This came up on the other thread where one of the contributors was taking about how great it was for players to be able to co-create "the world" and that the only reason you wouldn't want to do this is because you wouldn't want to relinquish "control." (I may have misinterpreted what they were saying)

It's very popular to add in some sort of Declaration mechanic in modern game designs (Fate, Swords of the Serpentine, now Savage Worlds w/ new benny rules, new 7th sea, etc.). The issue that I've run into with those mechanics is that what's going on when the GM "Declares" things about the world and when the players "Declare" things.

For the former, the GM is normally just Declaring "stuff" - there's no other agenda. For the latter, the player, because they typically have a character, are declaring to advantage their character, in a way that the character themselves would if they had that power. So they're just "declaring" how it turned out that things turned out the way the player wanted.

So imagine that your players are trying to convince some NPC X to do something for them. If they can't just declare stuff about the world, they have to maybe come up with some plausible plan (figure out what X wants and get it for them, figure out what X is hiding so they could blackmail them). In the worst case maybe they're just rolling persuasion, and while that isn't very interesting, it still produces a result that's about their character (they're the guy that's very persuasive).

With declaration style mechanics, YOU the player have an agenda - you're not just randomly adding to the world, you're trying to overcome some story obstacle for the character you have in front of you. So the guard helps you because "he's your best friend from school" (even though nothing like this has ever come up before).

The former is something I want to engage in - there's role playing, problem solving, challenge, etc. The latter might be fun for some people but isn't really that interesting to me. If this is super fun for you and your group that's great.

Came in expecting a discussion about the pros and cons of using "everyone declaring actions before any dice are rolled" in a system, but found this instead.

I don't like Declaration Mechanics as defined here.

My view is that if the setting requires some player input (a lot of superhero games have elements defining power origins, flaws, complications, etc. that require various NPCs or organizations to exist) that needs to be done before the campaign begins and is not something that is just assumed to exist.

Starting up a superhero campaign I'm pretty liberal in what I'll allow the players to say exists in relation to their PC, but I don't run in an established comic universe either so there's a lot of blank pages to fill in and every nemesis and organization they devise is one less I need to invent from scratch, but I always have veto power and have exercised it if it was just a bad fit.

Once play starts though, I don't typically allow that at all (unless it was Mage... the PCs are literally reality warpers so if have the spheres for it, reality can change to suit). I don't even allow "Edit Scene" as a use of Hero Points in Mutants & Masterminds... if they ask about whether something is there or not I tell them based on my own evaluation of the situation; if it makes sense that something would be there that I just hadn't mentioned, its there at no cost. If it doesn't make sense then its not there and I won't have you waste a Hero Point trying to make something that doesn't exist suddenly do so (reality warpers being an obvious exception).

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 17, 2025, 04:13:27 PMThis came up on the other thread where one of the contributors was taking about how great it was for players to be able to co-create "the world" and that the only reason you wouldn't want to do this is because you wouldn't want to relinquish "control." (I may have misinterpreted what they were saying)

It's very popular to add in some sort of Declaration mechanic in modern game designs (Fate, Swords of the Serpentine, now Savage Worlds w/ new benny rules, new 7th sea, etc.). The issue that I've run into with those mechanics is that what's going on when the GM "Declares" things about the world and when the players "Declare" things.

For the former, the GM is normally just Declaring "stuff" - there's no other agenda. For the latter, the player, because they typically have a character, are declaring to advantage their character, in a way that the character themselves would if they had that power. So they're just "declaring" how it turned out that things turned out the way the player wanted.

<snip for brevity>

Ahh, a very un-Pundit question.

This is the precisely wrong framing to think the problem through with because you are assuming that players are all equally creative and--more importantly--gifted with the same creative talents. That's not how the people at a real game table typically are.

Most RPG players are pretty genre savvy, so they almost invariably have creative talents. BUT these creative talents are often the products of unique tastes and personal explorations into niche and obscure fiction, so the specific creative talents players have can be wildly different from the other players. As such, the correct way to think through this problem is "who is the best player to worldbuild an answer to this specific situation?"

And in answer to the OSR-purists reading here, the GM is rarely an actively wrong answer, but that isn't the right answer 100% of the time, either.

