the GM's mandate to curate content and oblige either their own (the GM's) conception or a player's conception of "the story" can (not will, but can) manifest in GM Force (the subversion of the system's volition or a non-GM participant's volition when it comes to inputs into the fiction or outputs of action resolution that would change the fiction/gamestate in a way that is perceived as retrograde by the GM).



I guess we can see which explanation seems the easiest to grasp ;-).    

I was mainly thinking about that moment when a PC said they'd earlier poured oil into the area so the fireball had a greater effect.  That may have been in the Blades thread or one like it.   In my game, that would be frowned upon because such maneuvers would go against the whole notion of skilled play.  If you wanted oil under the guy you should have piped up at that time and not waited until the fireball was being cast and then retconned it.   So in my game that would be borderline cheating to even propose the idea.   Whereas, I think it would not in the Story Now approach.  There can be skill I'm sure in Story Now but I don't think it is skill at making character decisions to win against enemies.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I guess we can see which explanation seems the easiest to grasp ;-).
> 
> I was mainly thinking about that moment when a PC said they'd earlier poured oil into the area so the fireball had a greater effect.  That may have been in the Blades thread or one like it.   In my game, that would be frowned upon because such maneuvers would go against the whole notion of skilled play.  If you wanted oil under the guy you should have piped up at that time and not waited until the fireball was being cast and then retconned it.   So in my game that would be borderline cheating to even propose the idea.   Whereas, I think it would not in the Story Now approach.  There can be skill I'm sure in Story Now but I don't think it is skill at making character decisions to win against enemies.




Yup, that is exactly what I wrote above; "A Flashback."

Its an interesting contrast you're drawing here.  Not only is it "not cheating" in Blades it is actually the "Skillful Play" application of "Act Now, Plan Later"; a Blades in the Dark imperative (for genre and Skilled Play).

The Blades player is playing skillfully because they're making both a tactical and strategic decision using the vehicles of (a) action resolution machinery + (b) fictional positioning manipulation.  They're risking (c) the situation going from dangerous to worse (if an Action Roll is required it could bring about a new Complication of varying dastardliness) and (d) putting up a resource (Stress) which could cost them later (both the (c) and the (d) here). 

This is thematic + tactical + strategic play in Blades.  This is Skilled Play in Blades in the Dark.  

The reason why you're feeling it is cheating is something I brought up above (or perhaps in another thread).  "Act Now Plan Later" is anathema to Classic D&D.  Its quite literally the first hurdle exclusive Classic D&D players have to overcome when playing a game like Blades; their conception that the only kind of Skilled Play is "Plan Now so you don't have to Act Later or so that your Act Later is at considerably reduced risk."


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> The reason why you're feeling it is cheating is something I brought up above (or perhaps in another thread).  "Act Now Plan Later" is anathema to Classic D&D.  Its quite literally the first hurdle exclusive Classic D&D players have to overcome when playing a game like Blades; their conception that the only kind of Skilled Play is "Plan Now so you don't have to Act Later or so that your Act Later is at considerably reduced risk."



Well I think we are violently agreeing for the most part.

Don't you agree though that if you really were the character living in the fantasy world that my sort of planning is what would really happen?  We can't retcon the past in real life.   So players of my style are seeking that character viewpoint decision process.   That does not by an means imply your approach cannot be fun but it very much is a synthesis of a lot more than just character decision making.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> Well I think we are violently agreeing for the most part.
> 
> Don't you agree though that if you really were the character living in the fantasy world that my sort of planning is what would really happen?  We can't retcon the past in real life.   So players of my style are seeking that character viewpoint decision process.   That does not by an means imply your approach cannot be fun but it very much is a synthesis of a lot more than just character decision making.




I don’t think we’re agreeing or disagreeing (violent or otherwise)!

When you framed things around “cheating” I inferred you were talking about Skilled Play as a priority (eg deploying flashbacks would be “cheating” or “not playing skillfully” at your table in whatever game you’re referring to; which appears to be done instantiation of Classic Skilled Play D&D).

But given your response above, it looks like you meant “cheating” as in “cheating the implacable continuity of time as a person would experience it.” Or something like that usage of “cheating?”


----------



## Fenris-77

Cheating death! Cheating on your taxes!! Skipping leg day!!!


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> I don’t think we’re agreeing or disagreeing (violent or otherwise)!
> 
> When you framed things around “cheating” I inferred you were talking about Skilled Play as a priority (eg deploying flashbacks would be “cheating” or “not playing skillfully” at your table in whatever game you’re referring to; which appears to be done instantiation of Classic Skilled Play D&D).
> 
> But given your response above, it looks like you meant “cheating” as in “cheating the implacable continuity of time as a person would experience it.” Or something like that usage of “cheating?”



Well "feels like cheating" of course.  I wasn't making a moral judgment on anyone.  

And again that is according to the accepted social contract of the game.  For example one such accepted thing in my games would be that PCs do not invent new "fiction" outside of the actions of their characters.  That would absolutely not be an issue in a Story Now game.  In fact the social contract would be that players are expected to do exactly that.

So if the premise as you say is skilled play and mine is always including that element, then sure you can't allow a retcon to solve poor earlier choices.   In Story Now, I don't want to say there is no skill involved but it is a different sort of skill.  There is likely skill at coming up with the retconned explanation.  I just think when I talk about skilled play I don't mean that.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> If you ever roll 7-9s, you'll start collecting sufficient data to know how you feel one way or another!
> 
> Your ability to roll either 6 or less or 10 + is absolutely extraordinary!  In a game that reliably produces a bell curve of results, somehow you've managed to pull off the ultra-rare inverted bell curve!



I tried to warn you. Dice behave strangely around me. More so if I'm the one rolling.


Manbearcat said:


> In all seriousness though, these are the ones off the top of my head for your character.  Any of them beyond these that stick out to you?



I don't remember much else, no. I have to say the game is roughly performing the way I expected it to--but then, I know how random behaves around me. I've rolled a handful of d20s (resolving multiple attacks as a DM) and had results in the same combat of four nat-1s, and 3 nat-20s.


Manbearcat said:


> What sticks out for me (with your character) is an deranged abundance of 6- and bad damage rolls.



Yeah. In some systems, it'd be possible to build a character who was less dependent on dice (or more resilient to bad results). Or, failing that, to sometimes fall back on actions that weren't dice-dependent. Dungeon World is not one of either type of system, that I can tell.


----------



## Campbell

I think it's a mistake to assume skilled play must look a certain way in all games. Skilled play of the fiction looks different in Blades than it does in Classic D&D thanks to its nonlinear elements, but it's still a very high design priority. The skills involved are just different.


----------



## Rob Kuntz

Well, to be light-hearted in response to the original Q. If after 143 pages of back-n-forth then I would guess that the two inevitable answers would either be 1) None; or 2) So many that it doesn't matter.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Well I think we are violently agreeing for the most part.
> 
> Don't you agree though that if you really were the character living in the fantasy world that my sort of planning is what would really happen?  We can't retcon the past in real life.   So players of my style are seeking that character viewpoint decision process.   That does not by an means imply your approach cannot be fun but it very much is a synthesis of a lot more than just character decision making.




There are two ways to look at this. 

In a linear perspective, where the player and the character both experience the events of the game in the same linear order, and can both interact with it in the same interactive order. This is the way you seem to be viewing it. And I would say that I see why. 

But how accurate is it? It seems to assume that the player has every opportunity that the character would have. It seems to assume that the player is as free to roam about and interact with the environment, unprompted by the GM, as freely as the character. And that the player is as aware as a native of that world as to what they can and can't do. 

But that's not really the case. 

So another way to look at it is to recognize that at times, we jump passed some periods of time. When Blades allows a player to Flashback, it's not time travel, it's a filling in of some of that time that was jumped passed. It's allowing the character to be a part of the world in a different way, that's not limited by the GM-Player dynamic. 

So is the linearity of time as important to me as a character who seems like a (in the case of Blades) competent and connected criminal with means at his disposal and the foresight to make appropriate plans.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> @pemerton
> 
> Were you planning on responding to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of GM's notes?
> 
> 
> I run a D&D sandbox game. With regards to finding keys in the pocket of the guards The methods I commonly use are say yes or roll a skill check or just make a luck roll (odds or evens, above 10). There are ofcourse situations where I may say no to something, for instance if I'm using a map and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



I didn't think it needed much response.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Don't you agree though that if you really were the character living in the fantasy world that my sort of planning is what would really happen?  We can't retcon the past in real life.



I don't have much to add to what @hawkeyefan said. But I thought I would paste this extract from Gygax's DMG (p 20), about the thief's Read Languages ability:

This ability assumes that the language is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable. Even if able to read a language, the thief should be allowed only to get about that percentage of the meaning of what is written as his or her percentage ability to read the tongue in the first place. The rest they will hove to guess at. Languages which are relatively close to those known by the thief will not incur such a penalty.​
Gygax realised that it's not feasible to specify every past moment of a character's life and training. The BitD flashback mechanic sits in that same space of realisation. The only question is at what point do we insist on the linearity of play coinciding with the linearity of the passage of time in the fiction?


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> In some systems, it'd be possible to build a character who was less dependent on dice (or more resilient to bad results). Or, failing that, to sometimes fall back on actions that weren't dice-dependent. Dungeon World is not one of either type of system, that I can tell.



Nor is Burning Wheel. Or Cortex+ Heroic. All rely upon dice rolls to produce patterns of success and failure that:

(1) Shift whose conception of _what happens next_ gets realised - on success the player's declared action takes place, on failure it doesn't;

(2) Thereby generate some sort of dramatic rhythm - there is neither uniform success nor uniform failure but rising and falling.​
But skilled play of the fiction remains highly relevant. Eg in a PbtA-type game, the questions you ask on a Discern Realities or Read a Situation type of move will establish parameters for downstream Revelations of Future Badness. If you ask _who's in charge here?_ then you're laying the ground for some sort of social/interpersonal conflict to arise out of the situation.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I didn't think it needed much response.



Fair enough.  Don't bother asking me questions again.  I don't enjoy wasting my time answering questions and then being ignored.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> There are two ways to look at this.
> 
> In a linear perspective, where the player and the character both experience the events of the game in the same linear order, and can both interact with it in the same interactive order. This is the way you seem to be viewing it. And I would say that I see why.
> 
> But how accurate is it? It seems to assume that the player has every opportunity that the character would have. It seems to assume that the player is as free to roam about and interact with the environment, unprompted by the GM, as freely as the character. And that the player is as aware as a native of that world as to what they can and can't do.
> 
> But that's not really the case.
> 
> So another way to look at it is to recognize that at times, we jump passed some periods of time. When Blades allows a player to Flashback, it's not time travel, it's a filling in of some of that time that was jumped passed. It's allowing the character to be a part of the world in a different way, that's not limited by the GM-Player dynamic.
> 
> *So is the linearity of time as important to me *as a character who seems like a (in the case of Blades) competent and connected criminal with means at his disposal and the foresight to make appropriate plans.



Short answer to the bolded question: yes it is.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't have much to add to what @hawkeyefan said. But I thought I would paste this extract from Gygax's DMG (p 20), about the thief's Read Languages ability:
> 
> This ability assumes that the language is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable. Even if able to read a language, the thief should be allowed only to get about that percentage of the meaning of what is written as his or her percentage ability to read the tongue in the first place. The rest they will hove to guess at. Languages which are relatively close to those known by the thief will not incur such a penalty.​
> Gygax realised that it's not feasible to specify every past moment of a character's life and training. The BitD flashback mechanic sits in that same space of realisation. The only question is at what point do we insist on the linearity of play coinciding with the linearity of the passage of time in the fiction?



Big difference, though.

The Gygax passage is trying to cover events and trainiing that occurred _before_ the character's role-played career.  From the examples I've seen in other threads (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems the flashback mechanic is trying to pick up events that in theory happened _during_ the character's roleplayed career but were, at the time, skipped over.

My position is that this just ain't right somehow, and that whatever was skipped over should have instead been sorted at the time rather than after the fact, in order to keep in-game time moving in its usual one direction.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> My position is that this just ain't right somehow, and that whatever was skipped over should have instead been sorted at the time rather than after the fact, in order to keep in-game time moving in its usual one direction.



You must have a huge beef with heist movies or any movies that play with the linear story sequences.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> You must have a huge beef with heist movies or any movies that play with the linear story sequences.




I don't follow... I can enjoy certain types of movies without feeling the particular way a roleplaying game chooses to implement what happens in them is to my liking.  I personally don't have an issue with the flashbacks in BitD (it's highly reminiscent of the show Leverage) but I could see how some people would rather play out their planning and execution in the moment and would find flashbacks to things they actually didn't do and did not plan unsatisfactory for their enjoyment.


----------



## prabe

Aldarc said:


> You must have a huge beef with heist movies or any movies that play with the linear story sequences.



I think it is possible to enjoy the heck out of non-linear storytelling, while not thinking much of the Flashback mechanic. Heck, in my case it's that a large part of the pleasure I'd get from a heist adventure would be the planning.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Short answer to the bolded question: yes it is.




Why?


----------



## AnotherGuy

So just to bring it a little back to the OP, one way I use GM notes to assist me is with _Skilled Play_ over the course of the campaign.

Just to be clear I’m not referring to combat strategy or old school dungeoneering when discussing _Skilled Play_ over the course of a campaign. I’m zeroing on impactful PC choices which would influence the final result or end challenge of the campaign.
The only way I can think of representing that is by codifying such choices, in a similar way that 5e's _Tyranny of Dragons_ storyline does it with its Council Scorecard where certain actions undertaken by the party would curry or lose favour with a particular faction for the final showdown and thus make things easier or harder.

Here begins my dilemma, so I begin codifying certain actions undertaken by the party over the course of the campaign and of course should PCs come up with constructive ideas and actions of their own, that data too when then be inputted. Furthermore I increase pressure by injecting a strict timeframe of events.

Now in all of this, I have designed the code as well as the timeframe. It does sort of feel illusionary because I could adjust the set code or timeframe at any time without the PCs knowledge, since much of it is secret backstory or not player-facing. And this of course frustrates me somewhat - in that I could describe in part what I'm doing as _Setting Solitaire_. Now I don't know if these feelings stem from the fact that I'm doing the designing as opposed to say following an AP, which perhaps would remove my own sense of bias, similar to a map does in old-school dungeon crawls.

There are parts which I can make player-facing and have indeed done so, but I'm not perfectly content, since I can still amend things. The other concern is that should I choose to reveal the entire "scorecard" to the payers, I may lessen the _Skilled Play_ element of the game. Not an attractive option for me.

I do not know if I'm making much sense in all of this rambling, but this is where I'm at - where I'm trying to, for the lack of a better word, make the game _True_.

Although I have never played the game, would the clocks system be a fair comparison for something like this in BitD?
What system does Dungeon World use to emulate this, or is there such a thing?

EDIT: Another option I have is running something like post-action 4e Skill Challenge check to resolve the outcome of the "scorecard". Perhaps before the final showdown,  I call for a sit down session with the players and DM lobbing for what actions over the course of the campaign would be deserving of a roll.


----------



## darkbard

@AnotherGuy, I don't have time for a more substantial post right now, but I think what you describe above is a classic example of why system matters, and how you are finding 5E's system fighting you as you try to foster different desiderata from play from what it presumes.


----------



## Manbearcat

@AnotherGuy 

Don't have time for anything thorough, but I skimmed your post.  I used Clocks for every AW-derivative game to resolve Front-related stuff, player down-time projects, player vs Front-related stuff.

Like you mention, Clocks serve the same purpose as 4e Skill Challenges (and this tech predates both 4e and AW); complex conflict resolution.  Because of that, they're applicable to a whole host of conflicts (from "social combat" Tug-of-War Clocks to "can we save the ward from the supernatural disaster" Racing Clocks to "do the ritual/enchant the thing" project clock).


----------



## Aldarc

prabe said:


> I think it is possible to enjoy the heck out of non-linear storytelling, while not thinking much of the Flashback mechanic. Heck, in my case it's that a large part of the pleasure I'd get from a heist adventure would be the planning.



I once felt that way too, but not any longer.


----------



## prabe

@AnotherGuy

I'll give you a perspective from someone who runs 5E, albeit probably very differently from how you're doing so. The fact I do things very differently from you doesn't mean I think you're doing it wrong--I want that to be clear up-front; different approaches and techniques work for different people.

It seems as though you are wanting your campaign to come to a specific point at the end of it--which seems to be why you're looking at something like a scorecard--and you're expecting "skilled play" to be, roughly, "the players doing things before the end scenario that make that end scenario easier (with a plausible allowance for the players also doing things that make the end scenario more difficult)." (I can see why you might choose to call that "skilled play"--it's much, much shorter.)

I ... never intentionally prep much more than the next session, so I probably wouldn't be thinking in terms of a specific end scenario; I'd be thinking more in the lines of what the goals of the BBEG (or whatever) are, and what the goals of the party are, and where those goals come into conflict. I'd probably have a place outside my session notes where I was keeping track of what it would look like in-game as the BBEG progressed toward its goals. I'd probably look after everything the PCs accomplished (or didn't) and consider how that would change the position of that track--or perhaps how it would change what was on the track, depending on what the PCs did. Everything the BBEG did would be in service of its goals (if occasionally indirectly) and if the PCs interfered sufficiently those goals might change to "kill the PCs."

Having said that, I know that I probably wouldn't have most of that written down, at least not in my session notes binder. If I had a write-up for the BBEG, its goals would be in that write-up; I'd prep its actions based on the situation in-game and its goals; those actions would trigger scenarios in-game.

That's possibly not as helpful as I was hoping it would be. Oh comma well.


----------



## prabe

Aldarc said:


> I once felt that way too, but not any longer.



Sorry, which way? I'm figuring it's your feelings about the pleasures of heist adventures that have changed.


----------



## Fenris-77

Planning in heist games has downsides to, usually characterized as planning paralysis. In the imaginary world of an RPG, and with players who aren't (usually) actual criminals, the process of heist planning can quickly spiral out of control. Plans with contingencies and back-ups and sub-plans and whew, I'm tired just typing it out. I don't find that really detailed planning adds anything to my enjoyment of heists. I love making plans, but the fiddly detail is often boring and doesn't end up getting used anyway in the case of back-ups and contingencies and the like. I prefer the _Blades_ method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> I don't follow... I can enjoy certain types of movies without feeling the particular way a roleplaying game chooses to implement what happens in them is to my liking.  I personally don't have an issue with the flashbacks in BitD (it's highly reminiscent of the show Leverage) but I could see how some people would rather play out their planning and execution in the moment and would find flashbacks to things they actually didn't do and did not plan unsatisfactory for their enjoyment.



This.  I like planning things out in advance.  If I forget or miss something, then I didn't plan well enough. I'd hate to be able to "plan" things in the middle of the heist.

And I love heist movies.


----------



## Imaro

Fenris-77 said:


> Planning in heist games has downsides to, usually characterized as planning paralysis. In the imaginary world of an RPG, and with players who aren't (usually) actual criminals, the process of heist planning can quickly spiral out of control. Plans with contingencies and back-ups and sub-plans and whew, I'm tired just typing it out. I don't find that really detailed planning adds anything to my enjoyment of heists. I love making plans, but the fiddly detail is often boring and doesn't end up getting used anyway in the case of back-ups and contingencies and the like. I prefer the _Blades_ method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.




I don't think anyone is claiming both approaches don't have upsides and downsides but I find it hard to fathom that you can only enjoy heist movies if you like one approach (flashbacks) over the other... which was the comment that started this digression.


----------



## Emerikol

hawkeyefan said:


> There are two ways to look at this.



I'm sure there are many and many more eventually.  



hawkeyefan said:


> In a linear perspective, where the player and the character both experience the events of the game in the same linear order, and can both interact with it in the same interactive order. This is the way you seem to be viewing it. And I would say that I see why.
> 
> But how accurate is it? It seems to assume that the player has every opportunity that the character would have. It seems to assume that the player is as free to roam about and interact with the environment, unprompted by the GM, as freely as the character. And that the player is as aware as a native of that world as to what they can and can't do.



I think for me it is the timing of events.   It is true that the players will step out of character on occasion.  Downtime for example.  We may not roleplay out every activity a character wants to accomplish during downtime.  A player might just say that he is going to continue researching the spell he has been working on and that is it.  I may make a roll or two to indicate progress/success etc..  

For me though, that doesn't really affect my prime concern which is during the actual exploration and combat parts of the game.   Where decisions in a crisis are made as the character.   I'm using exploration loosely here too to include actual NPC interactions in town that are played out face to face etc...   

I don't have a problem though saying someone is going to the store to buy some iron rations and not play it out.  Could I roll in some instances for "trouble" and suddenly take the game to character viewpoint?  I could but that would be rarer than the normal case when it just happens.



hawkeyefan said:


> But that's not really the case.
> 
> So another way to look at it is to recognize that at times, we jump passed some periods of time. When Blades allows a player to Flashback, it's not time travel, it's a filling in of some of that time that was jumped passed. It's allowing the character to be a part of the world in a different way, that's not limited by the GM-Player dynamic.
> 
> So is the linearity of time as important to me as a character who seems like a (in the case of Blades) competent and connected criminal with means at his disposal and the foresight to make appropriate plans.



It is similar and different.  It's different because for me at least a character just filling in some backstory while walking through town is different than a character filling in just the right combination of events in a flashback to improve the changes on an attack roll.  And when I say improve chances I include mitigate risk as well.  To me the skill challenge then is to have a good enough imagination and not to make choices as your character.   And if that is your game goal and that is what makes you enjoy the game then it is perfect fine.   I just point out that it is not my game goal and it would lessen my enjoyment of the game.


----------



## Fenris-77

Imaro said:


> I don't think anyone is claiming both approaches don't have upsides and downsides but I find it hard to fathom that you can only enjoy heist movies if you like one approach (flashbacks) over the other... which was the comment that started this digression.



Well, I certainly wouldn't say that. Flashbacks are a big part of heist movies, but that's really neither here nor there when it comes to game mechanics.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Planning in heist games has downsides to, usually characterized as planning paralysis. In the imaginary world of an RPG, and with players who aren't (usually) actual criminals, the process of heist planning can quickly spiral out of control. Plans with contingencies and back-ups and sub-plans and whew, I'm tired just typing it out. I don't find that really detailed planning adds anything to my enjoyment of heists. I love making plans, but the fiddly detail is often boring and doesn't end up getting used anyway in the case of back-ups and contingencies and the like. I prefer the _Blades_ method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.



I definitely think that paralysis is something a group has to watch out for but I love a good plan that comes to fruition.  So there is a balance there.  I've had groups spend a good bit of time planning and if it is productive planning then I think it's good.  If it devolves and just seems to be repetitive then that is bad.   

There are also limits to planning due to lack of knowledge so in some cases you can only plan so much.  Just like real life.   A famous military quote is "No plan survives contact with the enemy".   It's a truism.

I think flashbacks would not be required to do Story Now.  It would be something you could do and like to do and perhaps for some people they wouldn't.   It's like the level of detail in the sandbox world.  It varies and could be debated even amongst those devoted to a style I prefer.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Planning in heist games has downsides to, usually characterized as planning paralysis. In the imaginary world of an RPG, and with players who aren't (usually) actual criminals, the process of heist planning can quickly spiral out of control. Plans with contingencies and back-ups and sub-plans and whew, I'm tired just typing it out. I don't find that really detailed planning adds anything to my enjoyment of heists. I love making plans, but the fiddly detail is often boring and doesn't end up getting used anyway in the case of back-ups and contingencies and the like. I prefer the _Blades_ method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.



Yeah. My pleasure in a heist game as a player would be making the plan and doing it. As a GM, designing a scenario for that is way (way, way) more work than I'm eager to do, which is plausibly ironic. Seems like an instance (another one?) where the pleasures I get from the story genre (heists) are not particularly compatible with the pleasures I get from TRPGs, either as a player or as a GM.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> Planning in heist games has downsides to, usually characterized as planning paralysis. In the imaginary world of an RPG, and with players who aren't (usually) actual criminals, the process of heist planning can quickly spiral out of control. Plans with contingencies and back-ups and sub-plans and whew, I'm tired just typing it out. I don't find that really detailed planning adds anything to my enjoyment of heists. I love making plans, but the fiddly detail is often boring and doesn't end up getting used anyway in the case of back-ups and contingencies and the like. I prefer the _Blades_ method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.



Not to mention how often all the best laid plans made by players are still subject to GM fiat and their "notes."


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Not to mention how often all the best laid plans made by players are still subject to GM fiat and their "notes."



Or any other rule.  Unless you're just going to declare all of their plans auto successes, their best laid plans will always be subject to something.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> Or any other rule.  Unless you're just going to declare all of their plans auto successes, their best laid plans will always be subject to something.



Yes but if I flip a coin for every battle that will be far different than if I play a game of chess and give the victory to who wins that game.   One is extremely random and the other is completely a test of skill.

For me, I prefer a game where skillful players will succeed more often and thus I lean towards the chess end of the spectrum while not going that far of course.   So good planning, good tactics/strategy, etc... will decide the outcome most of the time in the long term.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

For me, its contextual-- Blades in the Dark is probably trying to simulate the literary device of a flashback as its used in a heist movie, you see the thing happening and either a suspensful question is posed (did that person really die? why is the person doing that? how'd we end up here? is this really it for our heroes?) and then we're shown the parts of the story that answer our questions. It builds tension because when we lack the set up, we don't know all the information that might reframe the events.

