Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Reconciling 4e's rough edges with Story Now play
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9302624" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>Perfect</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Perfect</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To a degree, the general locus of what the conflict of interest will be is nascently embedded in the Goal. You might think about Apocalypse World here kind of; the particular archetype of Threat, its Impulse, and its moves. For instance, here is the initial Goal for that initial conflict you're citing:</p><p></p><p><em><strong>Goal: Retrieve the ancient Scrolls of Xanthar from the Imperial Library</strong></em></p><p></p><p>If I were to format the way a GM should be thinking about opposition, situations/obstacles with respect to the above and then format it like Apocalypse World, the antagonist would probably look something like this:</p><p></p><p><strong>Imperial Library (<em>Institution</em>)</strong></p><p>Impulse: <em>To restrict access to, hoard, and jealously covet knowledge</em></p><p></p><p>Then you would see within the actual framed situations/obstacles a manifestation of the equivalent of GM soft moves which index the above. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>100 %. This could absolutely be the locus of PC dramatic need vs nature of opposition in this paricular framed situation/obstacle.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>100 %. This could absolutely be the locus of PC dramatic need vs nature of opposition in this paricular framed situation/obstacle.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are absolutely on top of it. Nailed it.</p><p></p><p>The only thing I would add is the precursor to all of this are the constraining and guiding inputs of (a) PC build flags (Background, Theme, et al), (b) hewing to what has been established to date through play (including the mild parameters given to the milieu before play begins) within the fiction regarding setting, (c) the nature of the opposition (embedded in the intersection of Goal + explicit or implicit stakes inherent to Loss Con + that (b) just mentioned).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>100 %. Spot on and the reference to Trollbabe is <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite22" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /> </p><p></p><p>Again, the only constraints are what I addressed directly above. Further, I'm assuming the actual architecture of the conflict resolution framework is implied here (and how that endows the action with shape and parameterization) so I didn't mention it directly above (because of course it governs play in the way that rules do). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright, this is a good area of conversation; foregrounding and meting out consequences (of macro-failure in the SC at large or micro-failures individually). Multiple things here:</p><p></p><p>* In any given SC, if the x Successes are achieved before 3 Failures, then the Goal is achieved. In this opening conflict where the Goal of the SC is <em><strong>Retrieve the ancient Scrolls of Xanthar from the Imperial Library</strong></em>, that would mean (a) that macro-success achieves that end and (b) no micro-success before the Win Con of the conflict resolution archetecture is achieved can "lock in" that result.</p><p></p><p>* Macro-failure (3 Failures accrued before x Successes) means that either the Goal is outright subordinated in full or its complicated. Lets go back to Apocalypse World and the 6- result for the governing principle here in the 4e DMGs/RC; <em>the GM makes a move as hard and direct as they like</em>.</p><p></p><p>* Sometimes these Loss Con stakes are outlined before the initiation of the first situation/obstacle fo the SC. Sometimes they mature as the fiction accrues and we follow that.</p><p></p><p>* Now micro-failures are a bit different. I typically (especially in-situ at the table) explicitly encode the consequence-suite to prospective action declarations. Players propose something > I say what happens roughly in the fiction (cloud) and exactly mechanically (box) if things go bad > they absorb their prospective lines of play > make their move and resolve it. </p><p></p><p>* In PBP format, you'll see a fair amount of the exchange that leads ultimately to the action declaration > resolution > consequence stream...however, some of this information exchange is happening in other venues (Discord or some other form of communication) because sometimes the back-and-forth can become weighty and trying to transpose that onto a PBP format is both burdensome clerically and it would totally muddle the composition of the PBP itself (making it unreadable and difficult to parse for referencing later for all parties, including the participants).</p><p></p><p>But at the table during a live play? This back-and-forth happens via efficient conversation (with efficiency increasing as chemistry is built out and all participants understand precisely what they're best practices are).</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>I'm not going to index this scene exclusively with this answer. I'm going to talk about scene-framing generally in 4e.</p><p></p><p>GMs in 4e are definitely not neutral. One of the primary governing principles of 4e (which was enormously contentious at the time and I wish they would have framed it differently) is "skip the gate guards and get to the fun." I (and others) knew what I was reading when I read that (and several other kindred statements in the 4e texts). You'll recognize this:</p><p></p><p>* <em>Cut to the action</em></p><p></p><p>* <em>At every moment, drive play toward conflict</em></p><p></p><p>Those indie axioms absolutely govern GMing in 4e whether you're running a No Myth game or a game set in the conflict-charged PoL setting or Dark Sun or whatever. So basically I look at what we've got on the table in front of us? Is it charged enough? Provocative enough? Can I generate compelling opposition and decision-spaces for players to manage as I try to defy/complicate their espoused Goal? If the answers are "yes?" Ok, we formalize it with the SC framework and begin the play loop of resolving; framing obstacles, executing decision-trees and action resolution, changing the situation, meting out consequences, following the fiction until the Win/Loss con is cemented and our gamestate/evolving situation has changed and given propulsion and trajectory to subsequent play/follow-on conflicts. If the answers are some formulation of "no?" Ok, we tighten it up and load the macro-situation/Goal with more "conflict-heft" until we're <em>there</em>.</p><p></p><p>Once that scene is resolved there is either a (a) natural follow-on scene to the next (that references the dynamics of what just happened in the SC and/or/both references a pending Minor/Major Quest/or the embedded thematics of Theme/Path/Destiny etc) or (b) we hash out where we go next via conversation (via referencing the dynamics of what just happened in the SC and/or/both referencing a pending Minor/Major Quest/or the embedded thematics of Theme/Path/Destiny etc). This is not far afield from (in fact its pretty kindred with) orthodox Apocalypse World or the <em>Info Gathering/Free Play phase</em> into the <em>Score phase </em>of Blades in the Dark play.