TheRPGSite

This is sort of a response to Balbinus. This isn't a manifesto. This isn't a list of demands. This isn't even a generalization of all proactive players. It is a list of what to expect and suggested practices based on a generalization of myself and my observations of other players I've come across, written in first person form. It is for information purposes only. I've also found that "monkey see, monkey do" is highly applicable. Once you have one or two players acting proactively and it looks safe to do so other players that you wouldn't expect to do it will follow.


- Keep your initial definition of the world state to a minimum. Less is more!
- Clear, concise, explicit, flexible, and encompassing rules are important. They define how we will communicate about the world and the characters there-in. Keep them "in your head" at your own peril and if you do so expect me to question you extensively.
- Don't dump a bigass world history document on me or some setting history book or something. I didn't show up to learn about what has happened. I didn't even really show up to find out what will happen. I showed up to make something happen.
- If you have a world definition document don't think of it as canon. Think of it as "some crusty old fool in the street handed this to me and even if he was a Scholarly Sage of truely fine repute he might have had his crack-smoking nephew co-author some of the entries in the document". Even if you initially built it partially using my suggestions because I might have been strung out on crack when I gave you those suggestions.
- "It isn't you, it's me." Just because I largely ignore the plot/story/conflict/dungeon/pricesses/dragon you intended the game to be about doesn't mean I think it is trash. It might be, it might not be. It might have even have struck me as mildly interesting on another day. But today I've latched onto some other idea.
- If I'm ignoring your story you certainly aren't going to increase my interest in it by having some high powered NPC(s) try shove it down my throat.
- In fact I probably know the rules as well as or better than you and can scheme deeper than you have time to see due to your commitments to other players. You'll likely have to choose between having the above high powered NPC sent back to you in a baggie or blatantly GM fiating them to safety. Do not press on on this path because you aren't going to like the results as I'm not going to cow to such tactics. In fact you'll just give me something I'm looking for (see below about challenge).
- Don't be intimidated by the above. If I'm actually done listening to you I won't show up anymore. So keep talking and listening. Hopefully eventually we'll sync and make beautiful music together.
- The idea you do put out there are like seeds from a package that's lost its label. You plant them and what pops up is a surprise.
- I crave challenge. For best results I suggest setting the bar a smidgen higher than you expect me to reach.
- I crave a creative outlet, a helping hand on the wheel as it were.
- If you don't make the above readily available I'll find a way to make it available for myself. Your satisfaction with how this is done is not guaranteed.
- Since I probably know the rules as well as or better than you and have a creative bent do not put a single thing into play that you aren't OK with having maimed, killed, stolen, destroyed, fondled, run up a flagpole, humped, shot out a cannon, etc.
- Don't try to "teach me a lesson". I didn't sign up for grade school and you aren't Sister Mittelweibchen, 5th Grade Spiritual Morals teacher.
- Trust my ability to keep character and player information separate.
- Structure situations so my ability to keep character and player information separate is not taxed.
- Metagaming has no inherent morality. It is another tool that can be used for good ends or bad ends. Recognize this and recognize the difference.
- My character might be your character's enemy but at the end of it all I am your friend and hopefully an extremely helpful ally in the Quest For Fun.
- I'm going to pull back from time to time if I think I'm "stomping" on other player's play time. But I won't always notice when it is appropriate to do so. Just say something to me because I know it happens. Or better yet take the iniative to pass the ball to the other players, I bet they've got some cool ideas too and I'd like to hear them.
- Cultivate your first instinct to say 'yes', cultivate to wait to process the idea presented to see if you can give the ultimate answer of 'yeah, but what if....?', and do not fear saying 'no' as the final option. Also see above about actively involving the other players, ask them the question I just asked you.
EDIT: - Having an NPC that is cooler than my PC is like hanging a "Gank Me" sign on him. Making him really hard to kill will be seen as a challenge and I'm likely to take it up. Breaking the agreed upon rules to try protect him will fustrate and anger me....not because he is unkillable but because you have gone back on your word.

Finally, if you have something to say to me just say it. Don't send some NPC to say it because there is a higher chance of error in indirect communication....and the response of the NPC's head getting chopped off can be misunderstood as well. ;)


Jump in, let's go
Lay back, enjoy the show
Everybody gets high, everybody gets low,
These are the days when anything goes - from a pop radio station near you

Cool, you know, I can happily sign up to that entire list, indeed I intend games I run currently to pass all those tests.  Edit:  As in, though I haven't quantified it that way, it's a pretty good list of what I consider to be the key elements of GMing already.

I remember years back I had statted a cool nemesis npc, there was a fight, a PC unexpectedly ignored the mooks descending on them and fired off at the nemesis, rolled a crit and killed them.  It was the introductory scene for that nemesis.

And I thought, should I fudge this, the nemesis is cool and a lucky roll is taking them out, and I thought, nah, fuck it, I can always make another nemesis.

And that was the right decision.


But yeah, wordy mcword as I would say were I sadder than in fact I am.

A few comments about your points, some or all of which may not be applicable to you or the people you play with

Quote from: blakkie- Don't dump a bigass world history document on me or some setting history book or something. I didn't show up to learn about what has happened. I didn't even really show up to find out what will happen. I showed up to make something happen.

There are roughly two different ways to approach a history book of a period like the Late Bronze Age or the Middle Ages, based on the books I've purchased over the years.  You can approach it as a sequence of people and events describing what happened or you can approach it as a description of what the period was like and how people lived.  Thus a history that details how the Normans invaded and conquered England is different than a history that details how the Normans lived in England.  In my experience, the latter is far more important to players trying to live in a setting than the former.  I care more about learning what it feels like to cast a fireball spell than I care about who invented it hundreds of years earlier and why.

Quote from: blakkie- "It isn't you, it's me." Just because I largely ignore the plot/story/conflict/dungeon/pricesses/dragon you intended the game to be about doesn't mean I think it is trash. It might be, it might not be. It might have even have struck me as mildly interesting on another day. But today I've latched onto some other idea.

That's the problem with running a story instead of a setting if the player doesn't want a story.  Some people apparently find the idea that a player might not be looking to play through a story incomprehensible, but it's true that not all players are looking for the GM to make a story happen.

Quote from: blakkie- If I'm ignoring your story you certainly aren't going to increase my interest in it by having some high powered NPC(s) try shove it down my throat.

This, by the way, is why I also don't like mechanics that tell the GM what's important to the character.  If an NPC is important to my character, that doesn't mean that the GM should jerk that NPC around to make my character dance.  If it happens as part of events, that's fine, but I don't need the GM shoving the importance of something like that down my throat.

Quote from: blakkie- Trust my ability to keep character and player information separate.

To be honest, I don't always trust myself to do this.  That's why I'll walk away from the table during important scenes that my character should react to later, rather than watch them.  I want to make sure I get an honest reaction later.  I offended a GM at a game club by dong that once.  Simply put, if I walk away from the table during an important scene where my character isn't involved, that means I care about the game, not that I'm disinterested.

Quote from: blakkie- Metagaming has no inherent morality. It is another tool that can be used for good ends or bad ends. Recognize this and recognize the difference.

While I think that's correct, be aware that if you are using Metagaming to decide how the game plays out, the players can recognize the Metagaming.  Some players may enjoy that but I don't.  If I can find a movie or book written by a total stranger predictable and unsatisfying because I can pick up on the authors deus ex machina, I can certainly pick up on the deus ex machina of a person whom I've role-played with for a year or more.