Basically, its a way of building towards a 'conclusion' when that conclusion takes place before its consequences (the heist itself,) by framing it this way, we get a standard build up of tension, followed by a pay off that answers the questions being posed by the action. The flashback itself is a way of ensuring the Questions precede the Answer in the telling of the story, when preparation definitionally takes place before the thing being prepared for. 

So, "Did Rodney really just kill Joey and betray everyone, is the heist a failure, is our hero dead?" is a question that allows the preparation where "Rodney and Joey faked Joey's death to gain the mark's trust, and are using that to turn the tables and pull off the heist" to function as a plot twist, and a payoff for the tension build up, even though Rodney and Joey preparing the trick takes place before the scene where Joey is seemingly shot.

Great Pretender on Netflix is an excellent case study of the technique.

BITD is cool for including such a storytelling device as a mechanic, because its basically the protocols and techniques for TELLING heist stories and similar fiction projected onto a roleplaying game. I'd love to play it sometime, but it might not be appropriate for games that aren't after the dramatic trappings of a heist story, but the activity of planning and executing a heist, the flashback technique is dramatizing. That style of play would demand that we know what preparations were made before the moment they're preparing for because it would be measuring skill as forethought on the player's part, in the same way pulling off a heist would require forethought on the part of the participants.


----------



## uzirath

Fenris-77 said:


> I prefer the _Blades_ method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.




I wonder if anyone here has experience with versions of this as part of a more traditional RPG? 

There is a GURPS supplement called "Impulse Buys" which allows players to use earned character points (or, alternately, other pools of points) to affect the game state in ways that go well beyond the usual sorts of character spells and powers. I haven't read it carefully yet, but I think it is an attempt to mechanically support more narrative control to the players while still remaining compatible with the balancing mechanisms of GURPS. I see more references on the GURPS forums to people playing hybrid "PBtA-style" (for example) GURPS games. I'm curious how that might play out. I've been surprised over the past few years how much I enjoy allowing some meta-currency in my games, both as a player and a GM. 

I like the idea, in theory, of allowing flashbacks even in dungeon crawls (which can have heist-like qualities).


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

uzirath said:


> I wonder if anyone here has experience with versions of this as part of a more traditional RPG?
> 
> There is a GURPS supplement called "Impulse Buys" which allows players to use earned character points (or, alternately, other pools of points) to affect the game state in ways that go well beyond the usual sorts of character spells and powers. I haven't read it carefully yet, but I think it is an attempt to mechanically support more narrative control to the players while still remaining compatible with the balancing mechanisms of GURPS. I see more references on the GURPS forums to people playing hybrid "PBtA-style" (for example) GURPS games. I'm curious how that might play out. I've been surprised over the past few years how much I enjoy allowing some meta-currency in my games, both as a player and a GM.
> 
> I like the idea, in theory, of allowing flashbacks even in dungeon crawls (which can have heist-like qualities).



Pathfinder 2e has a prescient planner feat that lets you 'have bought' things as you need them to simulate super-preparedness, but its not a big part of the system.


----------



## uzirath

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Pathfinder 2e has a prescient planner feat that lets you 'have bought' things as you need them to simulate super-preparedness, but its not a big part of the system.




That sounds similar to some GURPS advantages that let you pull minor gear out of your backpack (or pockets or whatever). Usually, you can do it a certain number of times per session. My players tend to love advantages like that, but it doesn't seem like it's quite up to the level of the flashbacks mechanic from Blades. It's probably time to buy the game and read it. (After following so many of these 1000+ post conversations, I'm quite curious about this side of ttrpgs that I've never fully experienced.)


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

uzirath said:


> That sounds similar to some GURPS advantages that let you pull minor gear out of your backpack (or pockets or whatever). Usually, you can do it a certain number of times per session. My players tend to love advantages like that, but it doesn't seem like it's quite up to the level of the flashbacks mechanic from Blades. It's probably time to buy the game and read it. (After following so many of these 1000+ post conversations, I'm quite curious about this side of ttrpgs that I've never fully experienced.)



I actually just bought a copy myself, lol damn debate driven impulse purchases, i go to PBTA for a very different experience than PF2e, but thats a far cry from not liking them, i just play them on their own terms and get the stuff i can't get from them elsewhere.


----------



## Fenris-77

The-Magic-Sword said:


> For me, its contextual-- Blades in the Dark is probably trying to simulate the literary device of a flashback as its used in a heist movie, you see the thing happening and either a suspensful question is posed (did that person really die? why is the person doing that? how'd we end up here? is this really it for our heroes?) and then we're shown the parts of the story that answer our questions. It builds tension because when we lack the set up, we don't know all the information that might reframe the events.
> 
> Basically, its a way of building towards a 'conclusion' when that conclusion takes place before its consequences (the heist itself,) by framing it this way, we get a standard build up of tension, followed by a pay off that answers the questions being posed by the action. The flashback itself is a way of ensuring the Questions precede the Answer in the telling of the story, when preparation definitionally takes place before the thing being prepared for.
> 
> So, "Did Rodney really just kill Joey and betray everyone, is the heist a failure, is our hero dead?" is a question that allows the preparation where "Rodney and Joey faked Joey's death to gain the mark's trust, and are using that to turn the tables and pull off the heist" to function as a plot twist, and a payoff for the tension build up, even though Rodney and Joey preparing the trick takes place before the scene where Joey is seemingly shot.
> 
> Great Pretender on Netflix is an excellent case study of the technique.
> 
> BITD is cool for including such a storytelling device as a mechanic, because its basically the protocols and techniques for TELLING heist stories and similar fiction projected onto a role.



Flashbacks are a little different than you describe above. First, and importantly, there is a cost in Stress to Flashback, and stress is a dear commodity in Blades, so there's a real decision point involved, not just a narrative desire. Second, they are more limited in scope than your post suggests. You cannot change a part of the existing fiction with a flashback. For example, if a character dies, as in is now currently dead, a flashback won't bring them back to life. Nor would a flashback make a locked door disappear. What flashbacks will do is allow the character and GM to collaborate on a scenario that would allow preparations for an obstacle. So if you encountered savage dogs you could flashback for drugged doggy treats, or if there's an unexpected guard you could flashback to engineer a diversion. Essentially flashbacks cover things that would have been planned for if an extensive planning session had been held, and is a device to help maintain a level of professionalism and competence in the characters while still driving toward Blades' desired roll and get stuck in model for scores.


----------



## Fenris-77

uzirath said:


> I wonder if anyone here has experience with versions of this as part of a more traditional RPG?
> 
> I like the idea, in theory, of allowing flashbacks even in dungeon crawls (which can have heist-like qualities).



There is a 5E hack for some Blades rules, flashbacks included, that was done to support running Dragon Heist. I used it once and it worked pretty well. As for more general use, or dungeon crawl use, you would want that idea to be an integral part of the rules I think, not something just bolted on. That 5E hack could be a model there, but it kind of depends on your desired play experience. If you're aiming for skilled play and resource management it will work counter to what you want, for example.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> Nor would a flashback make a locked door disappear.



No but a flashback might allow for a key or a set of lockpicks etc...  It's about putting your thumb on the die roll to your advantage which as you said has a cost, in this case stress.


----------



## Fenris-77

Emerikol said:


> No but a flashback might allow for a key or a set of lockpicks etc...  It's about putting your thumb on the die roll to your advantage which as you said has a cost, in this case stress.



That kind of example was in the post you quoted yes. Not that you'd have to do that anyway, Blades doesn't use a set equipment list for much the same reason it uses flashbacks. I don't know about _putting your thumb on the die_ either, that pretty blatantly indexes the idea of cheating, which is a odd thing to say when you're playing by the rules. Maybe that wasn't what you meant?


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Fenris-77 said:


> Flashbacks are a little different than you describe above. First, and importantly, there is a cost in Stress to Flashback, and stress is a dear commodity in Blades, so there's a real decision point involved, not just a narrative desire. Second, they are more limited in scope than your post suggests. You cannot change a part of the existing fiction with a flashback. For example, if a character dies, as in is now currently dead, a flashback won't bring them back to life. Nor would a flashback make a locked door disappear. What flashbacks will do is allow the character and GM to collaborate on a scenario that would allow preparations for an obstacle. So if you encountered savage dogs you could flashback for drugged doggy treats, or if there's an unexpected guard you could flashback to engineer a diversion. Essentially flashbacks cover things that would have been planned for if an extensive planning session had been held, and is a device to help maintain a level of professionalism and competence in the characters while still driving toward Blades' desired roll and get stuck in model for scores.



Ah, but we don't know if they're dead, that's the point, the way the scene is framed makes it possible they aren't actually dead, the obstacle/danger of that whole scene happening is the trigger point for the flashback. Like, Rodney having to shoot Joey to prove loyalty is a problem to be solved, the flashback just established they prepared to fake his death. I guess the rules might disallow the reveal from technically happening after the firing of the gun itself, so you'd have to flashback right before the trigger pull, I'd need to see the rules text of the actual feature to see how exactly its bounded. 

I was talking about the technique's role in storytelling and how that relates to the the kind of stories BITD is designed to tell, anyway, not the letter of the mechanics in the game.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> That kind of example was in the post you quoted yes. Not that you'd have to do that anyway, Blades doesn't use a set equipment list for much the same reason it uses flashbacks. I don't know about _putting your thumb on the die_ either, that pretty blatantly indexes the idea of cheating, which is a odd thing to say when you're playing by the rules. Maybe that wasn't what you meant?



@Emerikol can speak for himself, but I interpreted it as shifting the odds in your favor, in ways specifically allowed by the rules.


----------



## Fenris-77

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Ah, but we don't know if they're dead, that's the point, the way the scene is framed makes it possible they aren't actually dead, the obstacle/danger of that whole scene happening is the trigger point for the flashback. Like, Rodney having to shoot Joey to prove loyalty is a problem to be solved, the flashback just established they prepared to fake his death. I guess the rules might disallow the reveal from technically happening after the firing of the gun itself, so you'd have to flashback right before the trigger pull, I'd need to see the rules text of the actual feature to see how exactly its bounded.
> 
> I was talking about the technique's role in storytelling and how that relates to the the kind of stories BITD is designed to tell, anyway, not the letter of the mechanics in the game.



That's also not really what flashbacks in Blades do. They only effect established scenes in the fiction, specifically the current scene. You could flashback for some blanks for the gun in your example, but only if the shooting scene was currently playing out and the trigger hadn't been pulled yet.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Fenris-77 said:


> That's also not really what flashbacks in Blades do. They only effect established scenes in the fiction, specifically the current scene. You could flashback for some blanks for the gun in your example, but only if the shooting scene was currently playing out and the trigger hadn't been pulled yet.



But you couldn't flashback to set up a bulletproof vest with red dye in under their suit so when the bullet hits the vest and they stumble and fall back off the boat, they swim safely down and away instead of not having the vest on and dying?


----------



## Fenris-77

The-Magic-Sword said:


> But you couldn't flashback to set up a bulletproof vest with red dye in it so when the bullet hits the vest and they stumble and fall back off the boat, they swim safely down and away instead of not having the vest on and dying?



Sure you could, but that's the other character, so it might be a separate flashback if you're doing both. It really depends on the events leading up to the scene, as the GM's first point of adjudication in Blades is always to respect the established fiction and it's consequences, so the nuance of the actual game we're spit-balling here would have a significant impact on the decision making process. If that other character had been searched, for example, you couldn't retcon in a vest that would have certainly been found, for example. Or if the gun had been given to you by someone else you couldn't just retcon in blanks, you'd also have to make some kind of slight of hand move to to swap the ammo. Am I making the difference clear there?


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure you could, but that's the other character, so it might be a separate flashback if you're doing both. It really depends on the events leading up to the scene, as the GM's first point of adjudication in Blades is always to respect the established fiction and it's consequences, so the nuance of the actual game we're spit-balling here would have a significant impact on the decision making process. If that other character had been searched, for example, you couldn't retcon in a vest that would have certainly been found, for example. Or if the gun had been given to you by someone else you couldn't just retcon in blanks, you'd also have to make some kind of slight of hand move to to swap the ammo. Am I making the difference clear there?



You aren't making the differences clear because there are no differences (which in general, not with you in particular, is a recurring theme today) that's how I figured the game works, it uses the unestablished elements of the fiction as a resource to establish things that happened in the past.


----------



## Fenris-77

Sure there's a difference. The constraints on the mechanic wouldn't allow most of you examples....


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure there's a difference. The constraints on the mechanic wouldn't allow most of you examples....



You just told me that it would be allowed, provided contradictory fiction wasn't already established.


----------



## Fenris-77

The-Magic-Sword said:


> You just told me that it would be allowed, provided contradictory fiction wasn't already established.



That one example, within those listed constraints, yeah. But you floated a bunch of ideas upstream about what flashbacks were for that aren't really examples of how it works.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

Fenris-77 said:


> That one example, within those listed constraints, yeah. But you floated a bunch of ideas upstream about what flashbacks were for that aren't really examples of how it works.



I did not, we're discussing (in the abstract) the "Rodney and Joey Fake Rodney shooting Joey" example, the only distinction between that and your clarification is if the flashback specifically had to be established before the gun was fired. There weren't really any other examples at work. 

Unless you're talking about: "Blades in the Dark is probably trying to simulate the literary device of a flashback as its used in a heist movie, you see the thing happening and either a suspenseful question is posed (did that person really die? why is the person doing that? how'd we end up here? is this really it for our heroes?) and then we're shown the parts of the story that answer our questions. It builds tension because when we lack the set up, we don't know all the information that might reframe the events."

Because if so, I was discussing the story structure of the technique being used, as in heist movies, not Blades in the Dark's mechanic (since again, I have no idea what it says.)


----------



## Fenris-77

I was just clarifying about the timing and onscreen vs offscreen possibilities, none of which were clear in your example (through no fault of yours). That literary example was one I wanted to address as really not what's going on, as the Blades mechanic is more specifically modelling the kind of flashbacks you see in Oceans 11, not flashbacks more generally, which can take many forms.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> You must have a huge beef with heist movies or any movies that play with the linear story sequences.



Not at all, as there I'm watching someone else's story and as long as it's entertaining they can tell it any old way they like.

Huge difference from a situation where I-as-character am moving through time sequentially; and when action A leads to consequence B or C or D then IMO action A has to be done first rather than starting with consequence C and backfilling how things got to that point.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Why?



In-character realism, largely.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Fair enough.  Don't bother asking me questions again.  I don't enjoy wasting my time answering questions and then being ignored.



Huh? I read your reply. What else did you want me to do with it?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Huh? I read your reply. What else did you want me to do with it?



If you ask me questions and I respond, common courtesy would be to at least give a small acknowledgment.  Even a simple like at least tells me that you didn't ignore it and I didn't waste my time.  Most people who ask me questions either agree or disagree and let me know that.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> I wonder if anyone here has experience with versions of this as part of a more traditional RPG?
> 
> There is a GURPS supplement called "Impulse Buys" which allows players to use earned character points (or, alternately, other pools of points) to affect the game state in ways that go well beyond the usual sorts of character spells and powers. I haven't read it carefully yet, but I think it is an attempt to mechanically support more narrative control to the players while still remaining compatible with the balancing mechanisms of GURPS. I see more references on the GURPS forums to people playing hybrid "PBtA-style" (for example) GURPS games. I'm curious how that might play out. I've been surprised over the past few years how much I enjoy allowing some meta-currency in my games, both as a player and a GM.
> 
> I like the idea, in theory, of allowing flashbacks even in dungeon crawls (which can have heist-like qualities).



For me, a big part of this is _what are the pressure points supposed to be?_

In Burning Wheel, equipment is quite a big deal. You have to pay for it as part of PC build. There are multiple PC abilities (Resources; Scavenging; Foraging) which can be checked to obtain equipment by way of action declaration. Damage to or loss of equipment is flagged as a standard sort of adverse consequences; and there are PC abilities (eg Mending) that come into play for maintaining or repairing it. As presented in its core rulebooks, BW doesn't really have scope for a flashback mechanic because if, like Sam Gamgee, you forget to pack rope then that's what you're stuck with!

Prince Valiant, on the other hand, doesn't care about mundane equipment. Characters start with funds but the rulebook is express that this is a sop to RPG player expectations; and it has no gear or price lists (we use the Pendragon ones when we need them). There is equipment that matters - warhorses, embossed armour, bejewelled swords and the like - but that is mostly earned through errantry or the magnanimity of other lords and knights rather than by being purchased. If something comes up where some mundane gear is needed we generally just take it to be available to the characters unless that wouldn't make any sense relative to the current fictional situation.

Heist-style flashbacks would be a different thing again, and open up a different set of expectations and pressure points for play.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Huge difference from a situation where I-as-character am moving through time sequentially; and when action A leads to consequence B or C or D then IMO action A has to be done first rather than starting with consequence C and backfilling how things got to that point.



That's not generally how flashbacks work in BitD.


----------



## Emerikol

Fenris-77 said:


> That kind of example was in the post you quoted yes. Not that you'd have to do that anyway, Blades doesn't use a set equipment list for much the same reason it uses flashbacks. I don't know about _putting your thumb on the die_ either, that pretty blatantly indexes the idea of cheating, which is a odd thing to say when you're playing by the rules. Maybe that wasn't what you meant?



Probably better said as adjusting the die roll to your favor using the rules.   So if I pull out my +1 sword in traditional D&D I've just advantaged the attack roll by 1 in my favor.


----------



## Emerikol

It would also seem to me that the "skill" in many cases in some of these games would be having a good enough imagination given what is known to weave an outcome you desire.   I don't deny that such an approach could be fun but can't you also agree that it does not represent skilled play as your character.  Rather it's a game skill you as the player have.   When my character figures a puzzle because I really figured it out then that is skilled play that I am doing through my character.   I am being my character.   That to me is the big difference. 

I realize maintaining character viewpoint is not very important to many on here but it's a value from my perspective.


----------



## darkbard

Emerikol said:


> It would also seem to me that *the "skill" in many cases in some of these games would be having a good enough imagination* given what is known to weave an outcome you desire.   I don't deny that such an approach could be fun but can't you also agree that it does not represent skilled play as your character.  Rather it's a game skill you as the player have.   *When my character figures a puzzle because I really figured it out then that is skilled play that I am doing through my character.*   I am being my character.   That to me is the big difference.
> 
> I realize maintaining character viewpoint is not very important to many on here but it's a value from my perspective.




Can you explain the difference you see between having a good imagination to weave outcomes (whatever it is you think that means) versus having a good imagination to think the things you do as a player are things your character is doing?


----------



## Emerikol

darkbard said:


> Can you explain the difference you see between having a good imagination to weave outcomes (whatever it is you think that means) versus having a good imagination to think the things you do as a player are things your character is doing?



One is what your character could be doing.   If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character.   My character came up with that plan so to speak.  

Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one.  Unless you are playing a game where the characters can change the fundamental laws of the universe on a whim or time travel on a whim.   

It goes back to the player doing something and whether what they do is done through the eyes of their character or not.   If not then for me it's not immersing me in the character.  It's a metagame decision.


----------



## darkbard

Emerikol said:


> One is what your character could be doing.   If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character.   My character came up with that plan so to speak.




There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.



> Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one.  Unless you are playing a game where the characters can change the fundamental laws of the universe on a whim or time travel on a whim.
> 
> It goes back to the player doing something and whether what they do is done through the eyes of their character or not.   If not then for me it's not immersing me in the character.  It's a metagame decision.




There is no character-enacted change to any fundamental laws. When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.


----------



## Maxperson

darkbard said:


> There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.



If I'm inhabiting my character, making decisions according to his knowledge, personality, intelligence, etc., then It's effectively the character that came up with it.  I as a player might have a better plan, but if my PC doesn't know some of the things that make the plan work, I'm not going to attempt that plan, so it's not purely the player coming up with the plan when you do it our way.

When you "Plan" something during a flashback, there is no character inhabitation going on.  It's purely the player coming up with a way to get by the current problem via the flashback mechanic.


darkbard said:


> When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.



It's more than that.  You are also overcoming a current obstacle that you might not have known about or even thought might be present.  That alone makes it very different from planning in advance.


----------



## prabe

darkbard said:


> There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.



I believe @Emerikol is talking about a difference in how they experience the story that emerges from the gameplay. IIRC, they value immersion (something not key to your or my TRPG experiences) highly. My guess is they experience the story in either first person or some sort of very tight third person, so they find it easy to identify their plan as their character's plan; a flashback mechanic, or inventing new facts about the setting, or spontaneously adding a prop or other detail: those things, they'd probably experience as an unpleasant narrative rupture, like a poorly-handled shift from first to third person narrative.

No, those things don't strictly speaking *need to be* such a POV shift. I'm merely guessing they experience it as one.


darkbard said:


> There is no character-enacted change to any fundamental laws. When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.



I can understand how if one is immersed in (or, in my case, identifying deeply with) a character, one might understand the linear experience (how the character would experience it) as being different from a non-linear experience (how an audience would experience it). In principle, around the table, these things are the same; in practice, these things are different.


----------



## uzirath

Maxperson said:


> When you "Plan" something during a flashback, there is no character inhabitation going on.  It's purely the player coming up with a way to get by the current problem via the flashback mechanic.




Long before Blades and other games introduced flashbacks as a mechanic, we used flashback scenes regularly in my old AD&D campaign in the 1980s and early '90s. My recollection was that even back then people were still inhabiting their characters just as much as they were in the fictional present. 

Granted, these flashbacks were intended primarily as a way to add depth to a given character. So they weren't used to add capabilities to the party in the present. But I don't see any reason in theory that this couldn't be done in a satisfying way at the table. I'm intrigued to try it out. 



Maxperson said:


> It's more than that.  You are also overcoming a current obstacle that you might not have known about or even thought might be present.  That alone makes it very different from planning in advance.




Yes, it is different, but I'm not sure that the difference means that you can't remain immersed in your character. 

Here's an example of a possibly similar mechanic from my current GURPS Dungeon Fantasy campaign. One of the PCs in a Viking setting was a devotee of the fates. He invested many of his character points on various advantages that allowed him to be far luckier than average. One of these was called "Serendipity" and it allowed him to effectively call for  "one fortuitous-but-plausible coincidence per game session." 

At first, I was worried that it would be too "meta" and would break suspension of disbelief. The player, too, worried that it would take him out of his character. But we went with it to see how it played. Turned out to be awesome. In order to make the coincidences plausible, the player had to spend a lot of time thinking about his role-playing connections and backstory. Often, the serendipitous occurrences involved him bumping into people that he knew before, giving him better odds on a reaction check. This added a lot of role-playing scenes to the game. The other players loved it. I enjoyed having to be nimble enough to roll with it. The player ended up knowing his character far better than most of the other players. It was a win-win-win. 

Obviously, there is a meta-dimension to this. The player had to think about what he could plausibly introduce that would change the odds of a situation in his favor. But, as he described it, it didn't feel any different to him than considering which spell he might cast or what combat maneuver to choose. There was, of course, a cost in terms of resources spent (he could only use it once per session). Sometimes he wasted it on a situation that wasn't as dire as he thought. 

Sometimes there were additional costs down the road. For example, he serendipitously ran into his older brothers in one scene. They gave him an edge in a scene featuring negotiations with a minor lord. (His older brothers had more social clout than he did.) Later these brothers were slain—to all of our surprise—in a battle that went very badly for the group. This became a central element of the unfolding story and had a profound effect on the PC.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> One is what your character could be doing.   If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character.   My character came up with that plan so to speak.
> 
> Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one.  Unless you are playing a game where the characters can change the fundamental laws of the universe on a whim or time travel on a whim.
> 
> It goes back to the player doing something and whether what they do is done through the eyes of their character or not.   If not then for me it's not immersing me in the character.  It's a metagame decision.






darkbard said:


> There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no character-enacted change to any fundamental laws. When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.






Maxperson said:


> If I'm inhabiting my character, making decisions according to his knowledge, personality, intelligence, etc., then It's effectively the character that came up with it.  I as a player might have a better plan, but if my PC doesn't know some of the things that make the plan work, I'm not going to attempt that plan, so it's not purely the player coming up with the plan when you do it our way.
> 
> When you "Plan" something during a flashback, there is no character inhabitation going on.  It's purely the player coming up with a way to get by the current problem via the flashback mechanic.
> 
> It's more than that.  You are also overcoming a current obstacle that you might not have known about or even thought might be present.  That alone makes it very different from planning in advance.




There are a few reasons why I agree with darkbard on this.

The first reason is the reality that the way we consciously (both the external experience and the process that underwrite them) experience the world is not marked by cognitive continuity and unity.

We are progressively discovering that a human mind is composed of heterogenous neurological states (automaticity being a big one where rote or low level activities are automated and our consciousness is elsewhere...driving a car or shopping or hitting golf balls...such that we have absolutely no recollection of perhaps an hours worth of time...another one is the opposite where profound states of agitation, stress, and adrenaline dump lead to an automated response and extreme fuzziness when recalling the details or the complete absence of recall) and disunity. To be held hostage to and take part in this reality is an important part of inhabitation of something resembling “what it’s like to be a human-like creature.” The absence of this would be jarring. So my expectation of cognitive continuity is very different from many on here.

The second is an artifact of gaming which we accept to be able to play at all.

We don’t inhabit our characters and experience anything like an actual cognitive continuity (and again, there is no such thing). If one PC asks another PC “what were your dreams like last night” or “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning” or “when was the last time you were sick” or “you’re from here...where is the farrier...we need to get our horses taken care of”, the Player in question is going to have to make something up for the PC to recall. There are dozens and dozens of instances like this that can/will come up in play that will intersect with that unavoidable lack of cognitive continuity.