</p><p></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p></p><p>Alright, that is a lot of words to parse and digest. Hopefully that all makes sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9302624, member: 6696971"] Perfect Perfect To a degree, the general locus of what the conflict of interest will be is nascently embedded in the Goal. You might think about Apocalypse World here kind of; the particular archetype of Threat, its Impulse, and its moves. For instance, here is the initial Goal for that initial conflict you're citing: [I][B]Goal: Retrieve the ancient Scrolls of Xanthar from the Imperial Library[/B][/I] If I were to format the way a GM should be thinking about opposition, situations/obstacles with respect to the above and then format it like Apocalypse World, the antagonist would probably look something like this: [B]Imperial Library ([I]Institution[/I])[/B] Impulse: [I]To restrict access to, hoard, and jealously covet knowledge[/I] Then you would see within the actual framed situations/obstacles a manifestation of the equivalent of GM soft moves which index the above. 100 %. This could absolutely be the locus of PC dramatic need vs nature of opposition in this paricular framed situation/obstacle. 100 %. This could absolutely be the locus of PC dramatic need vs nature of opposition in this paricular framed situation/obstacle. You are absolutely on top of it. Nailed it. The only thing I would add is the precursor to all of this are the constraining and guiding inputs of (a) PC build flags (Background, Theme, et al), (b) hewing to what has been established to date through play (including the mild parameters given to the milieu before play begins) within the fiction regarding setting, (c) the nature of the opposition (embedded in the intersection of Goal + explicit or implicit stakes inherent to Loss Con + that (b) just mentioned). 100 %. Spot on and the reference to Trollbabe is (y) Again, the only constraints are what I addressed directly above. Further, I'm assuming the actual architecture of the conflict resolution framework is implied here (and how that endows the action with shape and parameterization) so I didn't mention it directly above (because of course it governs play in the way that rules do). Alright, this is a good area of conversation; foregrounding and meting out consequences (of macro-failure in the SC at large or micro-failures individually). Multiple things here: * In any given SC, if the x Successes are achieved before 3 Failures, then the Goal is achieved. In this opening conflict where the Goal of the SC is [I][B]Retrieve the ancient Scrolls of Xanthar from the Imperial Library[/B][/I], that would mean (a) that macro-success achieves that end and (b) no micro-success before the Win Con of the conflict resolution archetecture is achieved can "lock in" that result. * Macro-failure (3 Failures accrued before x Successes) means that either the Goal is outright subordinated in full or its complicated. Lets go back to Apocalypse World and the 6- result for the governing principle here in the 4e DMGs/RC; [I]the GM makes a move as hard and direct as they like[/I]. * Sometimes these Loss Con stakes are outlined before the initiation of the first situation/obstacle fo the SC. Sometimes they mature as the fiction accrues and we follow that. * Now micro-failures are a bit different. I typically (especially in-situ at the table) explicitly encode the consequence-suite to prospective action declarations. Players propose something > I say what happens roughly in the fiction (cloud) and exactly mechanically (box) if things go bad > they absorb their prospective lines of play > make their move and resolve it. * In PBP format, you'll see a fair amount of the exchange that leads ultimately to the action declaration > resolution > consequence stream...however, some of this information exchange is happening in other venues (Discord or some other form of communication) because sometimes the back-and-forth can become weighty and trying to transpose that onto a PBP format is both burdensome clerically and it would totally muddle the composition of the PBP itself (making it unreadable and difficult to parse for referencing later for all parties, including the participants). But at the table during a live play? This back-and-forth happens via efficient conversation (with efficiency increasing as chemistry is built out and all participants understand precisely what they're best practices are). I'm not going to index this scene exclusively with this answer. I'm going to talk about scene-framing generally in 4e. GMs in 4e are definitely not neutral. One of the primary governing principles of 4e (which was enormously contentious at the time and I wish they would have framed it differently) is "skip the gate guards and get to the fun." I (and others) knew what I was reading when I read that (and several other kindred statements in the 4e texts). You'll recognize this: * [I]Cut to the action[/I] * [I]At every moment, drive play toward conflict[/I] Those indie axioms absolutely govern GMing in 4e whether you're running a No Myth game or a game set in the conflict-charged PoL setting or Dark Sun or whatever. So basically I look at what we've got on the table in front of us? Is it charged enough? Provocative enough? Can I generate compelling opposition and decision-spaces for players to manage as I try to defy/complicate their espoused Goal? If the answers are "yes?" Ok, we formalize it with the SC framework and begin the play loop of resolving; framing obstacles, executing decision-trees and action resolution, changing the situation, meting out consequences, following the fiction until the Win/Loss con is cemented and our gamestate/evolving situation has changed and given propulsion and trajectory to subsequent play/follow-on conflicts. If the answers are some formulation of "no?" Ok, we tighten it up and load the macro-situation/Goal with more "conflict-heft" until we're [I]there[/I]. Once that scene is resolved there is either a (a) natural follow-on scene to the next (that references the dynamics of what just happened in the SC and/or/both references a pending Minor/Major Quest/or the embedded thematics of Theme/Path/Destiny etc) or (b) we hash out where we go next via conversation (via referencing the dynamics of what just happened in the SC and/or/both referencing a pending Minor/Major Quest/or the embedded thematics of Theme/Path/Destiny etc). This is not far afield from (in fact its pretty kindred with) orthodox Apocalypse World or the [I]Info Gathering/Free Play phase[/I] into the [I]Score phase [/I]of Blades in the Dark play. [HR][/HR] Alright, that is a lot of words to parse and digest. Hopefully that all makes sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Reconciling 4e's rough edges with Story Now play
Top