Quote from: blakkie- Cultivate your first instinct to say 'yes', cultivate to wait to process the idea presented to see if you can give the ultimate answer of 'yeah, but what if....?', and do not fear saying 'no' as the final option. Also see above about actively involving the other players, ask them the question I just asked you.

When I ask the GM a question, I want to hear "no" at least part of the time.  If I know that asking for something is going to always be answered by some variant of "yes" or "yes, but..." I'm going to stop asking questions because I want a GM, not a yes man.

Quote from: blakkieEDIT: - Having an NPC that is cooler than my PC is like hanging a "Gank Me" sign on him. Making him really hard to kill will be seen as a challenge and I'm likely to take it up. Breaking the agreed upon rules to try protect him will fustrate and anger me....not because he is unkillable but because you have gone back on your word.

This is just another way of saying that the GM needs to be willing to let the players fold, spindle, and mutilate their NPCs.  To that, I'd add that if the NPC is a friendly NPC or ally, don't design them to be better at the PCs in what the PCs primarily do and, normally, they should be followers looking to the PCs for guidance, not leaders looking to tell the PCs what to do.

Reward Initiative. At the least extra experience. When the lag-behinds complain about one player being so much better than they, tell them, "That's because he's learned more than you. Start doing more and you'll earn more experience."

Quote from: mythusmageReward Initiative. At the least extra experience. When the lag-behinds complain about one player being so much better than they, tell them, "That's because he's learned more than you. Start doing more and you'll earn more experience."

Good catch, add that one to the list Balbinus. :win:

See this is why I brought up BW in that other thread and why I like it so damn much. Because I'm a proactive player and BW is about proactive playing, start to finish.

It is chock full of rules tailored for and centered around encouraging, facilitating, and rewarding proactive play. The Artha rewards? Entirely based around the player/character making things happen and taking risks (AKA accepting challenges). Advancement of stats and skills? Through use but to advance them the character has to attempt difficult and challenging tasks (quite literally Difficult and Challenging) where to succeed you have to roll nearly as many (Difficult) as many, or more successes (Challenging) on the dice than you have dice. For a few stats you even have to succeed at this attempt to advance.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I ask the GM a question, I want to hear "no" at least part of the time.  If I know that asking for something is going to always be answered by some variant of "yes" or "yes, but..." I'm going to stop asking questions because I want a GM, not a yes man.

Do I strike you as a Yes Man? Because as a GM I rarely say "no" at the table to a request. I find I really don't need to.

Usually if a "no" situation comes up the player already knows the answer. ((EDIT: Or the rest of the players at the table as a whole)) I just toss the question back to them and they answer "no" themselves.  Actually I do that for a lot of things, ask the other people at the table the question.  Going back to that BW demo they were going to go up the side of the ship. The Elf didn't have a Climb skill so he was going to need to use Beginner's Luck (double Obstacle). Fortunately for him he had rope with him (it's on the character's list of Instincts to aways have rope with him.....incidentally another potential question answered) and he had Rope Cant that's an general purpose rope stuff magic.  He says he wants to make a rope ladder so the Roden can toss it down to him to make climbing easier. He asks me what the Obstacle is to use Rope Chant to fashion a rope ladder. Well he's got the book open to the page, not me. So I ask him. He figures a 2 or 3. I say "well which one do you think?" Out loud he runs through a mental train of though on extrapolating and says "2". By my reconning dead-on. Two hours before this he'd never read the rules. Two minutes ago he had never seen this spell description.

Generally players aren't stupid, they can read and write and reason too. They know the answers. If a player is so out there that they aren't in sync with you, and the two of you just can't seem to find that sync? Go find someone else to play with that is in sync with you.

QuoteThis, by the way, is why I also don't like mechanics that tell the GM what's important to the character. If an NPC is important to my character, that doesn't mean that the GM should jerk that NPC around to make my character dance. If it happens as part of events, that's fine, but I don't need the GM shoving the importance of something like that down my throat.

If the player asked for it? That ain't shoving. :D  If the player still doesn't want it? Then WTF did they ask for it? Sounds like they need to go back and rethink what they are asking for. They don't like just because the NPC was presented to them in a way that was challenging in a manner they have asked for? Why? Because it was tough? Then WTF are they doing at the table?

Seriously, that's the one thing that you MUST expect from me as a GM. To be challenged by the poison that you have picked. I don't say "no", but I sure as hell don't pass out free rides either.   EDIT: And as a player I don't expect them. Sure I'd like a say in the setting. But I don't expect to write it to my whim nor am I looking to be some charity case.

Blakkie, if I have a different lists about what to expect from me (and players like me) as a proactive player, should that be a different thread or is it on topic for here?

Quote from: blakkieUsually if a "no" situation comes up the player already knows the answer. I just toss the question back to them and they answer "no" themselves.

There are two problems I have with that.  

First, I ask questions when I don't know the answer.  Even as a GM, I often don't have a strong opinion about a lot of things that could go either way, which is why I roll a lot of dice.  Sure, I could put on a GM hat and answer the question myself, but if I wanted to be wearing the GM hat, I'd be asking to run the game.

Second, I ask questions to avoid assumption clash problems.  For example, if you present us with a ship that we need to sneak on to and the only way on board seems to be to scale the hull (assuming there are no convenient and obvious ropes and rope abilities written into the, I assume, pre-generated characters) and I don't think that's possible, I might ask you,  "Can we try to climb up the outside of the ship?"  What I'm asking for, here, is whether you think it's possible.  If you turn the question back to me, I'll say, "No," and that may not be the answer you were expecting or think is right.  

Quote from: blakkie[...] He asks me what the Obstacle is. Well he's got the book open to the page not me. So I ask him. He figures a 2 or 3. I say "well which one do you think?" Out loud he runs through a mental train of though on extrapolating and says "2". By my reconning dead-on. Two hours before this he'd never read the rules. Two minutes ago he had never seen this spell description.

Yes, and that was a very simple and easy example where the character clearly had the ability and the player agreed with you.  What about cases where the character doesn't have an ability or it's a stretch, or cases where the player's assessment of the situation or difficulty doesn't seem "dead-on" to you?  Clear-cut examples, while good for explaining how something works, are often not very good for showing that something isn't a problem or how problems are handled.

Quote from: blakkieGenerally players aren't stupid, they can read and write and reason too. They know the answers. If a player is so out there that they aren't in sync with you? Go find someone else to play with that is in sync with you.

I don't know about you but I role-play with people I've known for decades, I have a family and job, and finding a new group of people I'd like to spend 4 hours with at least once a month, never mind the 12 hours that are normal for our regular sessions, isn't something I have endless free time for.  Why should I have to go out and find someone else to play with that is perfectly in sync with me so, when I GM, I can avoid answering questions by making the players do it for me?  What's wrong with just answering their questions?

Also, just because I can read, write, and reason doesn't mean that I want to be wearing my GM hat when I'm playing.  I approach the game as a GM and a player very differently and there are many things I don't want to do as a player any more than I'd want to be worrying about how to judge whether a pitch was a strike or a ball as a baseball batter or even pitcher.  I can, of course, make such assessments when they are clear and will sometimes toss my assessment of the difficulty to the GM (also to avoid assumption clash), but I'm not always thinking about it.