So why do Flashbacks have special domain in being jarring/disruptive to a priority for a cognitive continuity that already doesn’t exist (and, as per my first part above, is undesirable for a sense of experience an actual “human-like existence)?

The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.


----------



## Manbearcat

Honestly if anyone wants a lesson in how heterogenous we are neurologically, look no further than my posts!

One post is lucid and sensible and easy to follow.

A day later I’ll post a flurry of responses that are borderline unintelligible! And not just to folks reading it! I’ll read it the next day and be all “what in the eff was I even trying to say here!”


----------



## Arilyn

Manbearcat said:


> Honestly if anyone wants a lesson in how heterogenous we are neurologically, look no further than my posts!
> 
> One post is lucid and sensible and easy to follow.
> 
> A day later I’ll post a flurry of responses that are borderline unintelligible! And not just to folks reading it! I’ll read it the next day and be all “what in the eff was I even trying to say here!”



Maybe you are flash forwarding to an incident we have no knowledge of.


----------



## prabe

Arilyn said:


> Maybe you are flash forwarding to an incident we have no knowledge of.



If that were true, I suspect that would break my immersion in reality.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Manbearcat said:


> The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.



So I strongly agree with both your post and @uzirath's. With yours specifically as you touch on _Skilled Play_ which is something I'm concerned with, and with uzirath's regarding the focus of resources.

In BitD (I'm not sure if this is the flashback mechanic or something else), there is the thing where one has open slots for their equipment, which a player could expend such resource to author that a particular equipment was brought along.
Now in D&D this is tricky as it connects to gold, encumbrance and movement rates. One can incorporate such a mechanic with various parameters such as you need to have had the gold before leaving town and whatever item is authored into existence shouldn't affect your movement rate. I did incorporate this mechanic once, specifically when the party were travelling on horseback and/or with pack animals. It was much easier to get around the encumbrance and movement rate limitation.
The players enjoyed the mechanic as the adventure focused on exploration and equipment attrition.
Three horses were harmed in the playing of this adventure - one by a wild griffons, and two while traversing a perilous mountain path.

In Greg Saunders' post-apocalyptic Summerland game (originally released prior 2010 I think) you play Drifters who have suffered trauma during their lives which makes them partially immune to the Call, the siren-song of the forest. The trauma is not fully established at the start of play, but one can use the game's mechanic (similar to a flashback) to slowly build on the trauma in order to overcome obstacles. In so doing the character goes through a process of redemption and begins becoming more susceptible to the Call.
I bought and played the original game which is strongly immersive with its narrative-styled mechanics.

​


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> So why do Flashbacks have special domain in being jarring/disruptive to a priority for a cognitive continuity that already doesn’t exist (and, as per my first part above, is undesirable for a sense of experience an actual “human-like existence)?



I don't think it's so much that people expect to experience every moment; I think it's that people expect to experience the moments they experience, in chronological order. There's also possibly a sense that Flashbacks are specifically a narrative technique/mechanic, and some people might break into hives at the idea of story in their TRPGs.


Manbearcat said:


> The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.



I'm quoting this, because I think this touches on something I've had thoughts about: Different people get (or want to get) different pleasures from their TRPGs--and this is cool!--and there are some pleasures it is difficult-shading-to-impossible to get from (or, looking from the other direction, without) some systems. It connects to wanting different pleasures from a novel than from a TRPG, I think.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> I don't think it's so much that people expect to experience every moment; I think it's that people expect to experience the moments they experience, in chronological order. There's also possibly a sense that Flashbacks are specifically a narrative technique/mechanic, and some people might break into hives at the idea of story in their TRPGs.
> 
> I'm quoting this, because I think this touches on something I've had thoughts about: Different people get (or want to get) different pleasures from their TRPGs--and this is cool!--and there are some pleasures it is difficult-shading-to-impossible to get from (or, looking from the other direction, without) some systems. It connects to wanting different pleasures from a novel than from a TRPG, I think.




Good post.

On the first paragraph I would say/ask:

* When you’re forced to engage with any of the questions I proposed above (eg dreams, coffee, sick, farrier), you’re also not experiencing the moments you “experience” in chronological order.

Therefore...

* I think it’s more likely that your second statement is true. Systematizing memories (whether for genre purposes, for immersive purposes of what it must be like to be a Scoundrel flying by the seat of their pants in a heist, or for generating interesting tactical overhead) is likely where the issue lies. So it’s not a matter of actual continuity. It’s sensitivity to certain sorts of systemization of the fabrication of continuity as it integrates with play that was elided prior.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Good post.
> 
> On the first paragraph I would say/ask:
> 
> * When you’re forced to engage with any of the questions I proposed above (eg dreams, coffee, sick, farrier), you’re also not experiencing the moments you “experience” in chronological order.



Um, at least as I experience them, they might be discontinuous, but they're in chronological order. I do not experience the past after the present. Or in the middle of the present. While I might not experience all of the sequence of A-to-Z, the experience will be A-D-F-H-L-P-S-V-Y, not D-T-H-S-W-V-T-Q-N.


Manbearcat said:


> Therefore...
> 
> * I think it’s more likely that your second statement is true. Systematizing memories (whether for genre purposes, for immersive purposes of what it must be like to be a Scoundrel flying by the seat of their pants in a heist, or for generating interesting tactical overhead) is likely where the issue lies. So it’s not a matter of actual continuity. It’s sensitivity to certain sorts of systemization of the fabrication of continuity as it integrates with play that was elided prior.



I think it's a combination of being a narrative technique/mechanic, being discontinuous, and not being the pleasure some people want out of TRPGs. Of course, my problem with Flashbacks was that looking at the SRD it didn't seem as though it would ever be worth the price in Stress, but that's an entirely different issue.


----------



## Manbearcat

@prabe

Returning to my questions above:

My character asks your character “what were your dreams last night” and “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning?”

How is you channeling your character and providing an answer not “experiencing things out of chronological order?”


----------



## darkbard

prabe said:


> Um, at least as I experience them, they might be discontinuous, but they're in chronological order. I do not experience the past after the present. Or in the middle of the present. While I might not experience all of the sequence of A-to-Z, the experience will be A-D-F-E-H-L-P-V-Y, not D-T-H-S-W-V-T-Q-N.




Are you saying you never daydream of some past event that overtakes/interrupts your experience of the present? We are speaking of imaginative acts here. How is that anything but disrupting the chronological flow of time as you experience it?

EDIT: Ninja'd!


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> Returning to my questions above:
> 
> My character asks your character “what were your dreams last night” and “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning?”
> 
> How is you channeling your character and providing an answer not “experiencing things out of chronological order?”



Because the character either A) had dreams or B) tasted the coffee before being asked. Remembering the experience is not the same thing as experiencing it. Or, the memory is a different experience than the event (and memory not being a perfect recording, that seems like a better description).

(Leaving aside the fact my character probably wouldn't have an answer to the first question because I the player almost never remember my dreams.)


----------



## prabe

darkbard said:


> Are you saying you never daydream of some past event that overtakes/interrupts your experience of the present? We are speaking of imaginative acts here. How is that anything but disrupting the chronological flow of time as you experience it?
> 
> EDIT: Ninja'd!



Actually, that is more or less exactly what I'm saying. Flashback is a storytelling technique that works to overlay events across multiple time streams--it's not a replication of actual human experience, IME.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> When my character figures a puzzle because I really figured it out then that is skilled play that I am doing through my character.   I am being my character.





Emerikol said:


> If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character.   My character came up with that plan so to speak.
> 
> Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one.



In Burning Wheel, when my PC meets his brother when he was hoping to do so, I am being my character. I think this is more immersive than solving a puzzle - because solving a puzzle (I'm thinking here of, say, a number puzzle or a typical riddle) is a cognitive task that is largely independent of my character's distinct personality, whereas hoping to meet my brother is intimately connected to the details of _this character's _history and relationships and aspirations for his future.

It is true that, but for me expressing my hope and then me and the GM resolving a Circles check, the shared fiction would not include my PC's encounter with his brother. That does not change the fact that _I (my character) had a hope to meet his brother_.

I have never read nor played BitD, but I don't see that the flashback mechanic involves any sort of stepping out of character. Here and now, my character is confronted with a problem. I as my character recall what I planned for, in anticipation of the problem; and the GM and I now resolve the operationalisation of that plan. That is _me being my character_.



darkbard said:


> Can you explain the difference you see between having a good imagination to weave outcomes (whatever it is you think that means) versus having a good imagination to think the things you do as a player are things your character is doing?



Like you, I struggle to see any contrast. In all these cases I (pemerton, the player) am using my imagination to imagine what I (pemerton's PC) am doing.



Manbearcat said:


> We don’t inhabit our characters and experience anything like an actual cognitive continuity (and again, there is no such thing). If one PC asks another PC “what were your dreams like last night” or “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning” or “when was the last time you were sick” or “you’re from here...where is the farrier...we need to get our horses taken care of”, the Player in question is going to have to make something up for the PC to recall. There are dozens and dozens of instances like this that can/will come up in play





prabe said:


> Um, at least as I experience them, they might be discontinuous, but* they're in chronological order. I do not experience the past after the present.* Or in the middle of the present. While I might not experience all of the sequence of A-to-Z, the experience will be A-D-F-E-H-L-P-V-Y, not D-T-H-S-W-V-T-Q-N.



In @Manbearcat's examples of play, the bolded thing is not true.



prabe said:


> Because the character either A) had dreams or B) tasted the coffee before being asked. Remembering the experience is not the same thing as experiencing it. Or, the memory is a different experience than the event (and memory not being a perfect recording, that seems like a better description).
> 
> (Leaving aside the fact my character probably wouldn't have an answer to the first question because I the player almost never remember my dreams.)



In BitD, the character _engaged in the planning_ before _operationalising the planning_. The fiction does not involve any sort of time travel.

But just like Manbearcat's examples, the time sequence at the table does not correspond to the time sequence in the fiction.

If my character is asked to tell another character what s/he dreamt, then I (the player at the table) have to make something up about what my character dreamt. In other words, first I experience an event that happens in the (fictional) morning - _Character X asks my PC "what did you dream about?"_ - and then I experience an event that happened earlier (my PC's dreams - it doesn't matter to the point if we assume that at this point I'm actually experiencing my PC's sleeping thoughts or if I'm experiencing my PC's recollection of those upon waking, because both those things happened, in the fiction, before X asked my PC the question).

If my character is asked by character X _did you try my coffee?_ then whatever I answer, I (the player) am experiencing the episode of being asked the question _before _I have any experience of how the morning's coffee-drinking or coffee-declining unfolded, although _in the fiction_ the sequence of events was of course the other way around.

The flashback mechanic is no different in the way it affects the relationship in-fiction time sequences to at-the-table time sequences except that instead of a leisurely question about coffee or dreams which is mere colour, it's more like - as a fight breaks out in a D&D game - one character asks my character _Did you cast Stoneskin on all of us this morning? _The affect on the time sequence is no different; it's just that the stakes of one rather than another answer are a bit higher.


----------



## prabe

So, I should be clear that my problems with BitD do not center around the Flashback mechanic, and my problems with the Flashback mechanic do not center around the non-linearity of it. I think I see how people might have problems with that, but I personally do not.


pemerton said:


> If my character is asked to tell another character what s/he dreamt, then I (the player at the table) have to make something up about what my character dreamt. In other words, first I experience an event that happens in the (fictional) morning - _Character X asks my PC "what did you dream about?"_ - and then I experience an event that happened earlier (my PC's dreams - it doesn't matter to the point if we assume that at this point I'm actually experiencing my PC's sleeping thoughts or if I'm experiencing my PC's recollection of those upon waking, because both those things happened, in the fiction, before X asked my PC the question).
> 
> If my character is asked by character X _did you try my coffee?_ then whatever I answer, I (the player) am experiencing the episode of being asked the question _before _I have any experience of how the morning's coffee-drinking or coffee-declining unfolded, although _in the fiction_ the sequence of events was of course the other way around.



If your character is asked in the morning "What did you dream about?" or "Did you try my coffee?" you are not experiencing the dream, or the coffee-drinking, after the question. You are experiencing your character remembering the dream, or the coffee-drinking. The experiences remain in chronological order.

The examples do not relate to the Flashback mechanic being non-linear.


----------



## prabe

Sorry to respond to the same post twice ...


pemerton said:


> The flashback mechanic is no different in the way it affects the relationship in-fiction time sequences to at-the-table time sequences except that instead of a leisurely question about coffee or dreams which is mere colour, it's more like - as a fight breaks out in a D&D game - one character asks my character _Did you cast Stoneskin on all of us this morning? _The affect on the time sequence is no different; it's just that the stakes of one rather than another answer are a bit higher.



I have allowed something very like this in my 5E campaigns. I suspect you have, too, in 4E. It's one of those instances where I figure the characters might be more with-it than the players, sometimes.

This example is a bit more akin to a BitD Flashback, I think.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> So, I should be clear that my problems with BitD do not center around the Flashback mechanic, and my problems with the Flashback mechanic do not center around the non-linearity of it. I think I see how people might have problems with that, but I personally do not.
> 
> If your character is asked in the morning "What did you dream about?" or "Did you try my coffee?" you are not experiencing the dream, or the coffee-drinking, after the question. You are experiencing your character remembering the dream, or the coffee-drinking. The experiences remain in chronological order.
> 
> The examples do not relate to the Flashback mechanic being non-linear.



The experience of _drinking the coffee_ is established after the experience of _being asked the question_. Just as in a flashback, the experience of _having primed the safe to blow when I give the signal_ is established after the experience of _giving the signal_.

If you want to respond to the coffee example by saying that we skip the drinking and even prior memories thereof and only focus on the recollection, here and now, that is prompted by the question, well we can do the same for the flashback: what is happening in the BitD game is not that I am now establishing some experience that is temporally prior to giving the signal, but rather than - while we skipped RPing that experience - I am now establishing the recollection that I have here-and-now as I give the signal!


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I have allowed something very like this in my 5E campaigns. I suspect you have, too, in 4E.



I've got no perfect recollection here but I think my general response in 4e would be to tell the player to suck it up!

(It's complicated by the fact that 4e has few prep-type spells of the Stoneskin variety. So it tends not to come up.)

In Burning Wheel one of the PCs has the Instinct _Always maintain Turn Aside the Blade_. The player relies on that Instinct quite a bit.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> The experience of _drinking the coffee_ is established after the experience of _being asked the question_. Just as in a flashback, the experience of _having primed the safe to blow when I give the signal_ is established after the experience of _giving the signal_.



The establishment of the experience is not the experience. What you experience around the table is that the existence of the coffee is established, then the drinking of the coffee is established--neither of those is the experience of drinking the coffee. To the extent that you are experiencing what your character is, sitting around the breakfast fire, what you are experiencing is your character remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing.

And I gotta say that I'd probably have problems with any fiction that established what would happen on a given cue after showing that cue--it'd seem more graceful to put the flashback before showing the signal, don'tcha think?


----------



## Campbell

Here's what I can tell you about my experiences with playing Blades in the Dark : it was one of the most deeply immersive roleplaying experiences I have ever had. Getting to sit inside Candros Slane's head intermittently for 6 months and really get to know the rest of the Thorns of the Rose felt being another person to me who lives in a very different world. The way flashbacks, gathering information, equipment, stress, trauma, and downtime all came together really helped me experience a character who was quite different from me cognitively and emotionally. Where I experience the world intuitively and just like to be present in the moment (in my body) Candros was patient, prepared, and always thinking laterally.

That's what I personally value the most in roleplaying games as a player - the ability to step into the shoes of characters who do not see the world as I see it, who do not process information in the same way, who deal with different social pressures than I do. Apocalypse World lets me step into the shoes of someone who has a casual comfort with violence and is at heart a survivor. Blades asks me to step into the shoes of a master criminal who lives and dies by their next job. They are prepared, daring, and beaten down by the harshness of life.

The issue with more traditional play practices (in my opinion) from a character immersion perspective is that there is a narrower range where like on a cognitive, social and emotional level the characters we play have to be much closer to our own perspectives. I don't really ever get to play a character more cautious or prepared then I really am. I have to stay within a range that's more similar to me than even works in theater. Roleplaying than becomes more restrained (rather than less) restrained than acting.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The experience of _drinking the coffee_ is established after the experience of _being asked the question_. Just as in a flashback, the experience of _having primed the safe to blow when I give the signal_ is established after the experience of _giving the signal_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment of the experience is not the experience. What you experience around the table is that the existence of the coffee is established, then the drinking of the coffee is established--neither of those is the experience of drinking the coffee. To the extent that you are experiencing what your character is, sitting around the breakfast fire, what you are experiencing is your character remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing.
> 
> And I gotta say that I'd probably have problems with any fiction that established what would happen on a given cue after showing that cue--it'd seem more graceful to put the flashback before showing the signal, don'tcha think?
Click to expand...


I don't understand.

For my part, I can say that _the drinking of the coffee_ and _the priming of the safe _are things that take place in the fiction. That they take place in the fiction is established _at the table_. In the examples being given - of a player having to decide whether or not his/her PC drank coffee because another character asks about it; of a player deciding that his/her PC primed the safe because now s/he wants to give the signal - something is being established at the table which _in the fiction_ comes later but _at the table_ is established first.

In the coffee case, _at the table it is first established _that there is a truth about whether or not my PC drank the coffee - because the other character asks me a question about it. Only then is there established a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the asking of the question - namely, _did my character drink the coffee_. This is not uncommon in RPGing, as @Manbearcat has already pointed out.

In the safe case, _at the table it is first established_ that my character is giving the signal - I am declaring that as an action for my PC. I don't know exactly how BitD sets out the flashback mechanic, but my assumption is that as part of my declaring of the signal-giving action I am entitled to expend the appropriate resource (stress?) to then establish a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the giving of the signal - namely, _the priming of the safe_. (If for some reason you think that the flashback has to be established _prior_ to actually giving the signal then in the preceding two sentences substitute, for _giving the signal_, _thinking about giving the signal_. The sentences remain true with that substitution and make exactly the same point.)

Someone may or may not enjoy that mechanic: @Campbell has explained how it helped him inhabit a character; @Emerikol has explained how it is at odds with prep-than-act skilled play.

But I don't think the way that it approaches the relationship between time at the table and time in the fiction is particularly remarkable.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand.



It's possible that I don't understand, either. Let me try again, please.


pemerton said:


> For my part, I can say that _the drinking of the coffee_ and _the priming of the safe _are things that take place in the fiction. That they take place in the fiction is established _at the table_. In the examples being given - of a player having to decide whether or not his/her PC drank coffee because another character asks about it; of a player deciding that his/her PC primed the safe because now s/he wants to give the signal - something is being established at the table which _in the fiction_ comes later but _at the table_ is established first.



I think we're establishing something happened _earlier_ in the fiction, so something else can draw on it, either in the present or in the near future. Essentially, we're establishing that the gun has been on the mantelpiece the whole time, so we can take it down and fire it. In one case the metaphorical gun is a pot of coffee; in the other, it's an explosive device on a safe. Yes?


pemerton said:


> In the coffee case, _at the table it is first established _that there is a truth about whether or not my PC drank the coffee - because the other character asks me a question about it. Only then is there established a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the asking of the question - namely, _did my character drink the coffee_. This is not uncommon in RPGing, as @Manbearcat has already pointed out.



My point is that the people around the table are experiencing those things being established in the fiction--in the order they're established around the table. In the fiction, your character is remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing as drinking the coffee. There is no non-linearity here.


pemerton said:


> In the safe case, _at the table it is first established_ that my character is giving the signal - I am declaring that as an action for my PC. I don't know exactly how BitD sets out the flashback mechanic, but my assumption is that as part of my declaring of the signal-giving action I am entitled to expend the appropriate resource (stress?) to then establish a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the giving of the signal - namely, _the priming of the safe_. (If for some reason you think that the flashback has to be established _prior_ to actually giving the signal then in the preceding two sentences substitute, for _giving the signal_, _thinking about giving the signal_. The sentences remain true with that substitution and make exactly the same point.)



I don't remember how the mechanics work in Blades, but in any authored fiction I'd strongly expect to see the explosive and the cue established before showing the cue in the main narrative timeline. Even here, I think it's worth remembering that the experience around the table--and the narrative structure applied--is not exactly what the characters are experiencing. The non-linearity is entirely in the narrative, not in the character's experience--and this disjunction, I think, is at the heart of some people's aesthetic dislike for it, especially if those people don't find themselves drifting into thousands of words of narrative if the aroma of a pastry wafts across their face.


pemerton said:


> Someone may or may not enjoy that mechanic: @Campbell has explained how it helped him inhabit a character; @Emerikol has explained how it is at odds with prep-than-act skilled play.
> 
> But I don't think the way that it approaches the relationship between time at the table and time in the fiction is particularly remarkable.



I concur that the big disconnect is probably for people who feel that the Flashback mechanic (among others) detracts from the pleasure/s they want out of their TRPGs. As you (I think) imply, most of those pleasures are going to be better-served by plan-then-act play.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> It's possible that I don't understand, either. Let me try again, please.
> 
> I think we're establishing something happened _earlier_ in the fiction, so something else can draw on it, either in the present or in the near future. Essentially, we're establishing that the gun has been on the mantelpiece the whole time, so we can take it down and fire it. In one case the metaphorical gun is a pot of coffee; in the other, it's an explosive device on a safe. Yes?
> 
> My point is that the people around the table are experiencing those things being established in the fiction--in the order they're established around the table. In the fiction, your character is remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing as drinking the coffee. There is no non-linearity here.
> 
> I don't remember how the mechanics work in Blades, but in any authored fiction I'd strongly expect to see the explosive and the cue established before showing the cue in the main narrative timeline. Even here, I think it's worth remembering that the experience around the table--and the narrative structure applied--is not exactly what the characters are experiencing. The non-linearity is entirely in the narrative, not in the character's experience--and this disjunction, I think, is at the heart of some people's aesthetic dislike for it, especially if those people don't find themselves drifting into thousands of words of narrative if the aroma of a pastry wafts across their face.
> 
> I concur that the big disconnect is probably for people who feel that the Flashback mechanic (among others) detracts from the pleasure/s they want out of their TRPGs. As you (I think) imply, most of those pleasures are going to be better-served by plan-then-act play.




The formulation is the following:

* All TTRPGs elide a significant amount of what would otherwise be experienced temporal continuity (and the events which unfold within those elided intervals) as a matter of course.

* Hence, *no TTRPG character actually experiences temporal continuity*.

* A satire/farce could be made out of this akin to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead trying to suss out the nature of the contrivances and the lapses of time/events of their lives (because, as we know, their lives are contrivances riddled with lapses just like PCs).

* There is no conceptual difference between the backfilling of elided PC time whether it’s recalling/recounting something as inconsequential as drinking (or not) coffee this morning or as consequential as paying off the maitre d’ to stash a mini revolver in the kettle on the kitchen stove this morning.

Both happened this morning.

Both involve kettles.

Both involve other characters.

Both involve an action in the “present” engaging with the contrivance of a prior elided interval of time which fundamentally demonstrates *temporal continuity does not exist in the shared imagined space.*


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> * All TTRPGs elide a significant amount of what would otherwise be experienced temporal continuity (and the events which unfold within those elided intervals) as a matter of course.
> 
> * Hence, *no TTRPG character actually experiences temporal continuity*.
> 
> * A satire/farce could be made out of this akin to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead trying to suss out the nature of the contrivances and the lapses of time/events of their lives (because, as we know, their lives are contrivances riddled with lapses just like PCs).



By that formulation, practically no fictional character (I'm sure someone can point out an exception) experiences temporal continuity. Because narrative structures play games with time, I think it's at least as reasonable to say that the audiences of fictional stories don't see those elided intervals because the authors choose not to show them; but what happens in those elided intervals happens whether it's observed or not (quantum theory be damned). Otherwise, I think you end up with Rosencrantz and/or Guildenstern, or something more modern like Dan Simmons' The Fifth Heart, wherein Sherlock Holmes has figured out he's a fictional character.


Manbearcat said:


> * There is no conceptual difference between the backfilling of elided PC time whether it’s recalling/recounting something as inconsequential as drinking (or not) coffee this morning or as consequential as paying off the maitre d’ to stash a mini revolver in the kettle on the kitchen stove this morning.
> 
> Both happened this morning.
> 
> Both involve kettles.
> 
> Both involve other characters.
> 
> Both involve an action in the “present” engaging with the contrivance of a prior elided interval of time which fundamentally demonstrates *temporal continuity does not exist in the shared imagined space.*



I don't think I disagree with you on this. The difference is not a matter of concept but one of consequence. I think I've said the consequential sort are about a different sort of pleasure than some people want out of their heist stories. I think some people are going to get kicked out a narrative if it jumps around in time, which might be different in different media (book versus movie versus TRPG).


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> By that formulation, practically no fictional character (I'm sure someone can point out an exception) experiences temporal continuity. Because narrative structures play games with time, I think it's at least as reasonable to say that the audiences of fictional stories don't see those elided intervals because the authors choose not to show them; but what happens in those elided intervals happens whether it's observed or not (quantum theory be damned). Otherwise, I think you end up with Rosencrantz and/or Guildenstern, or something more modern like Dan Simmons' The Fifth Heart, wherein Sherlock Holmes has figured out he's a fictional character.
> 
> I don't think I disagree with you on this. The difference is not a matter of concept but one of consequence. I think I've said the consequential sort are about a different sort of pleasure than some people want out of their heist stories. I think some people are going to get kicked out a narrative if it jumps around in time, which might be different in different media (book versus movie versus TRPG).