In my opinion, the best way to approach this situation is for the GM to take the part of a managing editor and to delegate narrow parts of the game to specific gifted players. You need an in-universe rumor or news snippet? Ask a player to write it for you. You need history or backstory? Ask a different player. If you regularly play with the same group (which is usually true for RPG groups) then after a 10 session campaign or so you will have a good handle on which player has what creative talents, and you should put effort not into filling content in per se, but into making sure you ask the right player to do the right bit of worldbuilding.

Sometimes players haven't yet developed strong creative talents. This isn't a bad thing; they should focus on playing their character. As they see other people exercising creativity, they will naturally find their own creative talents at their own pace. 

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 17, 2025, 04:50:23 PMCame in expecting a discussion about the pros and cons of using "everyone declaring actions before any dice are rolled" in a system, but found this instead.

I was under the same assumption.   I did that (declaring actions in reverse initiative order for both NPCs and PCs and then having them occur in initiative order) and it worked well during my D&D 3.5 campaign that lasted over two years.  I allowed folks to change their actions at the cost of an action (either move or standard) if things changed in between making it impossible to carry it out (like an enemy that they declared to attack dying before).   I know the gut reaction here would be to think this took more time but I actually only gave folks a few seconds to answer and made sure to tell everyone in the beginning to figure out their turns BEFORE they came up instead of cross table chit chat.   In the end it actually saved time for the relatively large group (6-7 players typically but up to 8 when everyone showed up) because I was pretty strict about it and once they realized I was serious then it really went quickly and felt more organic.  YMMV.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 17, 2025, 04:13:27 PMThis came up on the other thread where one of the contributors was taking about how great it was for players to be able to co-create "the world" and that the only reason you wouldn't want to do this is because you wouldn't want to relinquish "control." (I may have misinterpreted what they were saying)

It's very popular to add in some sort of Declaration mechanic in modern game designs (Fate, Swords of the Serpentine, now Savage Worlds w/ new benny rules, new 7th sea, etc.). The issue that I've run into with those mechanics is that what's going on when the GM "Declares" things about the world and when the players "Declare" things.

Depends on how broad the "declaration" mechanic is.  Shadowrun Anarchy uses a narrative system with a rotating spotlight every scene or when it feels appropriate where players control the NPCs and the actual GM is just the one who rolls the dice needed for them.  I only tried it one session and wasn't a fan but I fully admit my preconceived notions/biases definitely played into that.  What I ended up doing instead was allowing players to instead make minor changes to the world/environment/npcs with their metacurrency points like placing scene appropriate tools in locations where they could be (like needing a crowbar and "finding" one in the janitorial/maintenance closet for a bonus on a strength check to get through a nearby door).  I would never do that in a more traditional RPG structure/system but it worked well enough with the loosey goosey narrative lighter set that game had.

I don't think it's so much how different player's skills at being creative are - I've noticed in games like Fate that PC's that are super verbal and creative get a massive effectiveness advantage for their character that they wouldn't have in a more traditional game.

I think I was more getting at that, for me, I'm not interested in games where story challenges are regularly resolved by players with declaring facts about the world. That's not interesting to me, and if I was told that I had to use such mechanics I wouldn't run or play roleplaying games anymore.

I've even run into issues like that with games like Unknown Armies, where players are designing the world prior to play. The issue I've run into is that (1) I get dumped things that aren't necessarily things I can use effectively, just because some player made it up, even though they have no responsibility for making it interesting during the campaign, and (2) it generates weird conflicts where player "came up with" NPC or organization X, then when I, who am now responsible for running them, do something they don't like that clashes with some unstated belief about how that thing is supposed to work.

My understanding is that these "declarations" are the defining difference between RPGs and storygames.  Is that right?  It sounds like something I could have fun with but a _very_ different experience.

When I run improvised GURPS games that's basically what disadvantages are. If you put it on your character sheet you can expect it to figure into the game somehow.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 17, 2025, 04:13:27 PMWith declaration style mechanics, YOU the player have an agenda - you're not just randomly adding to the world, you're trying to overcome some story obstacle for the character you have in front of you. So the guard helps you because "he's your best friend from school" (even though nothing like this has ever come up before).

On the surface, the declaration mechanic seems no different than any other time when a player declares what his PC is doing.

My question is this: is the declaration mechanic an automatic success, or can there be failure?