That's not saying that what you are recommending can't work well for groups.  I am simply pointing out that it's not universally good advice for everyone and may be something that could make the game less fun for some groups.

Quote from: blakkieIf the player asked for it? That ain't shoving. :D  If the player still doesn't want it? Then they WTF did they ask for it? Sounds like they should go back and rethink what they are asking for. They don't like just because the NPC was presented to them in a way that was challenging in a manner they have asked for? Because it was tough? Then WTF are they doing at the table?

What if the player didn't know they were asking for it?  It has nothing to do with "challenge" or "tough".  Like I said, I have no problem with things like that happening in the natural course of events.  It has to do with with the artificiality and lack of subtlety of the whole thing.

Quote from: blakkieSeriously, that's the one thing that you should MUST expect from me as a GM. To be challenged by the poison that you have picked. I don't say "no", but I sure as hell don't pass out free rides either.

I don't care if you challenge my characters, nor even kill my characters as a part of the natural flow of events in the game.  I'm not looking for a free ride, nor do I want to give the GM one.  

If I need to tell the GM what to make the adventure about and need to tell the GM whether my character can do things or not and whether details of the setting exist or not, I wonder why I'm bothering to have a GM in the first place because, yes, my earliest Traveller games had no GM.  

The "value add" that I get out of having a GM is that they take care of the world that my character inhabit and provide some interesting situations that my character should want to get involved in (as opposed to have to get involved in -- threatening a dependent NPC is about as subtle as a gang of burly men forcing the characters on to a ship -- let me off of the train, thanks).  I take care of my character and what they do.  As a player, I don't want to do GM stuff any more than I want to do player stuff as a GM.

Again, this may not reflect the way you or your groups do things but it reflects the way my groups and I do things.  That doesn't mean your advice is bad, it simply means that I don't find it true for everyone and thus I don't think it's universally good advice.

ADDED:  FYI, I know you clearly said that your advice isn't universal.  I'm trying to illustrate to the peanut gallery why it might not be applicable to other groups.

I think there may be some unspoken assumptions about what it means to be a "proactive players".  From my perspective, that means players that can make their own adventures in the setting and adding details to the setting with GM oversight.  Do others also assume that "proactive players" includes being more proactive about taking charge of the game and what's going on in the setting?  What role does a GM serve in a game with "proactive players"?

To be a "proactive player", I don't want the GM to feed me adventures that I'm supposed to follow.  I'm looking for a GM to create a setting that has interesting things going on, some of which I may follow and others that I might not care about.  But I don't want to have to worry about controlling the setting.  I'm only looking to control my character.  That seems to be a very different definition than what other people are talking about, which seems to focus more on taking charge of things like setting details, task difficulties, and deciding what is or isn't possible.

Quote from: John MorrowI think there may be some unspoken assumptions about what it means to be a "proactive players".  From my perspective, that means players that can make their own adventures in the setting and adding details to the setting with GM oversight.

That's exactly what I mean.

QuoteDo others also assume that "proactive players" includes being more proactive about taking charge of the game and what's going on in the setting?

Same thing....depending on what you mean by "take charge". If you mean "assume some resposibility for" and you mean it in a joint way instead of sole, then yes.  If you mean sole or prime responsibility, and given the context I think you might then I think that falls more under the troupe style umbrella. Swapping one master for another in different portions of the game.

QuoteWhat role does a GM serve in a game with "proactive players"?

Hrmmm, rewriting the above list from the other end of the table? I'll have to give that some thought.  But as far as the setting coordination that still rests with the GM. It just has what I'd call a more egalitarian tone. But something short of GM-less.

QuoteI'm looking for a GM to create a setting that has interesting things going on, some of which I may follow and others that I might not care about.

As the GM I'm looking for the players to tell me what they think is "interesting" in a very real, concrete, and active way.  EDIT: Maybe it is better put that I'm looking for them to show me what they think is interesting?

QuoteBut I don't want to have to worry about controlling the setting. I'm only looking to control my character.

Unless you are on the strictest of steel rails control of the setting is inevitable. A clean setting/character divide is a falicy. Just as is an RPG without metagaming (I didn't really pick up that thread of conversation because I figured it really was a complete board thread onto itself).

Quote from: jhkimBlakkie, if I have a different lists about what to expect from me (and players like me) as a proactive player, should that be a different thread or is it on topic for here?

Here seems as good a place as any. *shrug*  EDIT: I'd like to see it. As mythusmage showed I didn't get into that post everything that is on my list and I've never seen you play. This is just based on my own experiences and observations.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat if the player didn't know they were asking for it?  

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

That is why it is good to write it down. Then explain what they are asking for.  If they aren't getting what they thought they asked for the player's gotta give that feedback.  Cooperation requires communication.

P.S. No time right now to properly reply to the other parts of that post. But from first glance I think you gave a really good explaination of why asking those questions is part of good communication technique. Another part is that the stuff that matters is identified up front so the questions about things that matter don't pop up very often. :D  Of course this means you need to understand and set in your mind your priorities.

Quote from: blakkieSame thing....depending on what you mean by "take charge". If you mean "assume some resposibility for" and you mean it in a joint way instead of sole, then yes.  If you mean sole or prime responsibility, and given the context I think you might then I think that falls more under the troupe style umbrella. Swapping one master for another in different portions of the game.

Just as you think "[a] clean setting/character divide is a falicy", I think that the idea of clean joint control is a fallacy.

Quote from: blakkieHrmmm, rewriting the above list from the other end of the table? I'll have to give that some thought.  But as far as the setting coordination that still rests with the GM. It just has what I'd call a more egalitarian tone. But something short of GM-less.

It would be interesting seeing your list from the other end of the table.

I think that if your goal is to be egalitarian, then the more generic form of the advice would be to offer the players more control if they want it, but don't force them to take it if they don't.  Just because a player doesn't want control of setting elements doesn't mean that they can't be plenty pro-active through their character.

Quote from: blakkieAs the GM I'm looking for the players to tell me what they think is "interesting" in a very real, concrete, and active way.

What if the answer isn't very specific?  I can find just about anything in a game interesting so long as it maintains verisimilitude.  Those sessions that consist of nothing but PCs bantering with each other and NPCs?  I love that stuff.  

That's one of my biggest concerns about a GM trying to cater to what they think I overtly find interesting.  It can cause them to gloss over or bypass other things that I might find just as interesting or even more interesting.  And the particular problem with systems that do this mechanically is that they often feel like very blunt tools to find out what I want, because what I want is often more subtle and even when it's not, I'm quite able to play it off of whatever you give me and I'm not always sure that what interests me in one part of the game will be interesting as time goes on.

Quote from: blakkieUnless you are on the strictest of steel rails control of the setting is inevitable. A clean setting/character divide is a falicy. Just as is an RPG without metagaming (I didn't really pick up that thread of conversation because I figured it really was a complete board thread onto itself).

Well, there is an important distinction between how the player controls the setting and when.  For example, controlling the setting through the agency of a character is different than controlling the setting through direct omniscient control.  Similarly, there is a difference between creating setting details at the beginning of a game and creating them on the fly.  You can allow one or the other or both.  