On the first paragraph:

Yes, no fictional character experiences temporal continuity. Their “lives” and the imagined space that those “lives” occupy are meta-contrivances, given purpose by our hand/mind (to render an allegory, invest a story with dramatic arc, test an idea, play a game).

They don’t know this because they’re incapable of interacting with the “4th wall” ( unlike Bugs Bunny, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or Deadpool) because the only volition and persistence they posses is that which we invest them with (and it ceases when we elide intervals of their “lives”).

On the second paragraph:

This exactly! This is my point above about this being a proxy (whether intended or not) for Skilled Play priorities (some like Plan Now Act Later because of the strategic element being paramount vs Act Now Plan Later where the tactical element is paramount).

To bring another great satire into this, sub “Communism” for “temporal continuity” (even if it’s not intentionally a red herring):


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> It's possible that I don't understand, either. Let me try again, please.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In the fiction, your character is remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing as drinking the coffee. There is no non-linearity here.



I think you're missing the point.

In order for my PC to _remember that X_, it has to _be the case that X_. (Otherwise it's a delusion, not a memory.)

So the fact that I narrate some recollection on my PC's part - of drinking, or not, the coffee - also establishes something prior ie that my PC did or didn't drink the coffee. And this happens _at the table_ after I am prompted to by another character asking the question of my PC. So at the table we have (1) (a) _Question asked_ which establishes, in the fiction (b) _that my PC was asked a question about what s/he did earlier that morning_ and then (2) (a) _My narration of my PC's answer_, which may also include a recollection, but which - crucially for present purposes - establishes (b) _that my PC drank, or didn't drink, some coffee earlier that morning_.

At the table, the (2)(a) event comes after the (1)(a) event. In the fiction, the (2)(b) event (_drinking, or not, the coffee_) comes before the (1)(b) event (_being asked the question_).

That is my point, and as far as I can tell is also @Manbearcat's point.

Notice that if we change _coffee _to _potion of longevity_ and we change the situation from after-breakfast free roleplaying to an encounter with an AD&D ghost, _nothing changes_ about either the (a) sequence or the (b) sequence, but that @Emerikol and @Lanefan would insist that the player can't "retroactively" change the fictional past to make it the case that his/her PC drank the potion to get younger and hence build up a buffer against the ghost's aging power.

That is why I assert, and as far as I can tell @Manbearcat agrees, that what is at stake in relation to BitD flashback is not _temporal sequence _but rather a rule about when _important stuff _has to be established as part of a "plan than act" play priority (best elaborated, I think, by Gygax in the pages of his PHB just prior to the Appendices).



prabe said:


> The non-linearity is entirely in the narrative, not in the character's experience--and this disjunction, I think, is at the heart of some people's aesthetic dislike for it



Exactly the same "non-linearity" is present in the coffee example - first we establish, in the narrative, that the character is asked an after-breakfast question about what happened at breakfast, and then we establish, as a component of the fiction, that something-or-other took place at breakfast.

If we imagine a film with this particular coffee example, there are (at least) two ways it could be done: the character is asked the question by X, and then narrates an answer; or, the character is asked the question by X, and then we have a flashback scene (perhaps in B/W or sepia or vaseline lens to make it clear) of the breakfast event taking place. But the use of either expository technique doesn't change the fact that the events of the fiction are being revealed in a sequence that differs from that in which they occurred in the fiction.

I don't know BitD, but I doubt that the Flashback mechanic cares whether a player narrates it as his/her PC recollecting his/her prior cunning planning, or narrates it in a somewhat impersonal past tense (as might happen in an omniscient narrator novel) or narrates it with a vivid sense of having been there (a RPG approximation to the cinematic flashback scene). What is fundamental is that the events of the fiction are established, and hence revealed, in a sequence that differs from that in which they occurred in the fiction.

Hence the identity of structure to the coffee example. And hence the assertion - given the ubiquity of stuff like the coffee example in RPGing - that the objection to the flashback mechanic must be grounded in something other than general aesthetic preference.

EDIT: I saw this in reply to @Manbearcat:


prabe said:


> I don't think I disagree with you on this. The difference is not a matter of concept but one of consequence.



If this means what I think it means, then I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me and arguing that the coffee example exhibits a different relationship of real-world narrative events to imagined in-fiction events from a BitD flashback.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.



I think this factors into it no doubt.  So it would be a major objection on it's own merits alone.

I think though the version of skilled play we are discussing here is very much the natural outcome of character viewpoint play.  That is what you would do if you were that character.  You'd plan because if you don't you might die.  There is no stepping back.

Also, any time the player manufactures additional facts about reality on the fly, this to me is stepping out of character because I don't do that in real life.   I already know what I know.   You see the character already knew about the flashback.   So the player is learning about what the character supposedly already knows.  The problem though is that clashes directly with the idea that the player is the character and knows what the character knows.

Now your examples about minor details could go exactly as you say and most people just don't care about those things.  It would not though be out of bounds if the player asked the DM what it tasted like and would he like it.   It's not important so it's glossed over.  Fact is I don't think my characters would ever ask that question.  So if asked, I imagine my characters would ask about what the coffee was like flavor wise or they'd just handwave it and say "fine".   If the guy has a super high cooking skill maybe they'd say it was "good".   

So let's suppose we were talking pizza and the campaign is moderns.  It might be a background fact that you are from NY and it might be that NY style pizza just fits your character identity.  That would be fine.  When the guy from Chicago offers you his style of pizza you might reply "eh nice pizza flavored casserole but I thought you were making pizza?"   (I hope my own preference isn't too obvious ;-)).


----------



## Emerikol

I wouldn't say the flashback mechanic is the sole reason Blades would not be a game I'd want to play in a big campaign.  It's just one of many all based upon a common premise.

When the player's time sequence differs from the character's that is bad in my approach to the game.  I am trying to be in my characters shoes, seeing through my characters eyes, and being my character.  Experience time like my character does.   That to me is character immersion. 

I do find the following to be my experience on these and other boards.

me:  I don't like game Z because I can't achieve X

others:  Oh I achieve X all the time.   (Then proceeds to redefine X to not mean X as I've used it for 30 years.)

It can be frustrating because the terms keep moving under your feet and you can't really even have a conversation because whatever term you use someone will quickly redefine it.

The only other place I've seen this commonly is in theological discussions and I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a connection there.


----------



## darkbard

Emerikol said:


> I think though the version of skilled play we are discussing here is very much the *natural* outcome of character viewpoint play.  That is what you would do if you were that character.  You'd plan because if you don't you might die.  There is no stepping back.
> 
> Also, any time the player manufactures additional facts about reality on the fly, this to me is stepping out of character because I don't do that in real life.   I already know what I know.   You see the character already knew about the flashback.   So the player is learning about what the character supposedly already knows.  The problem though is that clashes directly with the idea that the player is the character and knows what the character knows.




What do you mean by natural, above? Something like the inevitable consequence of play without interfering artifice? But if so, that suggests One True Wayism, doesn't it?

Further, and I don't know how to say this more clearly, _you are *never* your character_. Willing suspension of disbelief to experience the game (mostly in brief flashes) as if you were your character is a fine goal, but _you, the player_ do not understand how to manipulate magical energy fields to conjure a ball of fire, call upon your deity to produce a miracle lifting a plague that devastates a village, have the physical strength and dexterity to flip and somersault across a room wherein vicious monsters threaten your life at every turn, or have the experience of a criminal mastermind in planning an infiltration heist into a high security vault. (I speak in the aggregate here; there may be some specific exceptions in some readers to some proposed examples.) There are many, many things your character knows but you do not, as has been pointed out in countless threads across the years. You gloss over things you, the player, don't actually know or experience in play all the time. But you don't suppose your _character_ doesn't know the things they are expert in!

Why is it so hard for you to believe someone can experience the game through "character viewpoint" only by supposing that their mastermind criminal would know something the player does not and plan accordingly but that this might manifest through the use of flashbacks _because the player only now realizes something their character would have known or done?_ I fully understand why this would spoil _your_ enjoyment of the game, but why you think it cannot be a "natural outcome" of seeing the world through the character's viewpoint is frustrating, to say the least.


----------



## Emerikol

darkbard said:


> What do you mean by natural, above? Something like the inevitable consequence of play without interfering artifice? But if so, that suggests One True Wayism, doesn't it?



No.  I mean natural for those wanting to be in character stance or viewpoint.  It's an obvious outcome of character viewpoint play.  I very much am not saying that other types of play are wrong or bad.  Given my limited time for long campaigns they aren't for me.   My main approach in most of these discussions is just defending against what I see as false claims about my own style of play.



darkbard said:


> Further, and I don't know how to say this more clearly, _you are *never* your character_. Willing suspension of disbelief to experience the game (mostly in brief flashes) as if you were your character is a fine goal, but _you, the player_ do not understand how to manipulate magical energy fields to conjure a ball of fire, call upon your deity to produce a miracle lifting a plague that devastates a village, have the physical strength and dexterity to flip and somersault across a room wherein vicious monsters threaten your life at every turn, or have the experience of a criminal mastermind in planning an infiltration heist into a high security vault. (I speak in the aggregate here; there may be some specific exceptions in some readers to some proposed examples.) There are many, many things your character knows but you do not, as has been pointed out in countless threads across the years. You gloss over things you, the player, don't actually know or experience in play all the time. But you don't suppose your _character_ doesn't know the things they are expert in!



Yes.  The fun of roleplaying and why it exploded in my opinion was the game allowed you to be those things.   Yes the game is abstracted so that I am able to play a character capable of all those things.  My decision making process though is untouched.  I decide to swing my sword when it swings.  I decide to cast my spell.   Sure I don't have the muscle memory of an 18 strength fighter who has mastered the sword.   That you conflate these two sorts of knowledge is again just evidence you don't understand our viewpoint.



darkbard said:


> Why is it so hard for you to believe someone can experience the game through "character viewpoint" only by supposing that their mastermind criminal would know something the player does not and plan accordingly but that this might manifest through the use of flashbacks _because the player only now realizes something their character would have known or done?_ I fully understand why this would spoil _your_ enjoyment of the game, but why you think it cannot be a "natural outcome" of seeing the world through the character's viewpoint is frustrating, to say the least.



By definition character viewpoint precludes those things.  By definition.  It's just a definition.  And I'm sick of people constantly trying to redefine terms to include things that those terms never included originally.  Make up your own term.  I'm not disputing you enjoy your game or that others might enjoy your game.  I am disputing that the stance/view I am talking about could possibly include such a disconnect between player and character.


----------



## Campbell

@Emirikol 

I am someone who places a premium on that sense of sharing the experience of my character in the moment. It's often my highest priority. I often use different techniques than you do to achieve similar ends. The idea that my play is somehow alien to the perspective of the characters I play or that my agenda is not what I say it is because I utilize different techniques is just wrong. You do not get to own that particular play agenda.

This is not about whether or not I enjoy the games I play. It's that you are making claims about what other people's aims must be. That you would experience a disconnect between player and character in something like Blades I do not dispute. I dispute that I do.


----------



## Emerikol

Campbell said:


> @Emirikol
> 
> I am someone who places a premium on that sense of sharing the experience of my character in the moment. It's often my highest priority. I often use different techniques than you do to achieve similar ends. The idea that my play is somehow alien to the perspective of the characters I play or that my agenda is not what I say it is because I utilize different techniques is just wrong. You do not get to own that particular play agenda.
> 
> This is not about whether or not I enjoy the games I play. It's that you are making claims about what other people's aims must be. That you would experience a disconnect between player and character in something like Blades I do not dispute. I dispute that I do.



But terms mean things.  Character view point for example means making decisions as if you were the character.  If you make a decision your character cannot make then you've left that viewpoint.  That has nothing to do with the merit of any approach.  If I say I like or don't like something because I want to stay in character viewpoint, it's meaningless as a statement if no one can agree on the terms.   And it seems every time I try to state my preference, the very first thing people do is try to prove my whole concept doesn't exist and they redefine the term.  It's as if allowing me to have a reason for my preferences is not allowed.  They will go to any end to prove my taste is purely random and based upon nothing in the game.   It's annoying to say the least.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lets leave the defending/attacking reading aside for the moment. I would say that I find the particular reading of character viewpoint that you bring up somewhat limited in how it actually describes the play of an RPG. I don't deny that it accurately describes, at least in a general sense, a particular approach to play, nor that it the approach is the one that you tend to enjoy the most, lets call those two items given. My issue with it is more philosophical than anything else. I think that your reading doesn't really capture the range of decisions and mechanics present in many RPGs in terms of buttons that the player can push to 'do character things'. The problem here, I think, is that the opinion of a given player can range pretty dramatically about what is, and is not, 'in character'. Even something as simple as a Lore test, where the GM has to provide you information based on what you character should or might know, is out of character by your definition, at least in some ways. I think the example of lore tests is a good one though, as it clearly outlines the nature of RPG mechanics as mechanics, as widgets that allow some level of emulation in terms of playing in character. They are not accurate reflections in most cases of what people actually do in that situation.  In those terms, I find a lot of discussion that valorizes 'in character' to be somewhat arbitrary. YMMV, of course.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> Also, any time the player manufactures additional facts about reality on the fly, this to me is stepping out of character because I don't do that in real life. I already know what I know.




So if you’re playing a wizard and you come across some arcane runes on a doorframe in a dungeon, how is the process of determining if you know what these runes say anything like real life?

When I encounter something in real life, i either know it or I don’t, as you say. I don’t get to decide in that moment if I already know it

Nor do I turn to my friend and say “hey do I know this?” then watch him roll some dice, and tell me “Nope, you don’t.”

Neither process maps to real life. We are determining things in play retroactively consistently. It’s baked in to play. 



Emerikol said:


> You see the character already knew about the flashback. So the player is learning about what the character supposedly already knows. The problem though is that clashes directly with the idea that the player is the character and knows what the character knows.




The player never knows everything the character knows ahead of time. A player could come to the game with a 700 page backstory and there would still be plenty of things that he doesn’t know until after the fact. 

The issue would seem to be that many of the ways this happens in play have been around for so long, and are so prevalent that they are simply accepted. They’re a standard of play to the point that they aren’t obvious. 

But if you take a more overt example of this...whether as a spell or some other method like a Flashback....then it stands out. 

Now, having said that...it’s fine not to like those overt actions, or to only accept those that can be handwaved by magic or some other  setting detail...that’s all fine, and I think everyone involved can understand why someone may have this preference. 

But there’s nothing more or less natural about how folks try to inhabit their character. There are just different methods of doing so, with pros and cons that will vary by person.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> We don’t inhabit our characters and experience anything like an actual cognitive continuity (and again, there is no such thing). If one PC asks another PC “what were your dreams like last night” or “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning” or “when was the last time you were sick” or “you’re from here...where is the farrier...we need to get our horses taken care of”, the Player in question is going to have to make something up for the PC to recall. There are dozens and dozens of instances like this that can/will come up in play that will intersect with that unavoidable lack of cognitive continuity.



Sure.  We don't have perfect knowledge of our PCs, so there will be times where we have to make stuff up, just like there will be times where we have to step out of character to roll dice or look up something in a book.  The goal is not perfect continuity, but to immerse ourselves as best that we can with the knowledge that we have. 

I like to write up backgrounds and develop a personality for my PCs, and I add to that as is needed during game play.  The fewer instances where I have to step out the better.


Manbearcat said:


> So why do Flashbacks have special domain in being jarring/disruptive to a priority for a cognitive continuity that already doesn’t exist (and, as per my first part above, is undesirable for a sense of experience an actual “human-like existence)?



Because they are a much larger step out of what continuity is there than something like coming up with a dream or figuring out if my PC likes coffee.  Even if I have to make up some things as the game goes on, it's still go on sequentially.  One moment to the next.  I'd also like to say that I'm not necessarily against flashbacks.  I've experienced and used flashbacks and cut away scenes in my games.  The issue I have here is using a flashback to impact what is going on currently


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> On the first paragraph:
> 
> Yes, no fictional character experiences temporal continuity. Their “lives” and the imagined space that those “lives” occupy are meta-contrivances, given purpose by our hand/mind (to render an allegory, invest a story with dramatic arc, test an idea, play a game).
> 
> They don’t know this because they’re incapable of interacting with the “4th wall” ( unlike Bugs Bunny, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or Deadpool) because the only volition and persistence they posses is that which we invest them with (and it ceases when we elide intervals of their “lives”).



This is probably a defensible position, but I disagree. I do not believe that the author/s omitting parts of a character's life means those parts do not exist. Just because characters in a novel never use the bathroom does not mean they don't excrete--it just means the author doesn't bother to narrate it. If you start a story in medias res, you are going to go back and narrate things that have already happened at the point where narration begins.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I think you're missing the point.



I don't think I am at all. I think I'm disagreeing, but that's not the same thing.


pemerton said:


> In order for my PC to _remember that X_, it has to _be the case that X_. (Otherwise it's a delusion, not a memory.)
> 
> So the fact that I narrate some recollection on my PC's part - of drinking, or not, the coffee - also establishes something prior ie that my PC did or didn't drink the coffee. And this happens _at the table_ after I am prompted to by another character asking the question of my PC. So at the table we have (1) (a) _Question asked_ which establishes, in the fiction (b) _that my PC was asked a question about what s/he did earlier that morning_ and then (2) (a) _My narration of my PC's answer_, which may also include a recollection, but which - crucially for present purposes - establishes (b) _that my PC drank, or didn't drink, some coffee earlier that morning_.
> 
> At the table, the (2)(a) event comes after the (1)(a) event. In the fiction, the (2)(b) event (_drinking, or not, the coffee_) comes before the (1)(b) event (_being asked the question_).
> 
> That is my point, and as far as I can tell is also @Manbearcat's point.



And I disagree with both of you.

Establishing the events of the past out of order in the narrative doesn't mean they happened out of order. Y'all around the table are experiencing the establishment, not the events themselves. The non-linearity is in the telling, not the events.


pemerton said:


> Notice that if we change _coffee _to _potion of longevity_ and we change the situation from after-breakfast free roleplaying to an encounter with an AD&D ghost, _nothing changes_ about either the (a) sequence or the (b) sequence, but that @Emerikol and @Lanefan would insist that the player can't "retroactively" change the fictional past to make it the case that his/her PC drank the potion to get younger and hence build up a buffer against the ghost's aging power.



Given that one is more consequential than the other, I'd say there's some reason to allow one but not the other at a TRPG table (presuming a D&D-esque game with no mechanics to allow it).


pemerton said:


> That is why I assert, and as far as I can tell @Manbearcat agrees, that what is at stake in relation to BitD flashback is not _temporal sequence _but rather a rule about when _important stuff _has to be established as part of a "plan than act" play priority (best elaborated, I think, by Gygax in the pages of his PHB just prior to the Appendices).



I don't disagree with this, but I know there are people with a low-enough tolerance for non-linear storytelling that they'd have problems with it regardless, and I can see how that might vary by medium, and how it might be specific to TRPGs. I have a pretty high tolerance for non-linearity in storytelling myself, in other media, but I'm not sure it works super-well for consequential things in TRPGs.


pemerton said:


> I don't know BitD, but I doubt that the Flashback mechanic cares whether a player narrates it as his/her PC recollecting his/her prior cunning planning, or narrates it in a somewhat impersonal past tense (as might happen in an omniscient narrator novel) or narrates it with a vivid sense of having been there (a RPG approximation to the cinematic flashback scene). What is fundamental is that the events of the fiction are established, and hence revealed, in a sequence that differs from that in which they occurred in the fiction.
> 
> Hence the identity of structure to the coffee example. And hence the assertion - given the ubiquity of stuff like the coffee example in RPGing - that the objection to the flashback mechanic must be grounded in something other than general aesthetic preference.



Again, though I disagree with you about the chronological nature of fictional realities, I don't disagree with your assertion that a BitD Flashback is at least very nearly identical to a flashback in some other narrative medium. I think it might feel more like an actual narrative device (I mean, it's named for one) and that might matter to some people, if they don't like getting Story into their TRPGs.


pemerton said:


> EDIT: I saw this in reply to @Manbearcat:
> 
> If this means what I think it means, then I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me and arguing that the coffee example exhibits a different relationship of real-world narrative events to imagined in-fiction events from a BitD flashback.



What I think I'm disagreeing with is that I think you're saying that the order in which the players experience events in the narrative is the exact same as the order in which the characters experience them.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  We don't have perfect knowledge of our PCs, so there will be times where we have to make stuff up, just like there will be times where we have to step out of character to roll dice or look up something in a book.  The goal is not perfect continuity, but to immerse ourselves as best that we can with the knowledge that we have.
> 
> I like to write up backgrounds and develop a personality for my PCs, and I add to that as is needed during game play.  The fewer instances where I have to step out the better.
> 
> *Because they are a much larger step out of what continuity* is there than something like coming up with a dream or figuring out if my PC likes coffee.  Even if I have to make up some things as the game goes on, it's still go on sequentially.  One moment to the next.  I'd also like to say that I'm not necessarily against flashbacks.  I've experienced and used flashbacks and cut away scenes in my games.  The issue I have here is using a flashback to impact what is going on currently




When you say *larger *here can you winnow down what you mean exactly?

Do you mean one or all of these three things (and @Emerikol , you may be interested in answering this as well)?

1)  It (_a Flashback where you convince the maitre-d to stuff a revolver in a kettle_) is a larger interval of prior elided time (_than the morning ritual of having/not-having coffee and interacting with the people/place/stuff_).

2)  It is a more consequential (in terms of impact on the gamestate/fiction trajectory) interval of prior elided time.

3)  It is a more Skilled Play intensive (in terms of preferred Skilled Play priorities) interval of prior elided time.


(1) has to do with immersion.  Its setting up a qualitative evaluation of "jarringitude" based on the proportion of elided time.

(2) may be immersion-adjacent though not necessarily.  It looks to me to look more like about the aesthetic of play (_I want to be devoting table time to this stuff vs this other stuff_).

(3) is entirely about Skilled Play preference.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> When you say *larger *here can you winnow down what you mean exactly?
> 
> Do you mean one or all of these three things (and @Emerikol , you may be interested in answering this as well)?
> 
> 1)  It (_a Flashback where you convince the maitre-d to stuff a revolver in a kettle_) is a larger interval of prior elided time (_than the morning ritual of having/not-having coffee and interacting with the people/place/stuff_).
> 
> 2)  It is a more consequential (in terms of impact on the gamestate/fiction trajectory) interval of prior elided time.
> 
> 3)  It is a more Skilled Play intensive (in terms of preferred Skilled Play priorities) interval of prior elided time.
> 
> 
> (1) has to do with immersion.  Its setting up a qualitative evaluation of "jarringitude" based on the proportion of elided time.
> 
> (2) may be immersion-adjacent though not necessarily.  It looks to me to look more like about the aesthetic of play (_I want to be devoting table time to this stuff vs this other stuff_).
> 
> (3) is entirely about Skilled Play preference.



It's more disruptive to my immersion.  If I have to step out to roll a die and then step back in, very little disruption has happened.  If I have to step out to quickly formulate a dream, very little disruption has happened.  If I'm stepping completely out of the timeline and going back to play something in some other time, then come back and have what I just played impact what is currently going on, it's a significant disruption to my immersion in the character.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> It's more disruptive to my immersion.  If I have to step out to roll a die and then step back in, very little disruption has happened.  If I have to step out to quickly formulate a dream, very little disruption has happened.  If I'm stepping completely out of the timeline and going back to play something in some other time, then come back and have what I just played impact what is currently going on, it's a significant disruption to my immersion in the character.



Just to clarify, are you saying this having actually done it, or are you speaking hypothetically?


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Just to clarify, are you saying this having actually done it, or are you speaking hypothetically?



I've done flashbacks, but not the kind where it would affect current play.  However, I know myself very well and am really good at putting myself into situation and other people's shoes to see how I or they might feel.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I've done flashbacks, but not the kind where it would affect current play.  However, I know myself very well and am really good at putting myself into situation and other people's shoes to see how I or they might feel.



I wasn't questioning the veracity of your opinion at all (that would be silly), just curious about the background for it. Thanks.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I wasn't questioning the veracity of your opinion at all (that would be silly), just curious about the background for it. Thanks.



Sure.  And to clarify a bit further.  Even the flashbacks that don't affect the present I find to be moderately disruptive, but I also find that what you get out of them to be positive enough to warrant it.  I'll sometimes flash myself back and roleplay out a moment in my character's past that is relevant to the current situation as a way to show the players and DM more of my motivation about why I'm about to take the action that I'm going to be taking.  Flashbacks can be a very powerful tool.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> When you say *larger *here can you winnow down what you mean exactly?
> 
> Do you mean one or all of these three things (and @Emerikol , you may be interested in answering this as well)?






Manbearcat said:


> 1)  It (_a Flashback where you convince the maitre-d to stuff a revolver in a kettle_) is a larger interval of prior elided time (_than the morning ritual of having/not-having coffee and interacting with the people/place/stuff_).



The player may be able to time travel just like you do when reading a novel and encounter a flashback.  A character can't do that.   When the character charges off without planning, and makes such a decision it's an in game decision.  Later the character, can't decide something happened earlier.  That would be a player decision.