Because if there isn't a chance of failure, then I'm 100% against it. otherwise there's no tension in the game.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 17, 2025, 04:13:27 PMIt's very popular to add in some sort of Declaration mechanic in modern game designs (Fate, Swords of the Serpentine, now Savage Worlds w/ new benny rules, new 7th sea, etc.). The issue that I've run into with those mechanics is that what's going on when the GM "Declares" things about the world and when the players "Declare" things.

Quote from: blackstone on March 18, 2025, 09:29:25 AMOn the surface, the declaration mechanic seems no different than any other time when a player declares what his PC is doing.

My question is this: is the declaration mechanic an automatic success, or can there be failure?

Because if there isn't a chance of failure, then I'm 100% against it. otherwise there's no tension in the game.

I'm familiar with the option with FATE and Savage Worlds - and unmentioned but similar options in the James Bond 007 RPG and Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (aka Cinematic Unisystem). There isn't a chance of failure per se - it's that there's a limited resource to spend for it, and also, the GM has veto over what sort of declaration you can make.

As GM, I make sure that spending a benny for "plot twist" isn't markedly more useful than the other ways of spending a benny. Otherwise, the economy would be obviously broken. So, for example, in the case of trying to bribe the guard...  If the PC has ties to the area, then I might allow spending to say that the guard is an old friend. However, that connection would be worth roughly the same as spending the benny for a reroll. Just being a friend from school doesn't mean that he won't do his job.

With that in place, players only occasionally spend bennies for such a plot twist - and it's been only a minor change to play to add the option. It's usually creatively challenging for the players to think of an appropriate twist, so it's easier just to stick with the regular reroll options.

I think it is helpful to represent the sort of lucky breaks that aren't normally rolled for.

I like it for physical scene setting. In Savage Worlds especially, in combat you should be looking for chandeliers to swing from, mirrors to shatter, sand to throw in someone's eyes. But if it happens that a GM is not describing a rich interesting scene every time, there's no harm in putting some of that role onto the players.

Separately, in modern Traveller, a PC may start with a small number of allies, contacts, rivals and enemies. But Traveller PCs are often mobile, and an ally or contact written up before play starts might never come into play. Though I'd partly blame the GM for that, I've played around with leaving those slots open to be sure they come up sooner or later.

I think though that I have not played in a game with the strong form declaration that Pencil is describing, so I can't speak to it directly.

Quote from: Dave 2 on March 18, 2025, 08:27:31 PMI like it for physical scene setting. In Savage Worlds especially, in combat you should be looking for chandeliers to swing from, mirrors to shatter, sand to throw in someone's eyes. But if it happens that a GM is not describing a rich interesting scene every time, there's no harm in putting some of that role onto the players.

Roleplayers are not entitled to put anything into the scene. Roleplayers declare actions, not outcomes, for their characters to take and the GM to adjudicate. Roleplayers can also ask questions about there being "chandeliers to swing from, mirrors to shatter, sand to throw in someone's eyes" if the description did not already preclude it.

Conversely, storygamers spend metacurency to pull shit out of their ass and smear all over the scene.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 18, 2025, 09:05:45 PMRoleplayers are not entitled to put anything into the scene. Roleplayers declare actions, not outcomes, for their characters to take and the GM to adjudicate. Roleplayers can also ask questions about there being "chandeliers to swing from, mirrors to shatter, sand to throw in someone's eyes" if the description did not already preclude it.

Conversely, storygamers spend metacurency to pull shit out of their ass and smear all over the scene.

Metacurrency has been around since 1980 (_Top Secret_), and spending metacurrency to change the environment has been around since 1983 (_James Bond 007 RPG_).

As the OP noted, it's now a part of Savage Worlds (SWADE) and 7th Sea.

One can dislike them, but JB007 and SWADE aren't typically called story games.

The mechanic is storygame, although having including it does not in an of itself make the game a storygame. GM veto is also a huge factor; if the GM allows it metacurrecy may be used to do something versus if the metacurency is spent the effect occurs.

The only games I've really enjoyed Declaration mechanics were Fiasco (not a traditional RPG, to my mind) and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying.

They are great IF you have the right group of players. Not so much with people who struggle for interesting spontaneous creation. The more people you have who would normally be running a game, the better.

Also, I find them very genre dependent. The mechanic would be horrible for a detective/investigative game, a horror game, and several others, particularly if there is a "reveal" or plot twist built into the story, as improv declaration could easily derail or invalidate the plot.

IMO, they shine when the character is supposed to be doing really cool stuff constantly, even when they fail (thus, superheroes being a great fit).