With respect to metagaming, there is a distinct difference between intentionally metagaming and unintentionally metagaming, between embracing it and shunning it.  There is certainly metagaming in the games I play and run, but I consider it an undesirable and unavoidable byproduct of the medium most of the time and a necessary evil at best.  

It's like eating food with peas in it.  I don't really like peas but there are foods that I'll eat that contain peas because some foods that I otherwise like almost inevitably have peas in them.  But just because I'll eat some foods with peas doesn't mean that I want more of them in my food or a big heaping plate of peas.

I'm going to repost the scene from The Princess Bride that  I posted to the other thread because it contains at least four different angles on the pro-active problem is you think of it as a scene between 3 PCs in a role-playing game:

Westley:  Who are you? Are we enemies? Why am I on this wall?  Where's Buttercup?

Inigo:  Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.  Buttercup is marry Humperdinck in little less than half an hour, so all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape, after I kill Count Rugen.

Westley:  That doesn't leave much time for dilly-dallying.

(Here we have Westley dropped into a situation cold, so he knows very little about the details.  All he can do is ask questions and rely on the  information he's getting.  He has no base of information to work with.)

Fezzik:  You just wiggled your finger! That's wonderful!

Westley:  I've always been a quick healer. What are our liabilities?

Inigo:  There is but one working castle gate. And it is guarded by... sixty men.

Westley:  And our assets?

Inigo:  Your brains, Fezzik's strength, my steel.

(Here he finds out what he obviously has to work with at hand.  This is the sort of stuff that a GM might draw on a hex map and a character might find on a character sheet.)

Westley:  That's it? Impossible. If I had a month to plan, maybe I could come up with something, but this...< shakes head >

(This is angle one, the player who isn't proactive because they don't have enough information to make a decent plan.)

Fezzik:  You just shook your head! That doesn't make you happy?

Westley:  My brains, your strength, and his steel against sixty men, and you think a little head jiggle is supposed to make me happy? Hmmmm? I mean, if we only had a wheelbarrow, that would be something.

(This is angle two, the player starts thinking up plans and starts asking the GM if certain things are available that are needed for the plan to work.  This is the basic way for a player to be proactive and the easiest for a GM to kill if all they say is "no".)

Inigo:  Where did we put that wheelbarrow the albino had?

Fezzik:  With the albino, I think.

(This is angle three, where the setting and the experience the characters have had with it are rich enough that it's already been established that certain things are available and the players may even know where to find them.  This is my preferred method for being proactive as a player.)

Westley:  Why didn't you list that among our assets in the first place?  What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak.

Inigo:  There we cannot help you.

Fezzik:  Would this do?

Inigo:  Where did you get that?

Fezzik:  At Miracle Max's. It fit so nice, he said I could keep it.

(This represents the fourth angle, which is giving players the ability to insert stuff into the setting if they can figure out a way to fit it in.  The humor in that line is that he just happens to have what's needed, and the fact that it's funny is why some players have problems with making up details like that.)

Another option is to roll dice, which is the third option between saying "yes" and saying "no".  It's a way for a GM to say "maybe" and then turn that in to a "yes" or "no".  It's not necessarily about taking responsibility for the decision.  As a GM, I sometimes simply have no preference and defaulting to either "yes" or "no" just doesn't feel satisfying to me.

Quote from: blakkie"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

That is why it is good to write it down. Then explain what they are asking for.  If they aren't getting what they thought they asked for the player's gotta give that feedback.  Cooperation requires communication.

Part of my point here is the way game systems  often ask you to write things down does not necessarily communicate the player's desires and intents accurately to the GM.  For example, the player may create a dependent NPC in a game like Champions but that doesn't necessarily scope out how the GM will involve the dependent NPC in the game or how the players wants things to play out.  Spider Man may very well have Mary Jane and Gwen described as dependent NPCs or a love triangle on the character sheet but that doesn't tell the GM that it's OK to have Gwen tossed off of a bridge and so on.  That's where another (my favorite) line from The Princess Bride comes into play:

Grandson:  You mean he wins? Jesus, Grandpa, what did you read me this thing for?

This isn't just a problem faced by GMs.  It's a problem faced by authors.  And it's a problem inherent in the audience having storylike expectations about what should and shouldn't happen.

Quote from: John MorrowFor example, the player may create a dependent NPC in a game like Champions but that doesn't necessarily scope out how the GM will involve the dependent NPC in the game or how the players wants things to play out.

Hell yes!  Which is why the first time I read the rules for BITs in Burning Wheel it was a "holy shit" moment. Those describe what the player wants their character to be about. But much more importantly they describe what the NPCs are about.

Sure a BW character has entries on their sheet that are NPCs, relationships to NPCs, and NPC organizations that the player has paid for during chargen or game play to have brung into the world.  But the aspects of those NPCs that are important to the player is how they challenge the PC's Beliefs.

Quote from: John MorrowJust as you think "[a] clean setting/character divide is a falicy", I think that the idea of clean joint control is a fallacy.

Never said it was clean, it gets messy. ;)  But I do think it works with the reality [EDIT:that players] impact and change the setting anyway and that the definition of the setting directly impacts on the characters and the character actions.

QuoteIt would be interesting seeing your list from the other end of the table.

Took me about a day of on and off to put the post for this thread together. It'll be at least that for writing it from the GM side.

QuoteJust because a player doesn't want control of setting elements doesn't mean that they can't be plenty pro-active through their character.

The tools are there. If they don't pick them up and use them? *shrug* They just want to use the direct smacky-smacky tools? Yeah sure. But just like the Ghostbusters they still have to choose the form of their destruction. There isn't any getting around that one. This is only more egalitarian not some hippie drum-circle lovefest. :p

QuoteWhat if the answer isn't very specific?  I can find just about anything in a game interesting so long as it maintains verisimilitude.  Those sessions that consist of nothing but PCs bantering with each other and NPCs?  I love that stuff.

It answers specificly or it get gets the hose. ;)

QuoteThat's one of my biggest concerns about a GM trying to cater to what they think I overtly find interesting.  It can cause them to gloss over or bypass other things that I might find just as interesting or even more interesting.

Then choose carefully to get yourself in the ballpark. Then do your thing from there and we'll adjust the course as needed. This isn't about perfection, it is about improvement over poor communication.  Besides your flexibility is good because this has to fit in with everyone else at the table.

QuoteWell, there is an important distinction between how the player controls the setting and when.  For example, controlling the setting through the agency of a character is different than controlling the setting through direct omniscient control.

I suggest that providing the regimented outlet for direct player control releives the pressure for attempting to accomplish the same via the agency of the character, AKA metagaming. Remember that middle point of my three about metagaming that you didn't quote?

QuoteWith respect to metagaming....

...another thread, another time. See you there. :)

Quote from: blakkieNever said it was clean, it gets messy. ;)  But I do think it works with the reality [EDIT:that players] impact and change the setting anyway and that the definition of the setting directly impacts on the characters and the character actions.

Yes, but this leads us back to issues of how the player changes the setting and metagaming.  Just because I change the setting though my character doesn't mean that I want to bypass my character and do it directly.

Quote from: blakkieTook me about a day of on and off to put the post for this thread together. It'll be at least that for writing it from the GM side.

Well, your effort showed on the first one (which was good).