I think the disconnect between player knowledge over time and character knowledge over time.  It matches in my games and does not in yours.   Again if it is relevant in any way to in game success.

A,B,X are facts.
                             Player         Character
1 Time                    A                    AX
2  Time                   B                     B
3  Flashback           X

As you can see at time 1  the player only knows facts A but the character knows facts A and X.   The player then finds out about X at time 3 and backfills them to time 1.   



Manbearcat said:


> 2)  It is a more consequential (in terms of impact on the gamestate/fiction trajectory) interval of prior elided time.



I would think this is a case by case thing whatever the method.  



Manbearcat said:


> 3)  It is a more Skilled Play intensive (in terms of preferred Skilled Play priorities) interval of prior elided time.



Well for sure it goes against traditional skilled play as we've discussed and that would be a deal breaker even without the continuity breaks and immersion losses.  



Manbearcat said:


> (1) has to do with immersion.  Its setting up a qualitative evaluation of "jarringitude" based on the proportion of elided time.
> 
> (2) may be immersion-adjacent though not necessarily.  It looks to me to look more like about the aesthetic of play (_I want to be devoting table time to this stuff vs this other stuff_).
> 
> (3) is entirely about Skilled Play preference.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> Returning to my questions above:
> 
> My character asks your character “what were your dreams last night” and “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning?”
> 
> How is you channeling your character and providing an answer not “experiencing things out of chronological order?”



Because here you're asking the character to tell you about things that it has in theory already experienced in chronological order at the time.

The character had some dreams during sleep, _and then_ it might have tried your coffee, _and then_ this conversation with your character takes place. If desired, these events could have been roleplayed out in sequence. It's the same as your character and mine telling war stories about our past (roleplayed) adventures together.

Also, note there's no mechanical advantage to be gained anywhere here; in sharp contrast with a situation where you can determine in the moment what equipment you earlier-in-time decided to bring along based on the problems you're facing now.  Worse, you don't get the opportunity to roleplay those equipment-load decisions ahead of time and thus maybe get it wrong.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> The flashback mechanic is no different in the way it affects the relationship in-fiction time sequences to at-the-table time sequences except that instead of a leisurely question about coffee or dreams which is mere colour, it's more like - as a fight breaks out in a D&D game - one character asks my character _Did you cast Stoneskin on all of us this morning? _The affect on the time sequence is no different; it's just that the stakes of one rather than another answer are a bit higher.



And as DM I'd probably interject at this point and say "_If you haven't already cast it and knocked off the spell slots, those spells haven't been cast._"  As player, if I hadn't knocked off the slots etc. my reply would be "_Oops.  Guess not._"


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> The formulation is the following:
> 
> * All TTRPGs elide a significant amount of what would otherwise be experienced temporal continuity (and the events which unfold within those elided intervals) as a matter of course.



Yet the characters still experienced that temporal continuity in the fictional reality; and saying they didn't just because it wasn't all roleplayed through at the table is false.

Both in the fiction and at the table, time only moves in one direction.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> At the table, the (2)(a) event comes after the (1)(a) event. In the fiction, the (2)(b) event (_drinking, or not, the coffee_) comes before the (1)(b) event (_being asked the question_).



And as all that matters is what happens in the fiction, if drinking this coffee is important enough to be relevant then it should have been roleplayed through while the characters were still having breakfast....


pemerton said:


> Notice that if we change _coffee _to _potion of longevity_ and we change the situation from after-breakfast free roleplaying to an encounter with an AD&D ghost, _nothing changes_ about either the (a) sequence or the (b) sequence, but that @Emerikol and @Lanefan would insist that the player can't "retroactively" change the fictional past to make it the case that his/her PC drank the potion to get younger and hence build up a buffer against the ghost's aging power.



... because of this.  Retconning as described here would, I think, qualify as cheating pretty much everywhere.

So, the dividing line pretty much becomes one of whether something like this can or does have any mechanical impact.  Unless the coffee was poisoned or gave some mechanical benefit or whatever, whether or not you drank some this morning has no real bearing on anything other than flavour.  Flavour is good.  Go for it!

Contrast this with retroactively introducing a hidden gun in the kettle: irrelevant if no-one ever finds it but which _does_ have mechanical impact the moment it's discovered by anyone.  This is bad.

Or the _Potion of Longevity_, introduced retroactively with the specific intent of giving a mechanical advantage now.  This is worse.


----------



## Fenris-77

Using a flashback to acquire a potion of longevity would make sense if the characters knew (or could have reasonably known) there was a monster involved that aged people, somehow. Otherwise not so much. It's really not the retcon tool people seem to be imagining.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Using a flashback to acquire a potion of longevity would make sense if the characters knew (or could have reasonably known) there was a monster involved that aged people, somehow. Otherwise not so much. It's really not the retcon tool people seem to be imagining.



The mechanical benefit of drinking a magical potion of longevity aside, do you often have someone randomly flashing back to drink one?  What would be the point of such a flashback if not to aid with something that needed it?


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, that's not really a thing in Blades, so no. My point was more about the place of the flashback relative to the established fiction and planning process that Blades elides.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Emerikol said:


> The player may be able to time travel just like you do when reading a novel and encounter a flashback. A character can't do that. When the character charges off without planning, and makes such a decision it's an in game decision. Later the character, can't decide something happened earlier. That would be a player decision.




There is no need for time travel on the part of the character. 

Again, look at a simple Knowledge or Lore check. The players in a game are simply not aware of everything their characters may be. We very often don't know _until there is something introduced that triggers our need to know. _

So....the Sword of Kas is mentioned by an NPC. How do we know if the PC Wizard has heard of this? 

Clearly, the chronology of this is different for the player when compared to the character. 

A check is made, and it's determined he knows about Kas who betrayed Vecna and all that jazz. Of course the character has known this since he learned it during his apprenticeship, and so he is able to share his knowledge with the other characters (or not, if he's a jerk). 

But for the player, that knowledge only came about as a response to something in the game, where a check was made, and then an advantage was gained that reframed the current scene. 

This is very similar to how a Flashback works in Blades, except it is more limited in application (usually an associated skill or ability must be possessed by the character).



Emerikol said:


> I think the disconnect between player knowledge over time and character knowledge over time. It matches in my games and does not in yours. Again if it is relevant in any way to in game success.




It never really matches in any game. You're just so comfortable with the instances that do come up in your game, that you're classifying them differently.



Lanefan said:


> The character had some dreams during sleep, _and then_ it might have tried your coffee, _and then_ this conversation with your character takes place. If desired, these events could have been roleplayed out in sequence. It's the same as your character and mine telling war stories about our past (roleplayed) adventures together.




If desired or not, the fact is that we are establishing details and facts about the world retroactively very frequently in more traditional minded games. It's just mechanized in specific ways like Knowledge skills, Bardic Lore, or Divination and similar abilities. There needs to be some kind of "approval stamp" that says "this is okay in this case and it's not dirty cheating cuz magic". 

Blades and games with similar elements simply remove the need for approval stamps, and instead make the ability available to anyone, provided they can come up with something that suits, spend the appropriate amount of Stress, and make the associated Action Roll (if applicable). 




Lanefan said:


> Also, note there's no mechanical advantage to be gained anywhere here; in sharp contrast with a situation where you can determine in the moment what equipment you earlier-in-time decided to bring along based on the problems you're facing now. Worse, you don't get the opportunity to roleplay those equipment-load decisions ahead of time and thus maybe get it wrong.




What about a Knowledge or Lore check to help determine the nature of the legendary creature said to be inhabiting the dungeon that's about to be entered? A successful check means that the Bard knows the legend of this creature, and that he was called the Ghost King by some......so maybe some Restoration spells and Longevity Potions are in order. 

Mechanical advantage gained (prepare for an encounter with a ghost) by retroactively establishing a past event (learning the lore).



Lanefan said:


> Both in the fiction and at the table, time only moves in one direction.




This is very clearly not true.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Using a flashback to acquire a potion of longevity would make sense if the characters knew (or could have reasonably known) there was a monster involved that aged people, somehow. Otherwise not so much. It's really not the retcon tool people seem to be imagining.



It's a retcon, pure and simple.

If they knew of - or could reasonably foresee - an aging threat ahead of time then they also could have got the potion at that time, roleplayed long before they get to the encounter area; and if they didn't get the potion then it's too bad for them now.  Never mind that doing it the retcon way very conveniently removes any chance of their not being able to find one.

This is why you play through the planning phases first and do things in time-sequential order, to avoid this kind of BS and the inevitable table arguments it'll provoke.  If they want to skip over the planning phases and jump right to the action then fine, they go in with exactly what they have noted on their sheets, nothing more and no retcons.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> There is no need for time travel on the part of the character.
> 
> Again, look at a simple Knowledge or Lore check. The players in a game are simply not aware of everything their characters may be. We very often don't know _until there is something introduced that triggers our need to know. _
> 
> So....the Sword of Kas is mentioned by an NPC. How do we know if the PC Wizard has heard of this?
> 
> Clearly, the chronology of this is different for the player when compared to the character.
> 
> A check is made, and it's determined he knows about Kas who betrayed Vecna and all that jazz. Of course the character has known this since he learned it during his apprenticeship, and so he is able to share his knowledge with the other characters (or not, if he's a jerk).



And here you hit the most important point: the info in question was learned _prior_ to the character's roleplayed career. The player had no way of knowing about this up until now.

If however it was learned _during_ the character's roleplayed career as part of play then it's on the player to either remember it or look it up in the game log, failure meaning the character has forgotten what it was told.


hawkeyefan said:


> What about a Knowledge or Lore check to help determine the nature of the legendary creature said to be inhabiting the dungeon that's about to be entered? A successful check means that the Bard knows the legend of this creature, and that he was called the Ghost King by some......so maybe some Restoration spells and Longevity Potions are in order.
> 
> Mechanical advantage gained (prepare for an encounter with a ghost) by retroactively establishing a past event (learning the lore).



If all this is done (and played through!) ahead of time and the resulting countermeasures are taken ahead of time, then fine.  What I object to is, in the both at-table and in-play moment of encountering a foe with specific abilities/weaknesses, the sudden unexplained appearance in your backpack of just the thing you need because you were able to retcon it in.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> It's a retcon, pure and simple.
> 
> If they knew of - or could reasonably foresee - an aging threat ahead of time then they also could have got the potion at that time, roleplayed long before they get to the encounter area; and if they didn't get the potion then it's too bad for them now.  Never mind that doing it the retcon way very conveniently removes any chance of their not being able to find one.
> 
> This is why you play through the planning phases first and do things in time-sequential order, to avoid this kind of BS and the inevitable table arguments it'll provoke.  If they want to skip over the planning phases and jump right to the action then fine, they go in with exactly what they have noted on their sheets, nothing more and no retcons.



Yeah, no, it isn't. Your personal biases are showing a little here.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, no, it isn't. Your personal biases are showing a little here.



When on meeting a given situation you can in effect go back in time and materially change things to your benefit in that situation, how in any way is that not a retcon?


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Just so that everybody is on the same page WRT flashbacks in Blades:







EDIT: also Act Now, Plan Later:


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> It's a retcon, pure and simple.
> 
> If they knew of - or could reasonably foresee - an aging threat ahead of time then they also could have got the potion at that time, roleplayed long before they get to the encounter area; and if they didn't get the potion then it's too bad for them now.  Never mind that doing it the retcon way very conveniently removes any chance of their not being able to find one.
> 
> This is why you play through the planning phases first and do things in time-sequential order, to avoid this kind of BS and the inevitable table arguments it'll provoke.  If they want to skip over the planning phases and jump right to the action then fine, they go in with exactly what they have noted on their sheets, nothing more and no retcons.




Blades in the Dark encourages you to skip the planning. So your insistence is clearly specific to your game and is only a matter of preference. It doesn't cause any table arguments, nor does continuity come crashing down around the characters. I think that's all that we can really say about it. There is no objectively correct way to handle this. 

A lore check is just as much of a retcon.

The reason Blades encourages skipping the planning is that a lot of planning is often boring (not all of it, and not always, but we've all been at a table where two players are debating some opposing courses of action, and a third is sitting there, chin in hand, just waiting to actually play) and a significant portion of time is wasted on plans that don't come into play. 

Is some planning fun and meaningful play? Sure. Is it possible you may skip past something that would have been entertaining to actually play out? Yes....but this is why the game does not require you to skip. The expectation is that you have at least a basic plan in place, but there's nothing to actually stop you from providing a fuller plan. And also, this is part of what makes Flashbacks fun.....they allow you to only play out the fun and meaningful plans. 




Lanefan said:


> And here you hit the most important point: the info in question was learned _prior_ to the character's roleplayed career. The player had no way of knowing about this up until now.
> 
> If however it was learned _during_ the character's roleplayed career as part of play then it's on the player to either remember it or look it up in the game log, failure meaning the character has forgotten what it was told.




Do you assume that everything an 18th level wizard may know was learned before level 1? Seems absurd.



Lanefan said:


> If all this is done (and played through!) ahead of time and the resulting countermeasures are taken ahead of time, then fine.  What I object to is, in the both at-table and in-play moment of encountering a foe with specific abilities/weaknesses, the sudden unexplained appearance in your backpack of just the thing you need because you were able to retcon it in.




Yes, we get that's your preference and why. All I'm saying is that this kind of stuff is already present in pretty much every D&D game, you're just so used to it when it does happen in the classic ways that it's not disruptive to you.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> When on meeting a given situation you can in effect go back in time and materially change things to your benefit in that situation, how in any way is that not a retcon?




You're not going back in time, and nothing established has been changed. All you're doing is establishing something previously unestablished. 

Establishing things previously unestablished is a huge part of RPGs.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> When on meeting a given situation you can in effect go back in time and materially change things to your benefit in that situation, how in any way is that not a retcon?



Because you aren't changing anything that's been established in the fiction? _That_ would be a retcon.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> You're not going back in time, and nothing established has been changed. All you're doing is establishing something previously unestablished.
> 
> Establishing things previously unestablished is a huge part of RPGs.




Like drinking (or not) coffee the prior morning.

Or having dreams the prior night.

Or when you last endured the common cold or a 24 hour flu.

Or who and where is the farrier of the town you hail from.

Probably 70 % of a PCs "actual" time in the shared imagined space is elided.  Its offscreen.

So table time is devoted to perhaps 30 % of PCs "actual" time.  Consequently, we're routinely having to backfill that elided time.  That happens either when you're prompted by another participant at the table or its stipulated by you, the player, unprompted.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Blades in the Dark encourages you to skip the planning. So your insistence is clearly specific to your game and is only a matter of preference. It doesn't cause any table arguments, nor does continuity come crashing down around the characters. I think that's all that we can really say about it. There is no objectively correct way to handle this.
> 
> A lore check is just as much of a retcon.



This is simply not true.  After reading the Flashback rule above, it is a retcon, but it's a legal one within the rules and in fact encouraged by the rules, and with costs and limitations.  That doesn't prevent it from being an effective retcon.  And it's certainly not the same as a lore check.  A lore check is knowledge only, which is represented by a skill.  The flashback gives examples of hiding guns under tables before you got to the game and after finding out that someone tipped off the inspector, going back through a flashback and making it you.  That's very different from a simple lore check.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Because you aren't changing anything that's been established in the fiction? _That_ would be a retcon.



You are changing the current fiction by going back and having done something in the past.  That is also a retcon.  The current timeline changes due to an action that you are going back and doing.  It's just a more limited type of retcon, and apparently can fail since it can involve checks.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> You are changing the current fiction by going back and having done something in the past.  That is also a retcon.  The current timeline changes due to an action that you are going back and doing.  It's just a more limited type of retcon, and apparently can fail since it can involve checks.



You are mistaking my definition of 'the fiction' I think, my bad, I should have been more specific. Fiction here is the diegetic game state, or what is established at the table through framing. You can flashback to add something to help you overcome the currently framed obstacle, but you can't change the thing itself. If there are attack dogs you can't make them disappear. If little Timmy died then he's dead, no flashback to save him.  

This notion seems to be areal stumbling block. Hmm.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> You are mistaking my definition of 'the fiction' I think, my bad, I should have been more specific. Fiction here is the diegetic game state, or what is established at the table through framing. You can flashback to add something to help you overcome the currently framed obstacle, but you can't change the thing itself. If there are attack dogs you can't make them disappear. If little Timmy died then he's dead, no flashback to save him.
> 
> This notion seems to be areal stumbling block. Hmm.



No.  I get it.  There was no steak laced with drugs in your bag a moment ago, but one flashback later and there is.  Or there was no landmine in front of the charging dogs you had no idea were there, yet you flashed back and placed it in front of them.  It's a retcon, but one that is limited in what it can do.  You can't directly undo what is happening, but you ARE changing what is happening by adding to the scene.  One moment what is happening is the dogs were charging in and will eat your face.  The next moment what is happening is the dogs are charging over a landmine and being blown to hell.

I also understand that the game is designed this way, so I'm not going to call it a bad thing.  It just won't ever happen in my D&D game were it WOULD be a bad thing.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> This is simply not true.  After reading the Flashback rule above, it is a retcon, but it's a legal one within the rules and in fact encouraged by the rules, and with costs and limitations.  That doesn't prevent it from being an effective retcon.  And it's certainly not the same as a lore check.  A lore check is knowledge only, which is represented by a skill.  The flashback gives examples of hiding guns under tables before you got to the game and after finding out that someone tipped off the inspector, going back through a flashback and making it you.  That's very different from a simple lore check.




I wasn’t saying that a Flashback wasn’t a retcon in that post. I said if it is, then a Lore/Knowledge check is just as much of one.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I wasn’t saying that a Flashback wasn’t a retcon in that post. I said if it is, then a Lore/Knowledge check is just as much of one.



But it's not.  A lore check can't place a bomb before you ever know that you need one.  They aren't equal.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> There was no steak laced with drugs in your bag a moment ago, but one flashback later and there is.




That’s not the right way of looking at it. 

Instead, a moment ago we had no idea what was in your backpack. But but one flashback later and you brought drugged meat.

Just like, a moment ago we had no idea if you knew what the Sword of Kas was. But one Lore check later and you know it’s a powerful artifact, the sword of Kas, who cut the Hand and Eye from Vecna.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> But it's not.  A lore check can't place a bomb before you ever know that you need one.  They aren't equal.



They're mechanically the same. Something key to matter at hand has appeared in the fiction based on what gets billed as prior planning or prep.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> But it's not.  A lore check can't place a bomb before you ever know that you need one.  They aren't equal.




The bomb example isn’t the best example of a Flashback. Usually, a Flashback would be more about learning there were dogs here and then preparing accordingly, rather than preparing for something you have no idea is coming.


----------



## Fenris-77

hawkeyefan said:


> The bomb example isn’t the best example of a Flashback. Usually, a Flashback would be more about learning there were dogs here and then preparing accordingly, rather than preparing for something you have no idea is coming.



If I were GMing Blades I would probably not allow a Flashback if it were about something that would have been completely outside any planning cycle. So, for example, if the players, during the score, summoned a Ghost unplanned and it got out of hand and then there were level draining concerns (yes, I'm mixing metaphors, I know) I would probably say no.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> They're mechanically the same. Something key to matter at hand has appeared in the fiction based on what gets billed as prior planning or prep.



Mechanically a penny is the same as a 100 dollar bill, too.  You spend both to buy things.  They aren't equal.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> The bomb example isn’t the best example of a Flashback. Usually, a Flashback would be more about learning there were dogs here and then preparing accordingly, rather than preparing for something you have no idea is coming.



How is a landmine not learning about the dogs and then planning accordingly?  I know they are there and will rush me when I arrive.  Plan accomplished.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Mechanically a penny is the same as a 100 dollar bill, too.  You spend both to buy things.  They aren't equal.



I'm not sure what your random example is trying to prove. It's like you just randomly stuck the word 'mechanically' in there but it doesn't make any sense and doesn't address my point.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fenris-77 said:


> If I were GMing Blades I would probably not allow a Flashback if it were about something that would have been completely outside any planning cycle. So, for example, if the players, during the score, summoned a Ghost unplanned and it got out of hand and then there were level draining concerns (yes, I'm mixing metaphors, I know) I would probably say no.




There’s certainly a point where I would say no, but I think it’d be hard to reach that point in most cases. Likely I’d be more inclined to work with the player to see if we can hash out a flashback that works. 



Maxperson said:


> How is a landmine not learning about the dogs and then planning accordingly?  I know they are there and will rush me when I arrive.  Plan accomplished.




Because you said planting a mine before you knew you needed one (per below). If the dogs are there then they are the reason for the mine. 

With a Flashback, it’s more limited than that. You scope an area and gain some info that allows you to plan, or something similar. The landmine thing involves scoping the area, gaining access to the area, planting explosives in the area, and  getting out undetected. 

It’s a bit much. Generally, Flashbacks are based around one Action Roll, not multiple ones. 



Maxperson said:


> But it's not.  A lore check can't place a bomb before you ever know that you need one.  They aren't equal.


----------



## Fenris-77

hawkeyefan said:


> There’s certainly a point where I would say no, but I think it’d be hard to reach that point in most cases. Likely I’d be more inclined to work with the player to see if we can hash out a flashback that works.



Well yeah, but for the sake of this discussion I was trying to draw a line that made sense.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not sure what your random example is trying to prove. It's like you just randomly stuck the word 'mechanically' in there but it doesn't make any sense and doesn't address my point.



I don't understand how you are unable to see that a lore check isn't even close to being equal to being able to go back and time and set up an action that then goes forward to present time and changes the event taking place.  Hell, a lore check might not even be useful, even if successful.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I don't understand how you are unable to see that a lore check isn't even close to being equal to being able to go back and time and set up an action that then goes forward to present time and changes the event taking place.  Hell, a lore check might not even be useful, even if successful.



And I fail to see how you can't move past the fictional description to look at the mechanics. The flashback might not be useful or work either, it still needs application and action rolls.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Because you said planting a mine before you knew you needed one (per below). If the dogs are there then they are the reason for the mine.



You didn't know the dogs were there until you showed up.  After you show up and see dogs, you then go back in time and can then plan for them by planting the landmine.  That's how Flashback works according to the rules shown above.  It's allows a retcon so long as the retcon doesn't directly remove the thread. i.e. you can plant a mine to kill them when they appear, but you can't have planned to show up two hours earlier and shoot them, thereby preventing them from showing up.


hawkeyefan said:


> With a Flashback, it’s more limited than that. You scope an area and gain some info that allows you to plan, or something similar. The landmine thing involves scoping the area, gaining access to the area, planting explosives in the area, and  getting out undetected.
> 
> It’s a bit much. Generally, Flashbacks are based around one Action Roll, not multiple ones.



Okay.  I don't know the details on playing the game, but then my first example with the drugged steaks could work.  Or you could go back in time and buy a tranquilizer gun to shoot dogs with.  The point is that it's still a retcon, though not a bad one in that game.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> And I fail to see how you can't move past the fictional description to look at the mechanics. The flashback might not be useful or work either, it still needs application and action rolls.



Yeah.  I said that a few posts ago.  That still doesn't make them equal.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I said that a few posts ago.  That still doesn't make them equal.



It's not about equal, that's a canard, it's about them being similar mechanically (or even the same mechanically) which they are.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> It's not about equal, that's a canard, it's about them being similar mechanically (or even the same mechanically) which they are.



Nothing about a lore check causes the PC to go back in time to set something up that will affect the current situation if successful.  It's not a flashback, it's a memory and even if successful, often doesn't affect the current situation at all.  They are not the same.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Nothing about a lore check causes the PC to go back in time to set something up that will affect the current situation if successful.  It's not a flashback, it's a memory and even if successful, often doesn't affect the current situation at all.  They are not the same.



You have, at some unspecified time, as your character, learned X that is now pertinent to the situation at hand. You are now via a mechanic, deciding that at some previous point you did indeed learn X. Time travel accomplished. You might not like that it's the same, but it really is.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> You have, at some unspecified time, as your character, learned X that is now pertinent to the situation at hand.



No.  It MAY be pertinent.  Often it's not.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> No.  It MAY be pertinent.  Often it's not.



So you ask for lore checks to know random non-useful things? _Wait, just before we enter the dragons lair, I want to roll a lore check to see if I remember what kind of beer gnomes drink during their new years festival. _


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> You didn't know the dogs were there until you showed up. After you show up and see dogs, you then go back in time and can then plan for them by planting the landmine.




You didn’t know there was a thing called the Sword of Kas. After an NPC brings up the sword, you go back in time and learn about the sword.

This happens in D&D all the time.





Maxperson said:


> Nothing about a lore check causes the PC to go back in time to set something up that will affect the current situation if successful.  It's not a flashback, it's a memory and even if successful, often doesn't affect the current situation at all.  They are not the same.




Neither involves the PC going back in time. Stop being silly. In each case, we are determining now that something happened in the past, and that something may inform the present situation. The present situation is what triggered this action.

Both examples require action in the past performed by the PC, which can be described as a memory. The significant difference seems to me to be that in D&D, you need to have selected some skill or ability ahead of time in order to access this option, where as in Blades it’s simply available to all.

As for a successful check not yielding anything useful....that just sounds like some poor GMing, so I don’t see how that’s relevant. A Lore check can fail, so can an Action taken with a Flashback. Roll poorly and maybe the drugs you got were actually Rage Essence, and now not only do the dogs still want to eat you, but they've also gone berserk.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> So you ask for lore checks to know random non-useful things? _Wait, just before we enter the dragons lair, I want to roll a lore check to see if I remember what kind of beer gnomes drink during their new years festival. _



Just because you find out that something is vulnerable to sound, doesn't mean you can use the information.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Just because you find out that something is vulnerable to sound, doesn't mean you can use the information.



No, the point of flashbacks is actually_ if it were reasonable that you could have know something was vulnerable to sound then it is also reasonable that you may have brought something appropriate with you._


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> No, the point of flashbacks is actually_ if it were reasonable that you could have know something was vulnerable to sound then it is also reasonable that you may have brought something appropriate with you._



Right.  Flashbacks if successful ARE useful.  The same cannot be said about lore.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Right.  Flashbacks if successful ARE useful.  The same cannot be said about lore.



Actually, no, there's often an action roll involved, so there's lots of room for complications and failure.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Actually, no, there's often an action roll involved, so there's lots of room for complications and failure.



I didn't say they were always successful.  I read the rules above and know there is often a roll involved that can fail.  I said *IF* successful, they are useful.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I didn't say they were always successful.  I ready the rules above and know there is often a roll involved that can fail.  I said *IF* successful, they are useful.



Just like a Lore check.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Just like a Lore check.



Well, no.  I've already proven that successful lore checks are often not useful.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Well, no.  I've already proven that successful lore checks are often not useful.



Actually, you've done no such thing. If you make a lore check because it _matters_ then it works exactly like I said it does. You now have a benefit against obstacle X, whatever that is.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Actually, you've done no such thing. If you make a lore check because it _matters_ then it works exactly like I said it does. You now have a benefit against obstacle X, whatever that is.



What, am I supposed to pour over the players' sheets and only ask for a lore check if they can make use of the info?  That's absurd.  Lore is for knowledge, whether you can make use of it or not. It's part of the game.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> What, am I supposed to pour over the players' sheets and only ask for a lore check if they can make use of the info?  That's absurd.  Lore is for knowledge, whether you can make use of it or not. It's part of the game.



_Ooooorrrr_, you could take my example as written. When you make a lore check when it *matters*, as in because the lore is going to be important to overcoming an obstacle, then it works as I said it does. You can also flashback for no stress for minor crap, so lets not let that get in our way shall we. Just because you _could_ make a lore check for useless information doesn't mean that's how it normally works. I could flashback to buy a pastry too, but that doesn't mean that's a great example of how flashbacks are used.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> _Ooooorrrr_, you could take my example as written. When you make a lore check when it *matters*, as in because the lore is going to be important to overcoming an obstacle, then it works as I said it does. You can also flashback for no stress for minor crap, so lets not let that get in our way shall we. Just because you _could_ make a lore check for useless information doesn't mean that's how it normally works. I could flashback to buy a pastry too, but that doesn't mean that's a great example of how flashbacks are used.



So now I'm expected to alter reality so that the lore matters? 

DM: You learn that the creature is vulnerable to sound.  Wizard, your fireball is now a soundball, just because you made a successful lore check.

Edit: How I'm describing it is exactly how it normally works.  Lore checks are to find out info about something.  Period.  That's their purpose.  If that info is useful, great.  If not, not.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> So now I'm expected to alter reality so that the lore matters?
> 
> DM: You learn that the creature is vulnerable to sound.  Wizard, your fireball is now a soundball, just because you made a successful lore check.



What in the world are you talking about?


----------



## Campbell

Generally in most games if knowledge checks are a thing (not super crazy about them) I would expect a successful check to answer whatever question the player had about the fiction according to their established fictional positioning. I mean if you do not know what's in question how can you set a DC?


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> Generally in most games if knowledge checks are a thing (not super crazy about them) I would expect a successful check to answer whatever question the player had about the fiction according to their established fictional positioning. I mean if you do not know what's in question how can you set a DC?



The most commonly used lore check is, "What do I know about this creature?"   The DC's for that sort of check for my game are DC 15 for basic knowledge like, "It's a Githyanki."  DC 20 gets you detailed information like, "Githyanki have mind abilities like X, Y and Z, and some use silver magical swords."  DC 25 gets rare info like the name of the Githyanki queen and other very hard information to get.

Whether that information turns out to be useful will depend on what the party has available on hand.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> The most commonly used lore check is, "What do I know about this creature?"   The DC's for that sort of check for my game are DC 15 for basic knowledge like, "It's a Githyanki."  DC 20 gets you detailed information like, "Githyanki have mind abilities like X, Y and Z, and some use silver magical swords."  DC 25 gets rare info like the name of the Githyanki queen and other very hard information to get.
> 
> Whether that information turns out to be useful will depend on what the party has available on hand.



That's a pretty narrow read on what lore checks do. They also give you clues and hints about what to do next, information and background on you enemies, etc etc etc. Lets not cherry pick our examples...


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> That's a pretty narrow read on what lore checks do. They also give you clues and hints about what to do next, information and background on you enemies, etc etc etc. Lets not cherry pick our examples...



Not according to the ability check section of the PHB with the lore skills.  They just say recall lore.  That's it.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Not according to the ability check section of the PHB with the lore skills.  They just say recall lore.  That's it.



What does the skill description have to do with anything? Mostly people aren't just randomly recalling lore. They recall lore because they need to know something. This isn't trivia night at the Yawning Portal.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> What does the skill description have to do with anything? Mostly people aren't just randomly recalling lore. They recall lore because they need to know something. This isn't trivia night at the Yawning Portal.



Lore is what you know, not what you want to know. When you try to recall lore about an iron statue(iron golem), all you can learn is what you know about iron golems, not hints about what to do next.  What you do with that information is what you can think of.  Your view on what lore skills do is nice, but it's homebrew.  Not what is written.


----------



## Fenris-77

It's what your character knows. And, mostly, when ypure rolling it you're hoping for something uaeful to the aituation at hand. If, you know, you make the roll. Repeat that except read planned for knows amd this might make more sense.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> It's what your character knows. And, mostly, when ypure rolling it you're hoping for something uaeful to the aituation at hand. If, you know, you make the roll. Repeat that except read planned for knows amd this might make more sense.



That's not how D&D works by default, though.  You hope to get something useful, but the roll does not determine that.  It just determines what lore you recall.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I think though the version of skilled play we are discussing here is very much the natural outcome of character viewpoint play.  That is what you would do if you were that character.  You'd plan because if you don't you might die.



I don't think this is true. In the history of the world there have been people who took risks - even life-threatening ones - without planning.

Those people also exist in literature and film. In D&D terms, two famous one's are REH's Conan and JRRT's Bilbo Baggins.



Emerikol said:


> You see the character already knew about the flashback.   So the player is learning about what the character supposedly already knows.  The problem though is that clashes directly with the idea that the player is the character and knows what the character knows.



But this means that the player can never learn anything new about his/her PC's past. Which entails that the character is an amnesiac. Which seems wrong, and is not how any RPG I've ever played works.



Emerikol said:


> Now your examples about minor details could go exactly as you say and most people just don't care about those things.  It would not though be out of bounds if the player asked the DM what it tasted like and would he like it.



I don't understand why the player not knowing what the character knows suddenly becomes OK _just because _it is the GM who makes up the new bit of knowledge and tells the player about it, rather than the player doing that him-/herself.


----------



## pemerton

darkbard said:


> _you, the player_ do not understand how to manipulate magical energy fields to conjure a ball of fire, call upon your deity to produce a miracle lifting a plague that devastates a village, have the physical strength and dexterity to flip and somersault across a room wherein vicious monsters threaten your life at every turn, or have the experience of a criminal mastermind in planning an infiltration heist into a high security vault. (I speak in the aggregate here; *there may be some specific exceptions in some readers to some proposed examples*.)



What rumours have you been listening to about me?!


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> But terms mean things.  Character view point for example means making decisions as if you were the character.  If you make a decision your character cannot make then you've left that viewpoint.



But @Campbell's charcter _can_ decide to make a plan in preparation for an anticipated contingency. Which is what a BitD flashback is!


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> That's not how D&D works by default, though.  You hope to get something useful, but the roll does not determine that.  It just determines what lore you recall.



What? The dice tell you things? Last I checked the roll was a signal to the DM to adjudicate X, and a successful roll means useful information. If a successful roll doesn't result in useful information then there's something wrong with the DM. Of course if you asked the wrong question it won't help, but that's very much besides the point.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> What? The dice tell you things? Last I checked the roll was a signal to the DM to adjudicate X, and a successful roll means useful information. If a successful roll doesn't result in useful information then there's something wrong with the DM. Of course if you asked the wrong question it won't help, but that's very much besides the point.



Tell you what.  If you can show me where in here it says that you get hints on what to do, I will concede the point.  All I see is lore.

"Religion. Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults."


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> What I think I'm disagreeing with is that I think you're saying that the order in which the players experience events in the narrative is the exact same as the order in which the characters experience them.



When did I say that? I denied that. So did @Manbearcat. We both denied it so strongly as to assert that the opposite is in fact ubiquitous, and hence objections to Flashbacks on that particular ground are highly unpersuasive.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Tell you what.  If you can show me where in here it says that you get hints on what to do, I will concede the point.  All I see is lore.
> 
> "Religion. Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults."



Seriously? Yeesh. I'm looking at the idol of the reptile god, with it's strip of glowing runes and a countdown to Armageddon. So I ask the DM to roll lore to see what I might know about the cult or those runes that might help be defuse or bypass them. I roll a 17, and the DM says... you get the picture. What you're looking for isn't in the rule at all, but in practice at the table. Something I think you know full well. Sure, sometime people might roll lore for goofy stuff, but that isn't what we're talking about.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Because here you're asking the character to tell you about things that it has in theory already experienced in chronological order at the time.
> 
> The character had some dreams during sleep, _and then_ it might have tried your coffee, _and then_ this conversation with your character takes place. If desired, these events could have been roleplayed out in sequence. It's the same as your character and mine telling war stories about our past (roleplayed) adventures together.
> 
> Also, note there's no mechanical advantage to be gained anywhere here; in sharp contrast with a situation where you can determine in the moment what equipment you earlier-in-time decided to bring along based on the problems you're facing now.  Worse, you don't get the opportunity to roleplay those equipment-load decisions ahead of time and thus maybe get it wrong.





Lanefan said:


> And as all that matters is what happens in the fiction, if drinking this coffee is important enough to be relevant then it should have been roleplayed through while the characters were still having breakfast....
> 
> ... because of this.  Retconning as described here would, I think, qualify as cheating pretty much everywhere.
> 
> So, the dividing line pretty much becomes one of whether something like this can or does have any mechanical impact.  Unless the coffee was poisoned or gave some mechanical benefit or whatever, whether or not you drank some this morning has no real bearing on anything other than flavour.  Flavour is good.  Go for it!
> 
> Contrast this with retroactively introducing a hidden gun in the kettle: irrelevant if no-one ever finds it but which _does_ have mechanical impact the moment it's discovered by anyone.  This is bad.
> 
> Or the _Potion of Longevity_, introduced retroactively with the specific intent of giving a mechanical advantage now.  This is worse.



This is entirely consistent with what @Manbearcat and I conjectured upthread: the objection is not to the way that Flashbacks handle time, but to the way they affect the resolution of challenging ingame situations.

EDIT: And so is this:


Lanefan said:


> And here you hit the most important point: the info in question was learned _prior_ to the character's roleplayed career. The player had no way of knowing about this up until now.
> 
> If however it was learned _during_ the character's roleplayed career as part of play then it's on the player to either remember it or look it up in the game log, failure meaning the character has forgotten what it was told.
> 
> If all this is done (and played through!) ahead of time and the resulting countermeasures are taken ahead of time, then fine.  What I object to is, in the both at-table and in-play moment of encountering a foe with specific abilities/weaknesses, the sudden unexplained appearance in your backpack of just the thing you need because you were able to retcon it in.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> A lore check is just as much of a retcon.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Do you assume that everything an 18th level wizard may know was learned before level 1? Seems absurd.



I've liked a number of your posts leading up to this, but wanted to just pick up and elaborate on this.

In most games with skill systems, between 1st level and 18th level the player can make investments that improve his/her PC's knowledge skills; or they can grow automatically (eg in 4e D&D and those variants of Rolemaster that use "level bonuses"). This strongly suggests that the character is acquiring new knowledge that the player won't yet know until it is triggered by an appropriate skill check.

Many of those games would not be regarded as radical in their mechanics. It's about 40 years too late for such labels to be applied!


----------



## Fenris-77

Huh. You'll get to the flashback versus lore roll bit. Just keep plowing through pages.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I don't understand how you are unable to see that a lore check isn't even close to being equal to being able to go back and time and set up an action that then goes forward to present time and changes the event taking place.  Hell, a lore check might not even be useful, even if successful.



I have GMed games with lore checks a lot: mostly RM and 4e D&D, also some RQ, and it comes up a bit (in the form of EDU checks, mostly) in our Classic Traveller game.

The PCs encounter a ghost/haunting spirit of some kind; a lore check is made; it succeeds; it is now established that one of the PCs knows that the ghost/spirit is immune to Xs but vulnerable to Ys. All the PCs put their Xs away and pull their Ys out of their backpacks.

That is "going back in time" - or, more exactly, establishing some details about a prior moment of learning for a PC - which then changes the event that takes place in the present (ingame) moment, namely, the way the PCs are equipping themselves to tackle the threat that confronts them.

Upthread I quoted Gygax in relation to this very point, when he discusses the thief's Read Languages ability. This is exactly what that ability is: a successful check establishes that, in the past, the thief undertook an action of learning a foreign script which now changes what is taking place - ie the thief can, rather than can't, decipher the markings s/he has just encountered.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> Huh. You'll get to the flashback versus lore roll bit. Just keep plowing through pages.



I've finished my flashback and have caught up to the present.

So the reason that D&D Lore mechanics are different from BitD Flashback mechanics is because a successful Lore check might be pointless, whereas a successful Flashback action is normally meaningful. That's consistent with @Lanefan's "skilled play" objection to Flashback; but it's also not something I'd be putting on an advertising shingle for D&D!


----------



## Fenris-77

The Flashback might be pointless too, you still have to make a skill roll. I would happily agree that flashback mechanics of any sort have no place in traditional D&D/OSR skilled play thought, for sure. They run very counter to the basic goals of play.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Seriously? Yeesh. I'm looking at the idol of the reptile god, with it's strip of glowing runes and a countdown to Armageddon. So I ask the DM to roll lore to see what I might know about the cult or those runes that might help be defuse or bypass them. I roll a 17, and the DM says... you get the picture. What you're looking for isn't in the rule at all, but in practice at the table. Something I think you know full well. Sure, sometime people might roll lore for goofy stuff, but that isn't what we're talking about.



I'm not sure why you think that counters anything that I said.  I said more than once that lore rolls often give results that aren't helpful, not that they never do.  They are often helpful.  And often not.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> So the reason that D&D Lore mechanics are different from BitD Flashback mechanics is because a successful Lore check might be pointless, whereas a successful Flashback action is normally meaningful.



I love it.  I've been saying this for umpteen posts now and @Fenris-77 has been arguing against it. You come in and say it once and he hits it with a like.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> The Flashback might be pointless too, you still have to make a skill roll. I would happily agree that flashback mechanics of any sort have no place in traditional D&D/OSR skilled play thought, for sure. They run very counter to the basic goals of play.



Failing a roll doesn't make it pointless.  It just makes it a failure.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure why you think that counters anything that I said.  I said more than once that lore rolls often give results that aren't helpful, not that they never do.  They are often helpful.  And often not.



I'm talking about Lore rolls when it matters, like as in it's a really big swinging deal whether we know this right now or not. That's what I'm getting at. This is D&D we're talking about, so of course that skill gets rolled for all kinds of nonsense and minor shizz. If we confine ourselves to the example I'm actually using perhaps we'll get further, although I am enjoying this extended round of roshambo.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I love it.  I've been saying this for umpteen posts now and @Fenris-77 has been arguing against it. You come in and say it once and he hits it with a like.



You are really missing the point if that's what you think. See my post above.


----------



## Fenris-77

Let me use allcaps here just to make things clear. LORE ROLLS WHEN SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY AT STAKE. There, not shouting, just for emphasis.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I have GMed games with lore checks a lot: mostly RM and 4e D&D, also some RQ, and it comes up a bit (in the form of EDU checks, mostly) in our Classic Traveller game.
> 
> The PCs encounter a ghost/haunting spirit of some kind; a lore check is made; it succeeds; it is now established that one of the PCs knows that the ghost/spirit is immune to Xs but vulnerable to Ys. All the PCs put their Xs away and pull their Ys out of their backpacks.
> 
> That is "going back in time" - or, more exactly, establishing some details about a prior moment of learning for a PC - which then changes the event that takes place in the present (ingame) moment, namely, the way the PCs are equipping themselves to tackle the threat that confronts them.
> 
> Upthread I quoted Gygax in relation to this very point, when he discusses the thief's Read Languages ability. This is exactly what that ability is: a successful check establishes that, in the past, the thief undertook an action of learning a foreign script which now changes what is taking place - ie the thief can, rather than can't, decipher the markings s/he has just encountered.



You aren't actually going back to that moment, though.  Not the way you do with a flashback.  Nor are you changing the event by pulling a rabbit out of your hat that just happens to be what you need and calling it prep that you did before you arrived.  You either have what you need on you or prepared, or you don't.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Let me use allcaps here just to make things clear. LORE ROLLS WHEN SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY AT STAKE. There, not shouting, just for emphasis.



Not by RAW.  All there has to be is a meaningful consequence for failure, such as not knowing what X does or means and an outcome that is in doubt.  Even if the party doesn't have what it needs on it, it could leave and come back better prepared.  Having new(to the player) knowledge is itself a meaningful goal and a worthy reason to roll.


----------



## Campbell

We have now established that @Maxperson, @Lanefan and @Emirikol  personally dislike flashbacks. No one says the have to like them or use them. Can you at least contemplate that some of us can get use out of them as a means to feel more connected to our characters? That what pulls you out and makes you feel disconnected can also make me feel more connected? Acknowledge that different techniques can work for different people even if they share pretty similar objectives?


----------



## Fenris-77

OK, this has been fun, but I think Roshambo time is over. Three pages later and the same things are on the table. I'm moving on.

@Campbell - are you talking to me there? I'm not sure.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> But this means that the player can never learn anything new about his/her PC's past. Which entails that the character is an amnesiac. Which seems wrong, and is not how any RPG I've ever played works.



It kinda goes back to the "quantum knowledge" that a PC seems to have about trolls and such. 



Fenris-77 said:


> *I'm talking about Lore rolls when it matters, *like as in it's a really big swinging deal whether we know this right now or not. That's what I'm getting at. This is D&D we're talking about, so of course that skill gets rolled for all kinds of nonsense and minor shizz. If we confine ourselves to the example I'm actually using perhaps we'll get further, although I am enjoying this extended round of roshambo.



Yeah, but engaging that point would require arguing in good faith, and it's far easier to argue in bad faith using silly, non-applicable scenarios.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I love it.  I've been saying this for umpteen posts now and @Fenris-77 has been arguing against it. You come in and say it once and he hits it with a like.



That's because he worked out I was stating it with incredulity! As your view, not mine. I think your suggested point of contrast is ridiculous!



Fenris-77 said:


> The Flashback might be pointless too, you still have to make a skill roll. I would happily agree that flashback mechanics of any sort have no place in traditional D&D/OSR skilled play thought, for sure. They run very counter to the basic goals of play.



In a 4e discussion back in 2008 (I think) I suggested that a way that a character might use Diplomacy to contribute to a skill challenge involving a Moria-style riddle door is to declare that, some time in the past, his/her PC had befriended a wizard who told him/her lots of magical passwords. I suggested the DC might be set at High because of the flashback-y nature.

This suggestion generated some controversy back then, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Fenris-77

That kind of flexibility in the contrast between challenge and action is usually what I'm looking for as a GM. I want characters to try to figure out how to use their strengths, not just roll some dice.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> You aren't actually going back to that moment, though.  Not the way you do with a flashback.  Nor are you changing the event by pulling a rabbit out of your hat that just happens to be what you need and calling it prep that you did before you arrived.  You either have what you need on you or prepared, or you don't.



The "rabbit from the hat" is the salient knowledge. (I know you play lore checks in such a way that the knowledge may not be salient. That's not how I do it, though.)

And a player could go back to the moment if the wished - eg _I remember when the ancient sage Yorumas told me all of the ancient lore of golems . . . _A GM might even insist that this sort of narration be used to explain where the knowledge comes from.

Even if the player or GM doesn't do that, the past moment is obviously implied by the present fact of knowledge. Just as in the Flashback case the past moment is implied by the present fact of (eg) having a steak to distract the dogs.


----------



## Fenris-77

Not to rub anything in here, or pile on, but Lore checks as regularly non-salient knowledge just doesn't make any sense to me in any system. What's the skill even for if on a success you get useless knowledge? That is not, I'd submit, the design goal there.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> Not to rub anything in here, or pile on, but Lore checks as regularly non-salient knowledge just doesn't make any sense to me in any system. What's the skill even for if on a success you get useless knowledge? That is not, I'd submit, the design goal there.





Player: So this is the 3rd Chimera we’ve encountered in the territory. Seems strange for a mythical beast and an apex predator. This reeks of foul sorcery! I think there is a “head of the snake” at play here. There must be a nexus! Some kind of portal through which they’re entering our world or maybe a ritualist that is mass producing them! How are Chimera’s spawned? The vastness of history must have an instance of this?

GM: Sounds like you’re consulting your accumulated knowledge! Spout Lore!

Player: Rolls 2d6+2 and gets a 10. Awesome! Something interesting and useful!

GM: Potato.


----------



## Fenris-77

At least with a potato you can put it in a sock and dummy someone.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> When did I say that? I denied that. So did @Manbearcat. We both denied it so strongly as to assert that the opposite is in fact ubiquitous, and hence objections to Flashbacks on that particular ground are highly unpersuasive.



The both of you seemed to have been saying that because things were established out of chronological order in the narrative, around the table, that the characters were experiencing them out of order.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> The both of you seemed to have been saying that because things were established out of chronological order in the narrative, around the table, that the characters were experiencing them out of order.




If that is how you read it, then my words weren’t clear.

Perhaps you read it that way because my statement that characters in an imagined space don’t experience temporal continuity. That is my position because (as I put in a previous post), the volitional force of the imagined space (us at the table and the table time we allocate to the imagined space and the characters in it) invest them with only about 30 % (at best) of their “lives” with “online” (table time) activity. Outside of that, they’re “offline.”

That 70 % that is elided is only back-filled when prompted (by some participant at the table or the system itself). This is why I invoked Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and the 4th Wall.

Now these characters don’t suddenly “experience” yesterday’s events for the first time today when we’re backfilling the elided time. So this isn’t some blip on the temporal continuity through line of their (imagined) “lives” (because there is no through line). *We* at the table experience it now. *They* in the shared imagined space don’t know the difference (because they have neither cognition, nor volition, nor do they experience temporal continuity or any other kind of continuity). They’re game pieces in an imagined space given onscreen time and “life” only when we care to give it to them (and they lose it when we take it fro them; eg elide the generous portion of their “life”) in order to facilitate the play of an RPG.

Now this doesn’t mean we can’t imagine their offscreen “life” is filled with all manner of typical mundane and atypical interesting elements of orthodox living. But that is just imagining it. It only becomes “real” when it’s relevant to play and we devote table time to it (when it enters the *shared* imagined space).


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> If that is how you read it, then my words weren’t clear.
> 
> Perhaps you read it that way because my statement that characters in an imagined space don’t experience temporal continuity. That is my position because (as I put in a previous post), the volitional force of the imagined space (us at the table and the table time we allocate to the imagined space and the characters in it) invest them with only about 30 % (at best) of their “lives” with “online” (table time) activity. Outside of that, they’re “offline.”
> 
> That 70 % that is elided is only back-filled when prompted (by some participant at the table or the system itself). This is why I invoked Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and the 4th Wall.
> 
> Now these characters don’t suddenly “experience” yesterday’s events for the first time today when we’re backfilling the elided time. So this isn’t some blip on the temporal continuity through line of their (imagined) “lives” (because there is no through line). *We* at the table experience it now. *They* in the shared imagined space don’t know the difference (because they have neither cognition, nor volition, nor do they experience temporal continuity or any other kind of continuity). They’re game pieces in an imagined space given onscreen time and “life” only when we care to give it to them (and they lose it when we take it fro them; eg elide the generous portion of their “life”) in order to facilitate the play of an RPG.
> 
> Now this doesn’t mean we can’t imagine their offscreen “life” isn’t filled with all manner of typical mundane and atypical interesting elements of orthodox living. But that is just imagining it. It only becomes “real” when it’s relevant to play and we devote table time to it.



That makes sense. It seems as though I think of fictional characters (including but not limited to TRPG characters) differently than you do, especially in the sense of having volition and awareness in the fiction (else it seems nonsensical to talk about character motivations and knowledge ...), I don't think there's exactly a _wrong_ way to think about these things, though radically different presumptions can make communication difficult.