Quote from: blakkieThe tools are there. If they don't pick them up and use them? *shrug* They just want to use the direct smacky-smacky tools? Yeah sure. But just like the Ghostbusters they still have to choose the form of their destruction. There isn't any getting around that one. This is only more egalitarian not some hippie drum-circle lovefest. :p

Well, speaking for myself, I role-play to think in character and do things through the agency of my character.  If I'm bypassing that, I'm not doing what I really want to be doing.  It's kind of like telling someone doing a craft at a historical site to use power tools under the mistaken assumption that their only goal is to produce the item and not, in part or wholly, to experiencing the process of creating the item.  For at least some players, the process they use matters more than the results the process produces.

Quote from: blakkieIt answers specificly or it get gets the hose. ;)

You never run in to players who have problems with those questions or do you just boot 'em?

Quote from: blakkieThen choose carefully to get yourself in the ballpark. Then do your thing from there and we'll adjust the course as needed. This isn't about perfection, it is about improvement over poor communication.  Besides your flexibility is good because this has to fit in with everyone else at the table.

Just bear in mind that good communication also depends on asking the right questions.  There are certain assumptions built in to some of the questions being suggested as good ideas that might make them a less good idea when those assumptions aren't in play.

Quote from: blakkieI suggest that providing the regimented outlet for direct player control releives the pressure for attempting to accomplish the same via the agency of the character, AKA metagaming. Remember that middle point of my three about metagaming that you didn't quote?

I think it's wrong to assume that players are trying to achieve metagame goals through the agency of their characters.

As for your middle metagaming point, I'd be curious about a more in-depth explanation of what you mean by that (or an example or two).

Quote from: blakkie...another thread, another time. See you there. :)

Sure.

Quote from: John MorrowYou never run in to players who have problems with those questions or do you just boot 'em?

Sure some players (and GMs) have trouble with these questions. It is a big chunk of the learning curve for BW, coming up with good Beliefs that really pop. Even Luke I think has a different insight into Beliefs now than back in 2003 when he wrote the book (you'll find some differences in BE). Depending on their past RPG experience some people just aren't used to asking or being asked these kinds of questions at all. Which is kinda sad. Getting an answer when you ask the question is tough but it is even tougher getting an answer when you don't explicitly ask the question. And then there is not even caring about answer to start with. :o

However people learn. That SR campaign of mine that I imported Circles and Resources into? I also used a very simplistic form of Beliefs, basically just termed it "goals". It also is much more loosely linked to rewards (Karma) because it is hard to bring the whole thing over as a firm mechanic because BITs are hooked all over the place and really need a lot of support within the rest of the rules.

But just explicitly asking the questions and a very casual like to rewards gets players thinking in terms of what they are going to do. I had a player say "my character goes out and buy ....". I ask what he's trying to do, what he's trying to accomplish. He says "my new goal to use a huge improvised explosive to blow up a building" (bless his little sociopathic hearts :rolleyes: ). So we quickly hammer out the details of how that'd work for procurment, implemention, and effect in SR4 mechanics and the setting of our game. Long-story-short is a couple of sessions later they come across a situation that one of the possible solutions calls for blowing up a building.

In the past there would have been bumps and starts and this and that and eventually it would be figured out. Maybe. This just went so much smoother. *shrug* Maybe something else was different too? I really think this change to more talking more explicitly was at the heart of it though.

Quote from: blakkieI had a player say "my character goes out and buy ....". I ask what he's trying to do, what he's trying to accomplish. He says "my new goal to use a huge improvised explosive to blow up a building" (bless his little sociopathic hearts :rolleyes: ). So we quickly hammer out the details of how that'd work for procurment, implemention, and effect in SR4 mechanics and the setting of our game.

FYI, one of the reasons why some players don't want to answer these questions is that they don't want the GM's answers to be affected by the GMs desire to see the players achieve or fail at the goal.  In other words, they do it to prevent metagaming.  Similarly, there are players who purposely don't tell the GM how wounded their characters are because they don't want the GM to feel obliged to pull punches.  Again, they are trying to prevent metagaming.

Now, sure, you can talk about those things but, as you yourself stated, metagaming is inevitable and, in my experience, if the players are purposely trying to eliminate the metagame, or as much of it as possible, then explaining what the characters are trying to do and delving into the metagame only exacerbates the problem.  In other words, talking about ultimate goals and stakes and so forth are really useful if you are trying to bring the metagame out into the open because they do that but they can be really detrimental of your goal is to hide the metagame and eliminate as much of it as possible.

Years ago, there a thread on "GM Biases" on rec.games.frp.advocacy that talked about metagame "rules" that GMs apply to in game situations that the GM thinks will make the game more fun for the players, but often make the game less fun.  Every time I've posted a selection of them since, there are people who will chime in and say that they are good GMing, and for some groups they are.  But for people who consider the metagame undesirable, they can be bad things.

Examples include "Fair Play" (if the PCs try hard, then things will work out), "Creativity Rewards" (more inventive solutions are more likely to succeed than simple solutions), "Interesting Times" (things are never easy or go as planned for PCs), "No Free Lunch" (the PCs have to earn or pay for anything good), "Appropriate Challenge" (all opponents are challenging but defeatable), "Speed is Life" (the PCs are not given time to plan or reflect), "Cruel to be Kind" (abusing the PCs and forcing them to constaintly struggle), "He Who Lives By The Sword..." (violent solutions backfire), "Nice Guys Finish Last" (no act of kindness goes unpunished), and there were others.  

One example of "Interesting Times" was a player who realized that whenever she discussed her character's plans and goal to the GM, things would never work out as planned, but if she planned and didn't tell the GM about the plan, and came up with the ideas as if they were spontaneous, they'd work as planned.  So the player simply stopped telling the GM her plans.

The problem is that once you frame a request to purchase some items as a plan to build a bomb, saying yes or no to a component is no longer about saying yes or no to the item but saying yes or no to whether the player can build a bomb.  And going back to your point that a GM should "tructure situations so [your] ability to keep character and player information separate is not taxed[,]", framing everything in terms of goals and the metagame can tax the GM's ability to keep the game world and the metagame separate, which can be bad if the players desire such a separation.

Quote from: John MorrowFYI, one of the reasons why some players don't want to answer these questions is that they don't want the GM's answers to be affected by the GMs desire to see the players achieve or fail at the goal. In other words, they do it to prevent metagaming. Similarly, there are players who purposely don't tell the GM how wounded their characters are because they don't want the GM to feel obliged to pull punches. Again, they are trying to prevent metagaming.

Sure, because they've had it beaten into them from years of getting screwed over by GMs rigging success or failure.  But with time they can unlearn and then learn they aren't going to get arbitrarily screwed or made a charity case by GM Fiat. That it's safe to go for it.  I didn't emphasis the fostering of feeling "safe" in that list much because I don't need it so much, I've just said "screw it" and gone for it anyway. However it is in that list for the encouraging of others to follow me.

Can you see how that Weathersong example fits into that? A very basic and core principle in BW is that if the player succeeds at a roll good things come from it, if they fail bad things come from it. If the GM still dictated unfavourable weather the player has succeeded at that roll but still be screwed.

What about the other method, where the GM does a second random roll on a chart to determine the weather?  Well there the answer is "second random roll". Why? Don't keep rolling dice till you get the answer your want. The dice already gave an answer, the player succeeded, don't screw them over.