I wouldn't go so far as to say something not explicitly in a fiction doesn't exist in it; I believe things can be implied and have the weight of existence as applied to the fiction. If (for instance) someone wields a headsman's sword, it implies things about the setting, and even if those things never explicitly appear they have some weight. I think this might be why I'd probably be tempted to write a backstory for most characters in most games, because I know there are things that won't show up in play, _and I want to know those things about the character_. This seems of a piece with my preference as a GM to work out most of the setting before play starts.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The "rabbit from the hat" is the salient knowledge. (I know you play lore checks in such a way that the knowledge may not be salient. That's not how I do it, though.)
> 
> And a player could go back to the moment if the wished - eg _I remember when the ancient sage Yorumas told me all of the ancient lore of golems . . . _A GM might even insist that this sort of narration be used to explain where the knowledge comes from.
> 
> Even if the player or GM doesn't do that, the past moment is obviously implied by the present fact of knowledge. Just as in the Flashback case the past moment is implied by the present fact of (eg) having a steak to distract the dogs.



I understand that.  I'm not arguing that you don't or can't play that way.  I'm saying that the what you describe there is not what the default D&D rules describe for lore checks.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Not to rub anything in here, or pile on, but Lore checks as regularly non-salient knowledge just doesn't make any sense to me in any system. What's the skill even for if on a success you get useless knowledge? That is not, I'd submit, the design goal there.



Not useful immediately =/= not useful ever.  So you don't have any sound attack to use against this creature. You can prepare something for the next time you encounter one.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> We have now established that @Maxperson, @Lanefan and @Emirikol  personally dislike flashbacks. No one says the have to like them or use them. Can you at least contemplate that some of us can get use out of them as a means to feel more connected to our characters? That what pulls you out and makes you feel disconnected can also make me feel more connected? Acknowledge that different techniques can work for different people even if they share pretty similar objectives?



So you may have missed it, but I'm not completely against flashbacks.  I only dislike the flashbacks that allow you to take some action in the past which can then change the present.  A flashback to something that is relevant to why you are about to take an action in the present is something I find to be a good thing.  

For example.....  In your background I watched helplessly as a child while a friend was torn apart by trolls.  Now in the present I am scouting ahead of the party which is a few rounds behind me and I come across a friend from town about to be killed by 3 trolls. It's unlikely that anyone else, even the DM will remember that little detail from my background(or it could be why it was included by the DM).  I will in that situation describe my character flashing back to the past when he was unable to save his friend, describing that troll encounter, and then tell the DM that because of that past incident, instead of waiting for the group, I charge in and attack the trolls, screaming for my friend to go back to where the rest of the group is, because I'm not going to lose another friend that way.  

That kind of flashback in my opinion adds to the game, letting the players know why I am taking a particular action, especially if the action is somewhat or even very detrimental to my character. It also helps me with that connection you talk about above.  

I'm also not going to tell you that the kind of flashback that I dislike doesn't make you feel more connected to your character.  We are all different and are affected differently by things.  If you feel that way, those are your feelings.  I had someone, I can't remember who, tell me that I couldn't feel immersed sometimes in NPCs as a DM.  That was a load of bunk.  His inability isn't mine.


----------



## AnotherGuy

pemerton said:


> And a player could go back to the moment if the wished - eg _I remember when the ancient sage Yorumas told me all of the ancient lore of golems . . . _A GM might even insist that this sort of narration be used to explain where the knowledge comes from.



I like. The GM's insistence of the narration in your example of a successful lore skill check is a neat way to flesh out one's character and is a relatively soft and simple method of _training_ D&D players to introduce content. I'm going to incorporate this into our table's lore checks.

EDIT: I suspect that this type of contribution by the players would be inspirational to me as the primary author.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> That makes sense. It seems as though I think of fictional characters (including but not limited to TRPG characters) differently than you do, especially in the sense of having volition and awareness in the fiction (else it seems nonsensical to talk about character motivations and knowledge ...), I don't think there's exactly a _wrong_ way to think about these things, though radically different presumptions can make communication difficult.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say something not explicitly in a fiction doesn't exist in it; I believe things can be implied and have the weight of existence as applied to the fiction. If (for instance) someone wields a headsman's sword, it implies things about the setting, and even if those things never explicitly appear they have some weight. I think this might be why I'd probably be tempted to write a backstory for most characters in most games, because I know there are things that won't show up in play, _and I want to know those things about the character_. This seems of a piece with my preference as a GM to work out most of the setting before play starts.




That all looks right to me (the dichotomy of orientation and the downstream effects).

To be clear though (and I’m certain I speak at least somewhat for others who share my orientation), I’m a fan of and I’m no less compelled by the characters and curious about the settings and stories that spin out of the play of our games.

I want to know to know if Toru finds his family, what happened to them, if he and Anaya can close the Black Gates of Death, and (more immediate) if Riverstouch survives collision with the Red Dogs and the impending coup!


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> I want to know to know if Toru finds his family, what happened to them, if he and Anaya can close the Black Gates of Death, and (more immediate) if Riverstouch survives collision with the Red Dogs and the impending coup!



It does seem to me though like a third person attachment instead of a first person attachment to use a readers analogy.

I would agree that there are limits to how far into your character you can get.   That to me is a failure of the game that at this point in our technological advancement can't be overcome.  

But lets...analyze what is going on in someone's head.

1.  Traditional
Player: Do I recognize the spell he is casting?
GM:  rolls spellcraft (good roll), yes you believe he is casting the hold person spell.
Player: "Drats" looking at character sheet, "I wore my water breathing ring this morning expecting a water trap".

The player is asking a question about what his character knows because it's impossible at this time to create a game where he just knows it.  The player though is performing the realistic task of thinking as his character to remember something from his past.   The GM is providing the data.   


2.  Flashback
Player:  The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
GM:  Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell

The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill.  He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.  

It probably ultimately goes back to the ability to create fiction by players.   The skill you'd be developing would be how to imagine events that come to your aid in desperate situations.  That is the skill you'd be developing.   Whereas the skill be developed in a skilled play game would be planning for possible outcomes and choosing what to take or not take.  And then making wise tactical decisions once the action starts.


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> It does seem to me though like a third person attachment instead of a first person attachment to use a readers analogy.
> 
> I would agree that there are limits to how far into your character you can get.   That to me is a failure of the game that at this point in our technological advancement can't be overcome.
> 
> But lets...analyze what is going on in someone's head.
> 
> 1.  Traditional
> Player: Do I recognize the spell he is casting?
> GM:  rolls spellcraft (good roll), yes you believe he is casting the hold person spell.
> Player: "Drats" looking at character sheet, "I wore my water breathing ring this morning expecting a water trap".
> 
> The player is asking a question about what his character knows because it's impossible at this time to create a game where he just knows it.  The player though is performing the realistic task of thinking as his character to remember something from his past.   The GM is providing the data.
> 
> 
> 2.  Flashback
> Player:  The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
> GM:  Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell
> 
> The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill.  He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.
> 
> It probably ultimately goes back to the ability to create fiction by players.   The skill you'd be developing would be how to imagine events that come to your aid in desperate situations.  That is the skill you'd be developing.   Whereas the skill be developed in a skilled play game would be planning for possible outcomes and choosing what to take or not take.  And then making wise tactical decisions once the action starts.




Well, I haven’t meaningfully ever been a player in a game (I’ve been a player in a few CoC one shots and a PC in an AD&D tourney style DC long ago). All I’ve done is GM.

So you’d have to have to ask my players how they feel they are oriented in my games. I suspect they’d say their perspective shifts from 1st to variations of 3rd pretty routinely. They sometimes talk as their PC. They sometimes talk in reference to their PC.

I suspect they’re all pretty connected to/compelled by their characters regardless of their fluctuating orientation.

Me personally as GM? My cognitive workspace is always devoted to trying to make every moment of play as disciplined (from a rules and principles standpoint) and as engaging and challenging (from a thematic and decision-point standpoint) as possible. I wouldn’t say I “grind”, but there is a lot going on at every moment. And I keep the pace up as relentlessly as I can.

So my personal orientation is not one of “being immersed”, at least in the sense you’re depicting. However, I am *extremely* held captive by the unfolding fiction and what hangs in the balance. I wonder if my players would say something similar. They’re not classically immersed, but extremely held captive by the unfolding fiction and what hangs in the balance (because every moment of play features something hanging in the balance).


----------



## prabe

Emerikol said:


> It does seem to me though like a third person attachment instead of a first person attachment to use a readers analogy.



@Manbearcat is the GM. Toru is my character; Anaya is my wife's. I wouldn't have expected a first-person reference to my character in someone else's post (without a lot of context), and since we were talking about _characters_, not _players_, it makes sense not to use second.

FWIW, I fluctuate between first- and third-person in play, pretty much independent of my immersion in play or identification with my character/s.


Emerikol said:


> 2.  Flashback
> Player:  The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
> GM:  Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell
> 
> The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill.  He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.



That seems to be a violent misrepresentation of how Flashbacks work in BitD. It's not free, and it is (in principle) dependent on what the character could have plausibly accomplished as part of planning for the heist. I don't even care for the game and I recognize this is ... a bad representation of the mechanic and the game play.


Emerikol said:


> It probably ultimately goes back to the ability to create fiction by players.   The skill you'd be developing would be how to imagine events that come to your aid in desperate situations.  That is the skill you'd be developing.   Whereas the skill be developed in a skilled play game would be planning for possible outcomes and choosing what to take or not take.  And then making wise tactical decisions once the action starts.



This isn't entirely wrong, but it's still laboring, I think, under a misunderstanding of the limitations to the Flashback mechanic.

Look: If a GM wants to allow the players to use lore checks to add information to the game, there are three ways I can think of to do it:

1) Player makes lore check. GM hands out information and asks, "How do you know this?" The player has an opportunity to define something about his character.

2) Player makes lore check. GM asks, "What did you find out?" This is explicitly asking the player to add lore to the world.

3) Player asks if a piece of information is true and then makes a lore check. On a successful resolution, it's true; on an unsuccessful check, it's either untrue or inconveniently true.

All of those methods work, though they work differently around the table. The only one that's remotely like a flashback is #1.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Look: If a GM wants to allow the players to use lore checks to add information to the game, there are three ways I can think of to do it:
> 
> 1) Player makes lore check. GM hands out information and asks, "How do you know this?" The player has an opportunity to define something about his character.
> 
> 2) Player makes lore check. GM asks, "What did you find out?" This is explicitly asking the player to add lore to the world.
> 
> 3) Player asks if a piece of information is true and then makes a lore check. On a successful resolution, it's true; on an unsuccessful check, it's either untrue or inconveniently true.
> 
> All of those methods work, though they work differently around the table. The only one that's remotely like a flashback is #1.




Just wanted to quote this bit because it’s extremely well conceived and rendered.

Anyone wanting to know how Lore moves work in Story Now games (and particularly PBtA Story Now games) would do well to read this.

A lot of GMs struggle with making moves against players on Lore move misses.

“Inconveniently True” or “True in a way that sucks...deal with it” is what I lean into heavily and I would recommend that approach by GMs because (a) it gives the player a sense that their PC is anchored to and understands the world but (b) it changes the situation dynamically and adversely in a way that must be overcome/dealt with.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> That seems to be a violent misrepresentation of how Flashbacks work in BitD. It's not free, and it is (in principle) dependent on what the character could have plausibly accomplished as part of planning for the heist. I don't even care for the game and I recognize this is ... a bad representation of the mechanic and the game play.



It seems reasonable to me, though, that the player could, knowing now that a cleric is present, have a flashback and during the planning phase, plan to use his ring of protection to help with spells such as Hold Person.  That seems very plausible for what the character could have accomplished.  What am I missing?


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> It seems reasonable to me, though, that the player could, knowing now that a cleric is present, have a flashback and during the planning phase, plan to use his ring of protection to help with spells such as Hold Person.  That seems very plausible for what the character could have accomplished.  What am I missing?



So, I pretty violently disliked the game when I read the SRD, for reasons that had nothing to do with the Flashback mechanic, and I haven't looked at the rules in probably at least a year: My recollections of rules are ... at best, spotty. I sincerely hope any errors below are corrected by folks with more/better knowledge of the relevant mechanics.

That said, Flashbacks have a cost that is roughly equivalent to damage (Stress reflects many things, IIRC). So, you're literally hurting yourself to do it. Also, while the game doesn't focus specifically on what an individual character is carrying, there is a focus on loot, and it seems plausible you can't just decide you have a selection of rings to choose from. Also, what you're doing in a flashback is either altering how bad a bad outcome can be or how likely a good outcome can be, and in either case the outcome is derived from your action. As with PbtA games, the GM never rolls for outcome or damage (I think there's the option for the GM to roll instead of deciding).

Seriously, it's not the violent retcon some people in the thread seem to think it is.


----------



## Manbearcat

I think the big problem with people misunderstanding of Flashbacks is that they don’t understand the holistic context (in terms of engagement with the rules right now and the potential downstream effects of that engagement).

For instance, here is a typical “Flashback gone askew” scenario:

1) 1 Stress paid to enable it. This is the most precious resource in the game. At a base of 9 (that you have to manage in the short game of the Score and the long game of play broadly...which includes deploying tactically and restoring strategically), you’re playing with fire. If you Stress out in a Score (a) your character is out of the Score and (b) you gain a Trauma (4 and your character is done).

2) Your Action Roll for the Flashback has triggered a complication along with your intended effect.

3) Your Flashback is basically a setup move , changing the gamestate to open up a possible move now in the fiction.

You make your move. It goes south.

So what has your Flashback earned you?

1 Stress lost (and that’s only if you didn’t amplify any of your Flashback related Action Rolls by Pushing...it’s conceivable that you could spend 4 Stress, almost HALF of your boxes, to enable a Flashback)

+ 2 x Complications!

Not great!

Flashbacks don’t happen nearly as often as people think for a number of reasons. They aren’t a gimme and they can complicate your life in a number of ways (that can cause a Score to spiral...and cause subsequent play to be perturbed as you try to recover).

They’re used surgically with care and finesse or desperately (in emergency...break glass). My guess is you see a Flashback on average 1.5 * per Score in a 3 player game and 1 * per in a 2 player game.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> That's not how D&D works by default, though.  You hope to get something useful, but the roll does not determine that.  It just determines what lore you recall.




What information would a PC be looking for that would not be useful? And if there are no stakes...nothing gained on success implies nothing lost on a failure...then why are dice even being used? 

Do you have an actual play example of this? Not some hypothetical designed to fit this specific situation, but an example that came up in play? 

It seems to me that this would be so unlikely to not be a concern at all, but if you have an example that helps explain I’m interested in hearing it. 



Maxperson said:


> Tell you what.  If you can show me where in here it says that you get hints on what to do, I will concede the point.  All I see is lore.
> 
> "Religion. Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults."




You don’t see how most of that information would prove useful to PCs? 



Maxperson said:


> It seems reasonable to me, though, that the player could, knowing now that a cleric is present, have a flashback and during the planning phase, plan to use his ring of protection to help with spells such as Hold Person.  That seems very plausible for what the character could have accomplished.  What am I missing?




As others have explained, Flashbacks are potentially costly. They also aren’t carte blanche to just decide whatever you like. To have a specific item, it needs to be available in your inventory, or else it needs to be acquired as an asset, which is a Downtime Action.

So if you wanted to perform a Flashback to say that you somehow obtained a protective item to help you, you’d have to Flashback and then Acquire an Asset, which would cost 1 Coin in addition, and then you’d have to explain how you did it, and make the appropriate roll. 

The mechanic is very connected to other game elements, specifically Stress use and Downtime Actions, so fully understanding the impact is tricky without grasping the way all these cogs fit together. 

It’s a meaningful decision, which is why I enjoy them. In the game I’m currently in, I think that our 2 player crew has used maybe 2 Flashbacks over the course of about 7 scores. Maybe 3? 

Where as with D&D, past events are being established routinely all the time. It’s just not in such an overt way from the player side, not without being “approved” by magic or some appropriate skill or ability.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> So, I pretty violently disliked the game when I read the SRD, for reasons that had nothing to do with the Flashback mechanic, and I haven't looked at the rules in probably at least a year: My recollections of rules are ... at best, spotty. I sincerely hope any errors below are corrected by folks with more/better knowledge of the relevant mechanics.
> 
> That said, Flashbacks have a cost that is roughly equivalent to damage (Stress reflects many things, IIRC). So, you're literally hurting yourself to do it. Also, while the game doesn't focus specifically on what an individual character is carrying, there is a focus on loot, and it seems plausible you can't just decide you have a selection of rings to choose from. Also, what you're doing in a flashback is either altering how bad a bad outcome can be or how likely a good outcome can be, and in either case the outcome is derived from your action. As with PbtA games, the GM never rolls for outcome or damage (I think there's the option for the GM to roll instead of deciding).
> 
> Seriously, it's not the violent retcon some people in the thread seem to think it is.



Yeah.  I saw that stress can range from 0 to 2 or more(wondering if there's a cap).  I don't really know what stress does or what a ring like that would entail.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I saw that stress can range from 0 to 2 or more(wondering if there's a cap).  I don't really know what stress does or what a ring like that would entail.



Stress are like hit points in a non-leveled game (like Call of Cthulhu, where you can't have more than ... twelve, I think). So taking 1 Stress (or 2) is ... not likely to be a best-case scenario. And if Flashbacks automatically bring complications with them (I have no reason to doubt @Manbearcat on this) then it seems as though it would almost have to be an act of desperation, or one that would guarantee success on the score, or both.

I remember thinking when I read the SRD that Flashbacks seemed ... overhyped, and likely to be a really bad idea in play, just based on costs and likely outcomes (not like a bad idea for retconny reasons).


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> What information would a PC be looking for that would not be useful? And if there are no stakes...nothing gained on success implies nothing lost on a failure...then why are dice even being used?



So you're a PC and something unknown to you as a player is attacking and you want to know what it is and what it can do.  It might be a matter of life and death, or it might be nothing, or it might not be useful now, but be useful later.  You don't just get to have the knowledge for free just because it's not helpful right now. That's why the dice are being used.  Unless of course there's no chance of them knowing, in which case it's a no per RAW, or if they would know automatically for some reason, in which case it's a yes per RAW.


hawkeyefan said:


> Do you have an actual play example of this? Not some hypothetical designed to fit this specific situation, but an example that came up in play?



The above happens all the time.  


hawkeyefan said:


> It seems to me that this would be so unlikely to not be a concern at all, but if you have an example that helps explain I’m interested in hearing it.



It's usually creature lore, one of the most common types, where the information isn't always useful.  It's more often useful in a situation where you have a more narrowly defined mystery, like @Fenris-77's mystical runes example upthread, a success will generally be of some amount of use.


hawkeyefan said:


> You don’t see how most of that information would prove useful to PCs?



Could, not would.  


hawkeyefan said:


> As others have explained, Flashbacks are potentially costly. They also aren’t carte blanche to just decide whatever you like. To have a specific item, it needs to be available in your inventory, or else it needs to be acquired as an asset, which is a Downtime Action.
> 
> So if you wanted to perform a Flashback to say that you somehow obtained a protective item to help you, you’d have to Flashback and then Acquire an Asset, which would cost 1 Coin in addition, and then you’d have to explain how you did it, and make the appropriate roll.
> 
> The mechanic is very connected to other game elements, specifically Stress use and Downtime Actions, so fully understanding the impact is tricky without grasping the way all these cogs fit together.
> 
> It’s a meaningful decision, which is why I enjoy them. In the game I’m currently in, I think that our 2 player crew has used maybe 2 Flashbacks over the course of about 7 scores. Maybe 3?
> 
> Where as with D&D, past events are being established routinely all the time. It’s just not in such an overt way from the player side, not without being “approved” by magic or some appropriate skill or ability.



Thanks for the more detailed explanation.  I knew that there were costs potentially involved, with greater costs the greater the impact.  The costs don't change what I dislike about the mechanic as it is stated in Blades, though.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I saw that stress can range from 0 to 2 or more(wondering if there's a cap).  I don't really know what stress does or what a ring like that would entail.




This weekend I’m beginning playtesting (and inevitably iterating) my Dungeon World meets Blades in the Dark meets Torchbearer Hack.

What you’re depicting above (I think loading out a a Ring of Protection to ward against an effect on an Adventure) wouldn’t be a thing because you can’t just flashback a new, persistent item into your loadout.

If you’re getting a persistent warding item like a Ring of Protection it’s acquired either (a) through an Adventure (and therefore a persistent 0 load item that you always have loaded out) or (b) through a multistage Longterm Project during downtime (project  1 = acquire materials > 2 = forge and enchant ring).

However, if you’re trying to get an impromptu consumable (say a Brooch of Protection that disintegrates upon invoking its magic), the constraints/procedure would be:

1) You have the Load space (this would be a 1 Load item so you’d have to (a) have the space in your Load requirements and (b) spend your 1 Floating Load on it...in the stead of an alternative item).

2) Spend 1 Stress (this is complex, not elaborate) and 1 Coin to Acquire an Asset. Do the AaA procedures:

Roll Tier (so if you’re Tier 2, roll 2d6).

Result = 1-3: Tier -1, 4/5: Tier, 6: Tier +1, critical: Tier +2.

You can spend coin to raise the result of this roll by spending 2 coin per additional Tier level added.

3) Now we’re at the moment where the Brooch of Warding activates against the Spell/Supernatural Effect.

Let’s say it’s a Tier 4 Adult Red Dragon’s Fire Breath.

The Company is Tier 3. They rolled a 5 with their 3d6 so it’s a Tier 3 Brooch. That isn’t going to be effective against a Tier 4 Dragon so they invest another 2 Coin to make it Tier 4. This will net them a Special Armor box against the Tier 4 magic. They tick it to Resist the Fire Breath Complication.

So instead of taking Harm 3, they’ll take Harm 1 (orthodox Blades would only throttle this back 1, but my game will be high fantasy so more robust heroes and resistance). In order to do that, they’ve spent:

* 1 Loadout Box

* their only Floating Loadout Box (which means tough luck if they need something else later in a pinch)

* 1 Stress

* 3 Coin

And this is all assuming that they had the Loadout to spend.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Stress are like hit points in a non-leveled game (like Call of Cthulhu, where you can't have more than ... twelve, I think). So taking 1 Stress (or 2) is ... not likely to be a best-case scenario. And if Flashbacks automatically bring complications with them (I have no reason to doubt @Manbearcat on this) then it seems as though it would almost have to be an act of desperation, or one that would guarantee success on the score, or both.
> 
> I remember thinking when I read the SRD that Flashbacks seemed ... overhyped, and likely to be a really bad idea in play, just based on costs and likely outcomes (not like a bad idea for retconny reasons).




Slightly off.

There isn’t an assured complication. I was composing the “Flashback gone askew” scenario.

There is the risk of a Complication in both acquiring the Flashback (the Action Roll for the setup) and the move in the now that the Flashback set up.

Simple flashbacks without much complexity could cost 0 and require no Action Roll for the setup. But those are seriously mundane and don’t give you much in the way of material advantage at all (they basically very marginally open up the potential “move-space” for the player).


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> This weekend I’m beginning playtesting (and inevitably iterating) my Dungeon World meets Blades in the Dark meets Torchbearer Hack.
> 
> What you’re depicting above (I think loading out a a Ring of Protection to ward against an effect on an Adventure) wouldn’t be a thing because you can’t just flashback a persistent item into your loadout.
> 
> If you’re getting a persistent warding item like a Ring of Protection it’s acquired either (a) through an Adventure (and therefore a persistent 0 load item that you always have loaded out) or (b) through a multistage Longterm Project during downtime (project  1 = acquire materials > 2 = forge and enchant ring).
> 
> However, if you’re trying to get an impromptu consumable (say a Brooch of Protection that disintegrates upon invoking its magic), the constraints/procedure would be:
> 
> 1) You have the Load space (this would be a 1 Load item so you’d have to (a) have the space in your Load requirements and (b) spend your 1 Floating Load on it...in the stead of an alternative).
> 
> 2) Spend 1 Stress (this complex, not elaborate) and 1 Coin to Acquire an Asset. Do the AaA procedures:
> 
> Roll Tier (so if you’re Tier 2, roll 2d6).
> 
> Result = 1-3: Tier -1, 4/5: Tier, 6: Tier +1, critical: Tier +2.
> 
> You can spend coin to raise the result of this roll by spending 2 coin per additional Tier level added.
> 
> 3) Now we’re at the moment where the Brooch of Warding activates against the Spell/Supernatural Effect.
> 
> Let’s say it’s a Tier 4 Adult Red Dragon’s Fire Breath.
> 
> The Company is Tier 3. They rolled a 5 with their 3d6 so it’s a Tier 3 Brooch. That isn’t going to be effective against a Tier 4 Dragon so they invest another 2 Coin to make it Tier 4. This will net them a Special Armor box against the Tier 4 magic. They tick it to Resist the Fire Breath Complication.
> 
> So instead of taking Harm 3, they’ll take Harm 1 (orthodox Blades would only throttle this back 1, but my game will be high fantasy go more robust heroes and resistance). In order to do that, they’ve spent:
> 
> 1 Loadout Box
> 
> their only Floating Loadout Box (which means tough luck if they need something else later in a pinch)
> 1 Stress
> 3 Coin
> 
> And this is all assuming that they had the Loadout to spend.



Thanks!  That helps a lot. 

What I was thinking about with the ring of protection was not creating one from scratch.  I was approaching it from a D&D perspective where you might have multiple magic rings, but can only wear two of them.  Say you got to the place you are going while wearing a ring of water walking and a ring of flying.  The ring of protection is in your pocket with no time to remove a ring and put the new one on.  I was envisioning was a flashback where during planning you instead of wearing the water walking ring, chose to wear the protection ring.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> Thanks!  That helps a lot.
> 
> What I was thinking about with the ring of protection was not creating one from scratch.  I was approaching it from a D&D perspective where you might have multiple magic rings, but can only wear two of them.  Say you got to the place you are going while wearing a ring of water walking and a ring of flying.  The ring of protection is in your pocket with no time to remove a ring and put the new one on.  I was envisioning was a flashback where during planning you instead of wearing the water walking ring, chose to wear the protection ring.