And if they failed the roll? No coddling, something bad happens. In fact the very bad thing they likely already knew could happen before they rolled.

For the kicker the player helps set the Obstacle too and determine what the good and the bad is. They get a fair shake. They by-in-large live or the die, succeed or fail on their and their character's own merits and choices.

QuoteThe problem is that once you frame a request to purchase some items as a plan to build a bomb, saying yes or no to a component is no longer about saying yes or no to the item but saying yes or no to whether the player can build a bomb.  

That isn't the problem. That is why it works. Because then we can talk about the mechanics of how to attempt to do it.  I don't sit there and try to cockblock him.**  He doesn't try to weasle his way around and end up getting cockblocked because he did a bunch of stuff that didn't fit with the joint understanding of the setting.  I also didn't purposely provide him with a building to blow up and didn't just hand him the materials. We just agreed upon the extension of the game mechanics to handle the situation before it came up (well mostly, he didn't have all the details but that's his own fault he skipped a couple sessions to hang out with his new GF :p). Which means it wasn't a total spur of the moment rule decision. Allowing him to plan. Allowing me to plan.


EDIT: I will also say that that SR campaign is only part of the way there. The decisions about Thresholds are NOT as well supported in the SR4 rules as Obstacles are in BW. There are some skills like Assensing that are, but most aren't. :( The game is also written very much GM Fiat centric, that's its comfort zone and I haven't been able to push it as far as I'd like.

** Because it is against the rules. Well not specific SR ones, the partial imported rules. Hanging the label "goal" on it tells me it is important to the player. It puts it right in my face. No pussyfooting around. No pathological mind games. Now if I don't make an honest effort to work the goal into the setting or I agree to the "goal" but don't provide the opportunity to attempt it? I'm breaking the rules and yes we're screwed. We were screwed right from the beginning because we've got someone at the table that isn't playing by the rules.

Leave it up to planning, skill, and luck.

Many years ago a lady by the name of Lisa Padol ran a rather variant Call of Cthulhu campaign that was known as Cthulhupunk. (Predated the SJG effort and was an "inspiration" for same.) Cthulhupunk had a recurring villain the PCs kept trying to bump off, and failing. Until one day...

As one player noted after her demise, "Well sometimes a plan actually works."

Quote from: blakkieIt is a list of what to expect and suggested practices based on a generalization of myself and my observations of other players I've come across, written in first person form.

I agree with most of the content -- the tone was a little off ("I can scheme deeper than you" seems like the "challenge" you're so quick to read into GM decisions).

Did you *intend* those statements as a challenge?

I was a bit confused by the dislike of world history... I can get not wanting a huge history tome, but why would you not want the GM to own the state-of-the-world?  I see world-def and world-state as primary value-adds for a GM... and except in extreme cases ("You live in a world where you have no free will") I don't see those things as affecting proactivity.

And what, specifically, did you mean by "don't treat world definition as canon" --  how would that apply to traditional games like D&D where PC's have no formal authority to define world-state?

Are you asking for input? Or are you asking that the GM share authority?

Cheers,
-E.

Most of Dwight's comments seem pretty common sense, don't they?

Don't be a jerk to the other players. Incorporate suggestions graciously. Be involved and participate -- don't just sit there and selfishly expect to be entertained.

Sound advice, and probably the way most folks play. But unless those conditions are designed into the game, they can be ignored and abused.

But once they are recognized, these tricks of trade can be expanded upon and used to greater effect.

For example, canon setting is dangerous because it limits player participation and suggestions. Rigid canon can produce lots of "No, it's not like that" from the GM or, even worse, lengthy explanations of "how it is."

Such behavior is unnecessary and, in fact, counter to the way RPGs have always and will always be played. Players have always had a hand in setting creation and manipulation. How many times have you, as a player, said, "We find an inn and put up for the night."? That's setting creation.

"I have a drink at the inn." That's setting creation.

It's unlikely that the GM has every inn in every city mapped (though it happens). But as soon as you suggest one, there's now an inn. Bam: setting.

Every action that you take with your player character creates setting. Why? Because there is no world beyond the players sitting at the table. No matter what RPG you're playing, it is the players who jointly create the world via their interactions. If you never ask for an inn, there's no inn. It's not important, and no system resources are wasted on it.

Recognizing this puts power in your hands. Is it power to always win? Is it power to always get what you want? Hell NO!. That's a straw man and has nothing to do with this discussion. It is the power to focus your play time into something that you find enjoyable, more enjoyable than you would otherwise, trying to search for the cool bits.

The GM's authority is to then take those focused goals and challenge them -- fight over them with you. Getting what you want every time is boring. Fighting for what you want, fighting about what you think it important, is dramatic and cool.

It's a back and forth that's existed since the first RPGs and still exists today. Some games simply seek to make it explicit, while others bury it or ignore, rendering it implicit.

-L

Quote from: blakkieCan you see how that Weathersong example fits into that? A very basic and core principle in BW is that if the player succeeds at a roll good things come from it, if they fail bad things come from it. If the GM still dictated unfavourable weather the player has succeeded at that roll but still be screwed.

While I don't have the book (something I'll probably correct when I get the money), I think I can get the gist of the example from your text and I'm going to answer based on that.

Quote from: blakkieWhat about the other method, where the GM does a second random roll on a chart to determine the weather?  Well there the answer is "second random roll". Why? Don't keep rolling dice till you get the answer your want. The dice already gave an answer, the player succeeded, don't screw them over.

While it can be used to "get the answer you want", that's not the only reason to use multiple rolls, and I think this points to different philosophies about what the players are doing.  For at least some role-players, I think the idea is that the mechanics and rolls correspond to specific things happening in the game setting.

Thus a roll to research a fact in a library represents the character's ability to find whatever is there and a roll to see what kind of information the library contains is a roll to establish a fact about the setting -- how well stocked the library is.  You could combine the two together into a single roll, but then you lose information that the two rolls provide.  

For example, if a player fails their research roll but a roll determines that the library has the information, if the characters go back and look again, I know that the information is there.  Similarly, if the character succeeds at their research roll but another roll suggests that the library doesn't contain the info they were looking for, then I know that's why they failed.  In order to find the information they need, the information both has to be there and they have to find it.

To me, skill rolls represent a character's performance in doing the skill, and not every failure is the result of poor character performance.  If I loose my keys, I may do a great job of searching a room but still not find them because they just aren't there for me to find.  That differs from viewing skill rolls as an indication of whether a character succeeds or fails at what they are trying to do.  As a result, "nothing happens" results don't bother me because "nothing happens" happens means that for that passage of time, "nothing happens", which seems quite normal to me.

Quote from: blakkieAnd if they failed the roll? No coddling, something bad happens. In fact the very bad thing they likely already knew could happen before they rolled.

Again, it depends on what you want the rolls to represent,  In the real world, sometimes someone does everything wrong and it still turns out OK for them.  Take William Hung's singing, for example.

Quote from: blakkieThat isn't the problem. That is why it works. Because then we can talk about the mechanics of how to attempt to do it.

And whether he can do it or not is determined by?  A die roll?  I do, of course, think that's the best way to reduce GM bias in those situations.

Quote from: luke (sort of)"We find an inn and put up for the night."?

"Well, actually..." says the GM, "You run across a gentleman who notices your plight, and offers a place you can stay. In return for news of the places you've been, and doing some chores around the house.

"Oh, and escorting a shipment a few blocks to a warehouse. Just in case of bandits.

"The lack of inns in this town has become rather obvious by now."

:D

"The fuck? No inns? You're full of shit! Choo-choo, man!"

Quote from: -E.I agree with most of the content -- the tone was a little off ("I can scheme deeper than you" seems like the "challenge" you're so quick to read into GM decisions).

Did you *intend* those statements as a challenge?

"....due to your commitments to other players". The GM has many things to concern themselves, with [usually] multiple players to keep track of. This isn't a matter of a challenge, simply a reminder of the reality of the situation that I've seen, from both ends of the table, play out over and over and over. The GM that somehow thinks their superior intellect can foresee what all the players are going to do or try to do? Even in the occational case that the former is actually true, and not just wishful thinking, the later usually does not bear out. Especially in the case of players that are focused on making things happen.

The rest of your post I think Luke covered.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile it can be used to "get the answer you want", that's not the only reason to use multiple rolls, and I think this points to different philosophies about what the players are doing.  For at least some role-players, I think the idea is that the mechanics and rolls correspond to specific things happening in the game setting.

Thus a roll to research a fact in a library represents the character's ability to find whatever is there and a roll to see what kind of information the library contains is a roll to establish a fact about the setting -- how well stocked the library is.  You could combine the two together into a single roll, but then you lose information that the two rolls provide.

But all that fits into one player rolled test.  The library is a really good one? It improves the odds of finding it. The library is a really bad one? Makes it much lower chance they'll find it.  I specifically used the word "test" BTW because you'll find that in cases like your example often in BW this is represented by something called a Linked Test.  You first roll to see how good a library you find and then those results feed directly into how many dice you get for searching the library.  Or you might have a completely separate test (say Resources to purchase entry to the library) or even a full out adventure to locate and gain access to the library. It is all a matter of how important the conflict of locating a library is to the game you want to play.

It is all a matter defining the world through the perspective of the PCs. Afterall the PCs are the center of the game, right? Everything is relative to them.

EDIT: See, I wasn't just being a dick to David R. in that other thread, I really had a point. ;) I generally think a good deal of his opinions and I don't mind saying that I did a triple check before calling bullshit rather than the double check most people get. :p It really is a lot like creating a small random generation table specific to the situation and then using the character's skill for modifying the die roll on that table. To put this into D20 terms for the Weathersong example you'd have something like, and I'm just tossing out numbers here:

d20+Knowledge(Weather) | Visibility Conditions
-----------------------+----------------------
1-13                   | Moonlit night
14+                    | Foggy

If it wasn't a coastal city but one where where you'd not expect this kind of climate, or if they had been under a tight timeline (they weren't)? Then maybe it'd be more like 1-16 and 17+ for the categories. Or it was in a land-locked desert city with no large bodies of water? Then everyone else would throw dice/cheetos/pencils at the player till he withdrew his silly suggestion. ;)  Well maybe not that harsh a reaction but it'd be a longshot roll to make it and it'd be his resposibility to give the ingame rational/explaination and sell it to everyone at the table before he rolled. Or I might suggest instead of fog it be a duststorm or something like that that reduced visibility. Because reduced visibility is what he is really after in this case (AKA "intent").

QuoteAnd whether he can do it or not is determined by?  A die roll?  I do, of course, think that's the best way to reduce GM bias in those situations.

Ding! So then we don't have a situation where I'm conciously or subconciously yanking his chain (as you described that woman experiencing). There is a clear set of requires for the character and rough list of the risks and potential problems. We also aren't discusssing what the rules are actually going to be with a bunch of tasks he's already completed towards the goal hanging over our discussions. Because that can lead to a lot of fustration and hard feelings as he gets entrenched to protect his effort and I feel like I'm being coerced into agreeing to something.

P.S.  In this case it was a security check by Knight Errant against his Fake ID, that he had to buy some appropriate permits for, that he used to purchase the supplies. Success by KE would have resulted in some sort of interogation and/or gunfight, depending on how many hits over the Threshold they rolled.  The check for building the bomb itself was a pretty straightforward Explosives test, that part was never really at issue.

Quote from: droog"The fuck? No inns? You're full of shit! Choo-choo, man!"

"That night the men of Teloth lodged the stranger in a stable, and in the morning an archon came to him and told him to go to the shop of Athok the cobbler, and be apprenticed to him.

'But I am Iranon, a singer of songs,' he said, 'and have no heart for the cobbler's trade.'

'All in Teloth must toil,' replied the archon, 'for that is the law ... Go thou then to Athok the cobbler or be gone out of the city by sunset. All here must serve, and song is folly.'"

And I'd imagine that they wouldn't be much more lenient towards wandering adventurers, either.

At this point I personally would be doing a quick check of the Beliefs to figure out WTF the existance/non-existance of this god damn inn is so important. :ponder: Why does it matter? What conflict does it serve? I ask them why they want an inn? To sleep for the night? Does one of the PCs have a Belief about not roughing it out under the stars or something? ((EDIT: GrimGent's post is an excellent example of a tie-in if there is a Belief like "The carefree life of a wandering minstral is for me".)) If I'm coming up empty then I say "sure, you find an inn" because otherwise it is getting in the way of why we showed up at the table.

Going back to that example AP the characters were prefabs out of the back of the book. Initially the Dwarf had one that said "I swore an Oath to my father that I would earn an honest living." But in setting up the adventure every player cut one Belief and that was the Dwarf's.  So when it came time to put their ship boarding plan into motion I asked "Where do you get the rowboat from?"  "We steal it." I looked around at the Beliefs and the players. I didn't see any particular tie-in for Beliefs nor did I see any players reaching for dice or expanding on where or how they were stealing the boat. So I made one of those executive GM decisions. They steal a boat. They have a boat! Done and done. Afterall the game was about the conflict with Eberhard, Pirate Slaver. They are still doing the sneaky-sneaky rolls anyway but any consequences for failure are going to center around Eberhard. The Beliefs said so!

EDIT:  If in the future details of where they got the boat or such became important and we didn't agree upon the details we could dice for it then. Because we left it indeterminent we can backfill in those details without retconning.

Quote from: blakkieAt this point I personally would be doing a quick check of the Beliefs to figure out WTF the existance/non-existance of this god damn inn is so important. :ponder: Why does it matter? What conflict does it serve? I ask them why they want an inn? To sleep for the night? Does one of the PCs have a Belief about not roughing it out under the stars or something?

It matters because sleeping in an inn or not sleeping in an inn changes the experience for the characters, regardless of whether a character has a particular hang-up or not.  If you are driving down a secondary highway and decide to start looking for a motel when it gets late, how does your desire to spend the night in a Motel affect whether you find one or not and how might your night change if you do or don't?

Quote from: blakkieSo when it came time to put their ship boarding plan into motion I asked "Where do you get the rowboat from?"  "We steal it." I looked around at the Beliefs and the players. I didn't see any particular tie-in for Beliefs nor did I see any players reaching for dice or expanding on where or how they were stealing the boat. So I made one of those executive GM decisions. They steal a boat. They have a boat! Done and done.

I wouldn't find that very satisfactory as a player, if for no other reason than playing through little details like that is part of what I enjoy about the hobby.  It sounds like these games have no room to stop and smell the roses because smelling roses isn't part of any character's Belief and isn't related to the central conflict of the game.