Gotcha.

In orthodox Blades you only declare Light, Normal, Heavy, Encumbered Loadout at the outset of a Score.

Each of those carries implications on your conspicuousness, # of Loadout boxes you can tick during a Score, how quickly you do stuff during the Score.

As you play you tick boxes to declare stuff that you have on you which will be stuff that is either on your inventory list (each PC has an inventory list) or an Asset you’ve Acquired via Downtime.

My game is different. You do the same thing except you have to declare gear beforehand except 1 item (which would be handled like Blades with a few provisos on the implication of your present Loadout).

However, something like a Ring of Protection would be 0 Load (and provide you 1 Special Armor against a supernatural effect...1 box to tick during the Adventure to resist a Supernatural Consequence meaning you don’t have to go through the typical Resistsance procedure and likely lose Stress), so you would always load it out.

I would be surprised if any PC ever ended up with more than 1 ring in one of my games. DW and the like aren’t like D&D. Magic items are scarce. I think I’ve seen...2 rings...in all the games I’ve run (spread out among probably 40 PCs)?


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Player: So this is the 3rd Chimera we’ve encountered in the territory. Seems strange for a mythical beast and an apex predator. This reeks of foul sorcery! I think there is a “head of the snake” at play here. There must be a nexus! Some kind of portal through which they’re entering our world or maybe a ritualist that is mass producing them! How are Chimera’s spawned? The vastness of history must have an instance of this?
> 
> GM: Sounds like you’re consulting your accumulated knowledge! Spout Lore!
> 
> Player: Rolls 2d6+2 and gets a 10. Awesome! Something interesting and useful!
> 
> GM: Potato.



One element here that hasn't yet been touched: does the information given have to be complete?  For example, instead of saying "Potato" here, what if the GM's reply was

"For some reason, the name Talartharniel comes to mind."

This doesn't give the PCs any concrete answers and probably just generates more questions, yet works as a hook and is in fact a valid and accurate clue: the GM knows (or has just made up!) that Talatharniel is an experimenter in creature-morphing, based in the nearby area, who has been working on/with Chimerae but now has no more use for them and has been turning them loose to fend for themselves.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> Stress are like hit points in a non-leveled game (like Call of Cthulhu, where you can't have more than ... twelve, I think). So taking 1 Stress (or 2) is ... not likely to be a best-case scenario. And if Flashbacks automatically bring complications with them (I have no reason to doubt @Manbearcat on this) then it seems as though it would almost have to be an act of desperation, or one that would guarantee success on the score, or both.




Not exactly hit points, although if you run out, the character is out of play, so they have that in common. But aside from that, it's more like "effort" or "will" or "stamina", or some combination of all of that. It is the resource used to: activate some special abilities, Push an Action to roll an extra die OR to increase the effect of the outcome, Resist Consequences (including Harm), Assist Others, and Invoke a Flashback. 

So Stress really affects so many different elements of the game....to put it in D&D terms it's a bit of a combo of HP, AC and Saves, Inspiration, Aid Another, and Spell Slots/Ki Points/Battle Master Dice/Other Class Ability. If all of those things were managed by one pool of points, then you'd be closer to what Stress means for the game.



prabe said:


> I remember thinking when I read the SRD that Flashbacks seemed ... overhyped, and likely to be a really bad idea in play, just based on costs and likely outcomes (not like a bad idea for retconny reasons).




I think it's a rather small element of the game that becomes the focus of much discussion to a disproportionate amount....so I agree in that sense. However, they can be very exciting and engaging in play, and they represent a different take on skilled play.

As an example, the big one I can think of in my game with @Fenris-77 which @Manbearcat runs.....our crew was basically assaulting a tavern that had been taken from one of our contacts by a rival gang. We were going to take it back. Upon setting the scene, MBC placed the tavern (which had previously only been mentioned, but never actually "shown" in play) alongside a canal, with a bridge that spanned the canal nearby. Prior to that point, we didn't even know of the bridge.

We decided to strike at the time of a shift change from one group to another in order to get an advantage (they're a little vulnerable at that point) and also to do twice as much damage to the gang. So essentially, we'd need to take out one group outside as they depart, and then the other group inside. This would be a pretty tough thing to pull off. 

So I came up with a Flashback for my character, a Leech or tinkerer/alchemist, to have rigged the bridge to explode when the gang was crossing, and that this would look like an accident due to a faulty electroplasmic streetlamp. This would (hopefully) eliminate one group entirely, and also not arouse suspicion that foul play was involved (you can't really kill willy nilly without piling up some bad consequences). The Flashback cost 2 stress, and then I had to make the roll to see if it worked. 

I rolled a Success with Consequence, and that left that group decimated (most were killed outright), one was wounded badly but alive, and another was thrown into the canal. So we still had to deal with those two guys, but we were able to do so without too much trouble. 

So this decision to use the Flashback meant that for the cost of 2 Stress, the Score was almost halfway completed, and without much blowback at that point. If we instead had decided to engage in a direct fight, or even tried to sneak up on them to take them out, we likely would have used more Stress and perhaps added some other consequences to the situation. 

So this was a skilled move on my part, I'd say. But I couldn't plan this ahead of time, because until he started setting the scene, we (the players) didn't know the layout of the site or similar details. But once that bridge was mentioned, it was free game for me to use and incorporate it into a Flashback. I think I added the detail of the Streetlamp in order to make it look like an accident, but I may be misremembering.

Now, this isn't something that really presents itself all the time. As I said earlier, I think we've done 2 or 3 Flashbacks of this kind in our entire campaign so far, and we've done 7 or 8 Scores at this point.



Maxperson said:


> So you're a PC and something unknown to you as a player is attacking and you want to know what it is and what it can do.  It might be a matter of life and death, or it might be nothing, or it might not be useful now, but be useful later.  You don't just get to have the knowledge for free just because it's not helpful right now. That's why the dice are being used.  Unless of course there's no chance of them knowing, in which case it's a no per RAW, or if they would know automatically for some reason, in which case it's a yes per RAW.
> 
> The above happens all the time.
> 
> It's usually creature lore, one of the most common types, where the information isn't always useful.  It's more often useful in a situation where you have a more narrowly defined mystery, like @Fenris-77's mystical runes example upthread, a success will generally be of some amount of use.




So no actual example then? 

Gimme a situation where my party is fighting a monster and I try to recall some lore about the creature to help us, and instead I get nothing. Why would a GM do that to the players?



Maxperson said:


> Could, not would.




So ignorance is bliss? That's your argument?

If I want to know something, it's better to know it than to not know it.



Maxperson said:


> Thanks for the more detailed explanation.  I knew that there were costs potentially involved, with greater costs the greater the impact.  The costs don't change what I dislike about the mechanic as it is stated in Blades, though.




No, they don't, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you to like the mechanic. I'm just saying that D&D is not this one way linear trip that many are saying. That there are non-lineaer elements like Blades' Flashback going on in D&D all the time. That's all.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> One element here that hasn't yet been touched: does the information given have to be complete?  For example, instead of saying "Potato" here, what if the GM's reply was
> 
> "For some reason, the name Talartharniel comes to mind."
> 
> This doesn't give the PCs any concrete answers and probably just generates more questions, yet works as a hook and is in fact a valid and accurate clue: the GM knows (or has just made up!) that Talatharniel is an experimenter in creature-morphing, based in the nearby area, who has been working on/with Chimerae but now has no more use for them and has been turning them loose to fend for themselves.



On a 10, the information is--per the rules--supposed to be "interesting and useful." That's as complete a success as possible with the default moves (those available to everyone). Now, Talartharniel (or even, in principle, "Potato!") could be both interesting and useful, depending on what else had been previously established. I, for one, think it would be awesome to arrange a game where "Potato!" was a useful and interesting answer to a lore check.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Not exactly hit points, although if you run out, the character is out of play, so they have that in common. But aside from that, it's more like "effort" or "will" or "stamina", or some combination of all of that. It is the resource used to: activate some special abilities, Push an Action to roll an extra die OR to increase the effect of the outcome, Resist Consequences (including Harm), Assist Others, and Invoke a Flashback.
> 
> So Stress really affects so many different elements of the game....to put it in D&D terms it's a bit of a combo of HP, AC and Saves, Inspiration, Aid Another, and Spell Slots/Ki Points/Battle Master Dice/Other Class Ability. If all of those things were managed by one pool of points, then you'd be closer to what Stress means for the game.



Yeah, it's been a while since I read the SRD, and I bounced off it pretty hard. I'm unsurprised I got things wrong. I don't think they were wrong about the spirit, or about Flashbacks being pretty limited/constrained.

Sounds as though stress is about as abstracted as hit points, though. 


hawkeyefan said:


> I think it's a rather small element of the game that becomes the focus of much discussion to a disproportionate amount....so I agree in that sense. However, they can be very exciting and engaging in play, and they represent a different take on skilled play.



Yeah. I think I was getting at "less important to the game than all the talk makes it sound" with "overhyped."

I remember looking at it and thinking, "That's it?" Also, that it really seemed like a bad bet. Of course, the game is built to encourage bad bets, so that's about right, I think.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So no actual example then?



I provided an example of how it works in my game.  That's sufficient.


hawkeyefan said:


> Gimme a situation where my party is fighting a monster and I try to recall some lore about the creature to help us, and instead I get nothing. Why would a GM do that to the players?



You don't get nothing.  You want some information about the Illithid to help you.  Your goal of "to help us" is irrelevant to the roll.  What you are seeking is Illithid knowledge.  You succeed in the roll and find out that they can suck brains if they grab you with your tentacles, mind blast, etc.  But without any defenses against those things, the knowledge doesn't necessarily help you.  Maybe it's useless information for the current situation, but it could be useful in the future if you run away and go see if you can scrounge up a scroll with Mind Blank or something.


hawkeyefan said:


> So ignorance is bliss? That's your argument?



No. Not at all.


hawkeyefan said:


> If I want to know something, it's better to know it than to not know it.



It would be for me as well.  Even if it's not useful, at least I wouldn't be wondering if there was something useful to know.  That certainty would make a difference to me.  Maybe not for you.  I don't know.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> Yeah, it's been a while since I read the SRD, and I bounced off it pretty hard. I'm unsurprised I got things wrong. I don't think they were wrong about the spirit, or about Flashbacks being pretty limited/constrained.
> 
> Sounds as though stress is about as abstracted as hit points, though.




Oh even more so. As abstract as HP are, they really only do one thing mechanically. 



prabe said:


> Yeah. I think I was getting at "less important to the game than all the talk makes it sound" with "overhyped."
> 
> I remember looking at it and thinking, "That's it?" Also, that it really seemed like a bad bet. Of course, the game is built to encourage bad bets, so that's about right, I think.




Yeah. The equivalent would be like if people spent all their time talking about D&D based on how much they hated Inspiration, or something like that. 

But yes, the game encourages risky behavior for sure, where as D&D tends to encourage caution and preparedness. 

Probably a lot of factors, but I think that with D&D, we’re very conditioned to think of the PCs as Heroes...and so we want to see them win. And so they get played in a way to minimize risk and try and ensure victory. 

With Blades, the PCs are not Heroes, and so that conditioning is absent, and we’re more likely to take risks with them and more willing to see things end horribly for them.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I provided an example of how it works in my game.  That's sufficient.
> 
> You don't get nothing.  You want some information about the Illithid to help you.  Your goal of "to help us" is irrelevant to the roll.  What you are seeking is Illithid knowledge.  You succeed in the roll and find out that they can suck brains if they grab you with your tentacles, mind blast, etc.  But without any defenses against those things, the knowledge doesn't necessarily help you.  Maybe it's useless information for the current situation, but it could be useful in the future if you run away and go see if you can scrounge up a scroll with Mind Blank or something.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> It would be for me as well.  Even if it's not useful, at least I wouldn't be wondering if there was something useful to know.  That certainty would make a difference to me.  Maybe not for you.  I don't know.




I think maybe we're just looking at "being informed" differently as it relates to being an advantage or not. 

I mean....

"Agh, that thing has its tentacles all over Brad's head.....that means its about to eat his brain! Quick, get it!!!!"

"Supposedly these things send out a mind blast that can affect more then one person.....SPREAD OUT!!!"

...each seems advantageous to not knowing those things.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> As an example, the big one I can think of in my game with @Fenris-77 which @Manbearcat runs.....our crew was basically assaulting a tavern that had been taken from one of our contacts by a rival gang. We were going to take it back. Upon setting the scene, MBC placed the tavern (which had previously only been mentioned, but never actually "shown" in play) alongside a canal, with a bridge that spanned the canal nearby. Prior to that point, we didn't even know of the bridge.
> 
> We decided to strike at the time of a shift change from one group to another in order to get an advantage (they're a little vulnerable at that point) and also to do twice as much damage to the gang. So essentially, we'd need to take out one group outside as they depart, and then the other group inside. This would be a pretty tough thing to pull off.
> 
> So I came up with a Flashback for my character, a Leech or tinkerer/alchemist, to have rigged the bridge to explode when the gang was crossing, and that this would look like an accident due to a faulty electroplasmic streetlamp. This would (hopefully) eliminate one group entirely, and also not arouse suspicion that foul play was involved (you can't really kill willy nilly without piling up some bad consequences). The Flashback cost 2 stress, and then I had to make the roll to see if it worked.
> 
> I rolled a Success with Consequence, and that left that group decimated (most were killed outright), one was wounded badly but alive, and another was thrown into the canal. So we still had to deal with those two guys, but we were able to do so without too much trouble.
> 
> So this decision to use the Flashback meant that for the cost of 2 Stress, the Score was almost halfway completed, and without much blowback at that point. If we instead had decided to engage in a direct fight, or even tried to sneak up on them to take them out, we likely would have used more Stress and perhaps added some other consequences to the situation.
> 
> So this was a skilled move on my part, I'd say. But I couldn't plan this ahead of time, because until he started setting the scene, we (the players) didn't know the layout of the site or similar details. But once that bridge was mentioned, it was free game for me to use and incorporate it into a Flashback. I think I added the detail of the Streetlamp in order to make it look like an accident, but I may be misremembering.
> 
> Now, this isn't something that really presents itself all the time. As I said earlier, I think we've done 2 or 3 Flashbacks of this kind in our entire campaign so far, and we've done 7 or 8 Scores at this point.




1)  This was extremely Skilled Play from you in a number of ways (and it was awesome as well):

a)  It was thematically appropriate.
b)  It intersected with your xp triggers.
c)  It ended up being a tactically and strategically good use of resources (more on that below).

2)  My recollection of it was as follows:

a)  The electroplaspmic streetlamp that lit the span of the archway bridge over the canal was part of my framing.  You invoked as something like "is it feasible for this thing to fail catastrophically so the Sparkwright engineers that investigate this won't determine foul play (you were trying to prevent the extra Heat from the body count + this sort of calamity being afforded to you guys in Payoff."  I said yeah, you can set it up as such, but its going to be extremely complicated (max of 2 cost in Flashback) and you'll have to expend 2 of your 3 loadout boxes from your bandolier for the bombs to make this happen (giving you the one box which you used later in the apartment in the back of the tavern).  And Pietra (one of your Elite Rooks) is (a) going to have to light the fuse so (b) we're going to use her Quality for the Flashback roll to set this all up, and (c) she has to be local so she is out of the rest of the Score).  It was a 6 on her Quality Roll for the Flashback (there may have been a Push with this...I can't recall).

Ultimately, it was Deperate/Great (so mark xp) > you got  5 on your Tinker or on the Quality of your bombs (I can't recall which it was) > Reduced Effect as Complication (so 2 down 2 remaining to deal with as you put it above).

b)  So your total resource expenditure/allocation for this move was pretty significant (but again, ultimately worth it):


2 Stress for the Flashback.
Stiv may have used another 1 Stress to Aid Pietra and give her another dice (does that sound right) to ensure this went off?
2/3 of your Leech Bandolier boxes were used.
Pietra was out for the rest of the Score.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> One element here that hasn't yet been touched: does the information given have to be complete?  For example, instead of saying "Potato" here, what if the GM's reply was
> 
> "For some reason, the name Talartharniel comes to mind."
> 
> This doesn't give the PCs any concrete answers and probably just generates more questions, yet works as a hook and is in fact a valid and accurate clue: the GM knows (or has just made up!) that Talatharniel is an experimenter in creature-morphing, based in the nearby area, who has been working on/with Chimerae but now has no more use for them and has been turning them loose to fend for themselves.




Depends on the game.  

* In Torchbearer, Wises (specific area of Lore) are used to grant allies +1d on a related Test, to reroll a single die on a failed test (with spent Fate point), or reroll all failed dice (with spent Persona point).

* In 5e, its basically "GM Decides" so the GM decides (a) what the DC is and (b) what info (whether interesting, whether useful, whether both) the player gains from an Intelligence Ability Check.

* In 4e, the DC is decided by level and a Lore-based success affords the player a Success and attendant gamestate change if its in a Skill Challenge or relevant monster info if its a combat (vulnerabilities, resistances, et al).

* In Dungeon World, a 7-9 gives the player something interesting while a 10+ gives them something both interesting and useful (_immediately relevant and actionable_).

Its possibly that "the name Talartharniel comes to mind..." is interesting in a DW game.  _Interesting _means here is a setup...you figure out how to use it.  So the players might take that name and interrogate the library or consult a sage. They may find some relevant info about his past experiments or where his laboratory was or an arcane mark that they have seen before and a light turns on.

But its clearly not _immediately relevant and actionable_.  Its a setup to get further information.  The immediately relevant and actionable might be the following exchange:

GM: "Talartharniel was a an alchemist prodigy and possibly Blood Magic Sorcerer who dabbled in all manner of cross-breeding and arcane experiment...the recluse disappeared a few years ago."  <asking the player>  What was the inciting event that led to his disappearance?

Player:  "After a calamity in his workshop leveled the top of Lookout Peak (of course)!"

Interesting + immediately actionable (useful).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> 1)  This was extremely Skilled Play from you in a number of ways (and it was awesome as well):
> 
> a)  It was thematically appropriate.
> b)  It intersected with your xp triggers.
> c)  It ended up being a tactically and strategically good use of resources (more on that below).
> 
> 2)  My recollection of it was as follows:
> 
> a)  The electroplaspmic streetlamp that lit the span of the archway bridge over the canal was part of my framing.  You invoked as something like "is it feasible for this thing to fail catastrophically so the Sparkwright engineers that investigate this won't determine foul play (you were trying to prevent the extra Heat from the body count + this sort of calamity being afforded to you guys in Payoff."  I said yeah, you can set it up as such, but its going to be extremely complicated (max of 2 cost in Flashback) and you'll have to expend 2 of your 3 loadout boxes from your bandolier for the bombs to make this happen (giving you the one box which you used later in the apartment in the back of the tavern).  And Pietra (one of your Elite Rooks) is (a) going to have to light the fuse so (b) we're going to use her Quality for the Flashback roll to set this all up, and (c) she has to be local so she is out of the rest of the Score).  It was a 6 on her Quality Roll for the Flashback (there may have been a Push with this...I can't recall).
> 
> Ultimately, it was Deperate/Great (so mark xp) > you got  5 on your Tinker or on the Quality of your bombs (I can't recall which it was) > Reduced Effect as Complication (so 2 down 2 remaining to deal with as you put it above).
> 
> b)  So your total resource expenditure/allocation for this move was pretty significant (but again, ultimately worth it):
> 
> 
> 2 Stress for the Flashback.
> Stiv may have used another 1 Stress to Aid Pietra and give her another dice (does that sound right) to ensure this went off?
> 2/3 of your Leech Bandolier boxes were used.
> Pietra was out for the rest of the Score.




Yes, much more accurate assessment of it! I remembered having to use Pietra for that part, but I had forgotten the use of my Bandolier, so I had less gear available to me for the remainder of the Score. And yes, Stiv assisted by subtly steering innocent bystanders away from the area of the lamp so that they didn't get exploded.  

Even still, all of that was worth it for both the moment of play when it all came together, and also to preserve the majority of our resources for the second half of the Score.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, much more accurate assessment of it! I remembered having to use Pietra for that part, but I had forgotten the use of my Bandolier, so I had less gear available to me for the remainder of the Score. And yes, Stiv assisted by subtly steering innocent bystanders away from the area of the lamp so that they didn't get exploded.
> 
> Even still, all of that was worth it for both the moment of play when it all came together, and also to preserve the majority of our resources for the second half of the Score.



Yup.

A single Blades PC and certainly a Crew as a collective has a large pool of resources to marshal to “bring a plan together (as a Flashback).”

It’s really about figuring out what/when/how when it comes to spend/risk/return.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> With Blades, the PCs are not Heroes, and so that conditioning is absent, and we’re more likely to take risks with them and more willing to see things end horribly for them.



From this it sounds like you play Blades the way I play D&D.


----------



## cmad1977

Per the OP:
Mostly to get thrown over my shoulder after the players start getting involved. 

“So… THATs not exactly how I saw this going…”


----------



## Emerikol

I do think the clash of all these different play styles, and I'm sure there are more than two and perhaps dozens who knows, is that the D&D game designers have thrown in tidbits of different styles at different moments and I wonder sometimes if this isn't less than helpful.   I realize D&D is a game that tries to appeal to a wide audience.

I will say this about the Story Now games.  They are predicated upon assumptions that require metagame thinking.  These things are not sprinkled in thoughtlessly.  They are considered a feature of the game.

Whereas with a game like D&D, I think they do many things completely needlessly.  When you make divisive choices you know you are cutting out a piece of your player base.  That is fine when you are targeting a completely different player base.   I think it is sloppy otherwise.   And sure they made a lot more good decisions than bad and often that is all that matters and of course already sitting on the biggest name in the hobby doesn't hurt.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> lets...analyze what is going on in someone's head.
> 
> 1.  Traditional
> Player: Do I recognize the spell he is casting?
> GM:  rolls spellcraft (good roll), yes you believe he is casting the hold person spell.
> Player: "Drats" looking at character sheet, "I wore my water breathing ring this morning expecting a water trap".
> 
> The player is asking a question about what his character knows because it's impossible at this time to create a game where he just knows it.  The player though is performing the realistic task of thinking as his character to remember something from his past.   The GM is providing the data.
> 
> 
> 2.  Flashback
> Player:  The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
> GM:  Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell
> 
> The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill.  He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.



In your 1 the player is not noticing anything: the GM is telling him/her something that the GM decided.

In your 2 the player is not remembering anything: she is deciding something and telling the GM.

To me, the second seems more conducive to in-character immersion. Here's why: in the second, the player tells the GM _Here's what I remember . . . _This is completely commonplace in real life. Whereas in the first, the GM tells the player _you believe he is casting Hold Person_. There is nothing remotely immersive or in-character about being told one's mental states in the second person, unless I am playing an amnesiac.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> A lot of GMs struggle with making moves against players on Lore move misses.



Luke Crane discusses this - in relation to Wises - in his Adventure Burner/Codex for Burning Wheel.

His most worked example involves the recollected information involving an additional, unwelcome twist: the player wants it to be the case that _before a duel the combatants drink a toast_ - because the player wants his/her PC to be able to drug one of the combatants - but on a fail the GM introduces the twist _and then each drinks from the other's cup_. Not so easy now to pull off the drugging plan . . .

This also serves an an example of "intent and task" at work: the GM can't identify what would be an unwelcome twist until s/he knows what the player hopes to do with the information in question.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Luke Crane discusses this - in relation to Wises - in his Adventure Burner/Codex for Burning Wheel.
> 
> His most worked example involves the recollected information involving an additional, unwelcome twist: the player wants it to be the case that _before a duel the combatants drink a toast_ - because the player wants his/her PC to be able to drug one of the combatants - but on a fail the GM introduces the twist _and then each drinks from the other's cup_. Not so easy now to pull off the drugging plan . . .
> 
> This also serves an an example of "intent and task" at work: the GM can't identify what would be an unwelcome twist until s/he knows what the player hopes to do with the information in question.




Yup.

This sort of asymmetrical but thematically attendant complication handling for aspirational but no physical action declarations (discerning, “lore-ing”, praying, et al) are areas where many/most GMs need the most work and TTRPG instruction for GMs needs the most robust guidance (and has historically, outside of some particular games, been poor).

An example last night in one of my DW games was:

* PCs were preparing a Ritual for Water Breathing Potions in the base camp of an archeological dig site (that contains precious many NPCs and a precious effort). They were doing this so they could attack an Ancient Blue Dragon that was recovering in its (former) lair at the bottom of a meltwater lake high in Himalyan-esque mountains (they nearly slew the beast the session prior).

* The Paladin’s role in the ritual was critical so the Paladin and his Cohort protege were praying to their Goddess for divine fortification in the ritual to come. The protégés prayer move failed.

* The move was intended to bulwark their preparations to assault the Dragon in its lair.

* Therefore, my response was to have her prayers lead her to a state of terrified catatonia where when she came out wide-eyed and struggled to get out a scream of “Dragon!” Of course her prayers had intercepted the flight of the Ancient Wyrm, its tremendous aura of terror taking her...as the Dragon was now dive bombing and besieging their site, interrupting their preparations!


----------