Quote from: blakkieAfterall the game was about the conflict with Eberhard, Pirate Slaver. They are still doing the sneaky-sneaky rolls anyway but any consequences for failure are going to center around Eberhard. The Beliefs said so!

I thought that you said that "Afterall the PCs are the center of the game, right? Everything is relative to them."  Yet here, it sounds like you are making everything relative to a particular conflict and making that central.

Quote from: John MorrowIt matters because sleeping in an inn or not sleeping in an inn changes the experience for the characters, regardless of whether a character has a particular hang-up or not.  If you are driving down a secondary highway and decide to start looking for a motel when it gets late, how does your desire to spend the night in a Motel affect whether you find one or not and how might your night change if you do or don't?

So the player wanted the "inn experience"? They didn't ask for the "getting the inn is tough experience"? Boom, there the inn is.

Quote from: John MorrowI wouldn't find that very satisfactory as a player, if for no other reason than playing through little details like that is part of what I enjoy about the hobby.  It sounds like these games have no room to stop and smell the roses because smelling roses isn't part of any character's Belief and isn't related to the central conflict of the game.

:rolleyes: What little bits are you playing over now? Do you play out taking a crap? I mean literally, about once per game day everyone at the table goes into detail how their character takes a dump? Of course not (well usually not).

Of course you seem to have missed a really important part -> "nor did I see any players reaching for dice or expanding on where or how they were stealing the boat". There you go, want to smell the roses? Then stick your nose in it. :p

QuoteI thought that you said that "Afterall the PCs are the center of the game, right? Everything is relative to them."  Yet here, it sounds like you are making everything relative to a particular conflict and making that central.

There is no contradiction in those two statements. Right there on every single character sheet was Eberhard. Eberhard is where the action is because to the PCs [players] Eberhard is the important thing. Of course they were all slightly different conflicts with Eberhard, and the PCs each had their own other conflicts too. The play reflected that.

EDIT: Now if the Dwarf had kept his Belief that got cut and the Dwarf player decided to really hit on that Belief then the path of play could have easily been different.

Quote from: blakkieSo the player wanted the "inn experience"? They didn't ask for the "getting the inn is tough experience"? Boom, there the inn is.

So the players have to enumerate every possible experience that they want in the game?  How about the, "I want to experience, though my character, what life is like in the setting?"

Quote from: blakkie:rolleyes: What little bits are you playing over now? Do you play out taking a crap? I mean literally, about once per game day everyone at the table goes into detail how their character takes a dump? Of course not (well usually not).[/UQOTE]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.  There is a lot of turf between playing out characters relieving themselves and jumping right to the final conflict with the bad guy and nothing else.  

Quote from: blakkieOf course you seem to have missed a really important part -> "nor did I see any players reaching for dice or expanding on where or how they were stealing the boat". There you go, want to smell the roses? Then stick your nose in it. :p

Do all of your players know that?  Have you asked any if they would have liked to have played through the theft after the fact?

Quote from: blakkieThere is no contradiction in those two statements. Right there on every single character sheet was Eberhard. Eberhard is where the action is because to the PCs [players] Eberhard is the important thing. Of course they were all slightly different conflicts with Eberhard, and the PCs each had their own other conflicts too. The play reflected that.

But if it's not a conflict written down, it gets glossed over?  This isn't sounding very appealing to me.  And, by the way, I'm saying this as a person who primarily thinks of myself as a player, not a GM.

Quote from: John MorrowSo the players have to enumerate every possible experience that they want in the game?  How about the, "I want to experience, though my character, what life is like in the setting?"

"We find an inn and put up for the night."  <---- They just indicated thet expect an inn to be there. Setting defined!

QuoteFallacy of the excluded middle.

Indeed! :rolleyes:

QuoteThere is a lot of turf between playing out characters relieving themselves and jumping right to the final conflict with the bad guy and nothing else.

And in this case there seemed to be no interest at the table playing out taking some POS bucket with oars for a joyride.  Not having read the rules yet maybe you don't realise that there the next step up in importance for the theft is only going to be one sneaky-sneaky (Stealth) roll made anyway to cover both the theft of the boat and infiltrating the ship?

QuoteDo all of your players know that?

If they read the rules, sure. Role Of The Players, item #4. "Use the mechanics!" You want something? Don't wait for me to offer it. And yes, I do beat this drum constantly. And highlight and reward proactive play. And yes, it works. Even with the most quiet, shy player I have ever met.  This of course ties in with #4 on the GM list of duties "engage and challenge".

Now did I beat on that drum hard enough during this particular  demo to completely drive that home? Unfortunately I didn't have time to debrief afterward so I'm not sure of that. But there were no sad or confused faces when they got the boat. *shrug* Off to attempt to board the ship they went. Forward to adventure! one might say. ;)

Of course this was a one-off session and we were also working in set amount of time smaller than you typically get at a Con. So yes, I was pushing the pace a bit because of that. Work with what you've got. *shrug*

QuoteDo all of your players know that?  Have you asked any if they would have liked to have played through the theft after the fact?

Heady thought, huh? Having all the people at the table deciding together what is important enough to roll for instead of some damn designer ((who I keep getting told isn't suppose to be there at the table strip-searching you. :rimshot:  ))

QuoteBut if it's not a conflict written down, it gets glossed over?

Didn't we just dicuss above that it is not necessarily so?

Besides if it is something comes up that is obviously setting impacting that hadn't been already determined you (as a group) figure it out. For example sometime after we started and when the PCs scouting the boat I realised we hadn't set the naval tech level for the setting. So I asked what people at the table thought of that? I didn't leave it that openended, I started running through specific questions. We settled on coast-hugging ships with poor sail power tech relying most on oars. We figured this played well with our past recasting of Eberhard from pirate to pirate-slaver.

Maybe that's the issue here, you are talking more about a larger definition of the setting and game tone? That's there on the GM and player lists too. But I think that is something BW could use more of. Something akin to a parred down version of the World Burner from BE (just an example off the top of my head) that provides more structure to catch more of these questions up front. Like the questionaires you find sprinkled throughout the books for various things.  There is a really small version of setting determination in the appendix with the GM and player roles, but it only covers a few key mechanics things like resource cycle (how ofte you pay your cost of living) and how powerful Faith magic is.

You did get confused by my reference to "history" books. I was refering to a tome that was history to the setting, not history to us.

For a variety of reasons, I'm not sure it's going to be fruitful to continue discussing this.  That said, you've said some things that make me interested in the system and some things that make me uninterested in the system but I'm probably more inclined to think about getting it and looking it over, for no other reason than to understand what it's doing and why.

Quote from: John MorrowFor a variety of reasons, I'm not sure it's going to be fruitful to continue discussing this.

Primarily because you are just thinking it too hard?  It is just "...a pretty good list of what [Balbinus] consider to be the key elements of GMing..." provided in a ready-made, handy form tuned more to proactive play than not. It neither guarantees success nor failure. It just gives a better shot at it.

Quote from: blakkiePrimarily because you are just thinking it too hard?

No, primarily because it will wind up becoming a much broader stylistic discussion that is beyond the scope of this thread.  Clearly, you want something very different out of your games than I do.  As such, some of what you consider good advice is not good advice in my experience, and vice versa but we're going around in circles discussing why.