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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="andreszarta" data-source="post: 9301449" data-attributes="member: 7036985"><p><strong>We are playing a No-Myth 4e Story Now game</strong></p><p></p><p>At the end of character creation, we end up with a number of characters that each have a significant number of thematic seeds ripe for dramatic exploration. This as a natural byproduct of 4e systemic support that generates <em>these</em> types of characters with <em>these</em> types of issues (to varying degrees of effectiveness, as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] often points out, with the Ranger being a class with less of this “ripeness” of thematic content).</p><p></p><p>Importantly, characters may also define “Quests”, major and minor, which, out of all of these thematic signaling mechanisms, rely some the biggest clues for potential character proactivity.</p><p></p><p>At the end of character creation, we also have some kind of notion of a setting penciled-out. This may come as a natural extension of the kinds of characters that have been created, which themselves suggests the kinds of populations, geography and politics that surround them; as well as (potentially) conversations and choices that are made during character creation to ground the characters in a logical place and time (“we are all part of the same kingdom”, “we live in a desert”, “the gods are gone, and primal energies abound”). </p><p></p><p>Contrary to other Story Now games, we do not start the game with key NPCs in a relationship map of pre-defined motivations or conflicts (I’m thinking DitV’s towns here), nor do we have a predefined setting with timelines already at work (BitD’s Doskvol). If anything this kind of setup mostly resembles Apocalypse World in its initial setup.</p><p>________</p><p><strong>Play Begins: </strong></p><p>The penciled in-setting gets instantiated in a HERE and a NOW.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What I see from “Redeem the Past, Chase the Future” and “The Slave and her Sovereign”, is that when the GM frames a scene, there is really no indication as to WHAT the conflict of interest TRULY will be, only possibilities:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Seems like, thematically, our conflict of interest COULD be about Chanvati’s assertion of THEIR rights as member of a mercantile family within the Dome of Illumination. Like, that’s a legitimate move [USER=1282]@darkbard[/USER] could have acted on, yes? <strong>What YOU say my rights are vs what I say my rights are.</strong></p><p></p><p><em>The young herald steps forward, clears her throat and makes significant effort not to gawk at the massive form of the Goliath slave next to the lowly merchant Chanvati. (…) Two well-armed and armored members of The Inquisitors' Guard step forward next to the herald to back up her claim with force if necessary.</em></p><p></p><p>Seems like, thematically, our conflict of interest COULD be about Chanvati and Pa’avu’s ability to push their way into the. Like, that’s a legitimate move either player could have acted on, yes? <strong>How far YOU are able to go vs how far I am able to go? </strong></p><p></p><p>A few questions at this point:</p><p>1.</p><p>I imagine that there might even be more possibilities that I have not addressed initially:</p><p></p><p>Like, “<em>Spectral Servants</em>”, taken literally for this example, depending on the protagonist’s religious beliefs, one of them might say “<em>I did not expect you to also enslave undead souls at your house of knowledge.</em>” <strong>A conflict of morals.</strong></p><p></p><p>“<em>The Inquisitors' Guard”, “Not so long ago you and I served in the same war…</em>” <strong>A conflict of loyalty. </strong></p><p></p><p>Am I reading too far into this? Given a No-Myth style of game, are all of these pronouncements legal/fruitful/conducive to good play? Is my suggestive interpretation of the players role, one where they truly read the initial fiction and endow it with dramatic meaning, in line with what we are talking about here?</p><p></p><p></p><p>2.</p><p>When framing the initial circumstances, the GM is, not only, TRULY divesting themselves of how these will resolve, but also WHAT they are truly, and ACTUALLY, about. That <em>aboutness</em> is hinted at, but only made real by the players pronouncement of these as <strong>issues</strong>. Is this correct? This is very similar to “Trollbabes’” player-initiated conflict, no?</p><p></p><p>3.</p><p>Notably absent, is any form of stake establishment prior to player initiation. While “retrieving the ancient Scrolls of Xanthar” is one of the Minor Quests, the GM does not immediately assume that the achievement (or not achievement) of those stakes are on the line here.</p><p></p><p>4.</p><p>When you framed this scene, [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], did you have a threshold or rubric for deciding, if the scene had enough promise for conflict or are you more neutral?</p><p> </p><p>________________</p><p></p><p>Ok, so moving on, the way [USER=1282]@darkbard[/USER] and [USER=20459]@Nephis[/USER] decide to play this, is that Chanvati decides to “outsmart” the herald and convince him that the circumstances deserve a reassessment of their entry, and Pa’avu both backs Chanvati but also buys into my teased-out conflict of "a tests of wills".</p><p></p><p>They both roll, unprompted by the GM, notably punctuating that conflict about "something” is in their purview to initiate. The GM’s response is to formalize their actions into SC and finally set stakes.</p><p></p><p>___________________</p><p></p><p>I don’t want to extend past here in case there are some elements that I am getting wrong, mostly out of fear that I might end up going too far in the wrong direction. Is there anything in what I have said that rings wrong?</p><p></p><p>I haven’t truly gotten to my REAL QUESTION which eventually seeks to contrast this approach with the one [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] teases out where he himself actually has some level of prep (I’m thinking of the Beholder rising up from the chasm) and how that works (or not) with @Manbearcat’s approach.</p><p></p><p>I am also a bit confused as to what happens now that we are within a SC when it comes to the GM moving us to the next "scene".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="andreszarta, post: 9301449, member: 7036985"] [B]We are playing a No-Myth 4e Story Now game[/B] At the end of character creation, we end up with a number of characters that each have a significant number of thematic seeds ripe for dramatic exploration. This as a natural byproduct of 4e systemic support that generates [I]these[/I] types of characters with [I]these[/I] types of issues (to varying degrees of effectiveness, as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] often points out, with the Ranger being a class with less of this “ripeness” of thematic content). Importantly, characters may also define “Quests”, major and minor, which, out of all of these thematic signaling mechanisms, rely some the biggest clues for potential character proactivity. At the end of character creation, we also have some kind of notion of a setting penciled-out. This may come as a natural extension of the kinds of characters that have been created, which themselves suggests the kinds of populations, geography and politics that surround them; as well as (potentially) conversations and choices that are made during character creation to ground the characters in a logical place and time (“we are all part of the same kingdom”, “we live in a desert”, “the gods are gone, and primal energies abound”). Contrary to other Story Now games, we do not start the game with key NPCs in a relationship map of pre-defined motivations or conflicts (I’m thinking DitV’s towns here), nor do we have a predefined setting with timelines already at work (BitD’s Doskvol). If anything this kind of setup mostly resembles Apocalypse World in its initial setup. ________ [B]Play Begins: [/B] The penciled in-setting gets instantiated in a HERE and a NOW. What I see from “Redeem the Past, Chase the Future” and “The Slave and her Sovereign”, is that when the GM frames a scene, there is really no indication as to WHAT the conflict of interest TRULY will be, only possibilities: Seems like, thematically, our conflict of interest COULD be about Chanvati’s assertion of THEIR rights as member of a mercantile family within the Dome of Illumination. Like, that’s a legitimate move [USER=1282]@darkbard[/USER] could have acted on, yes? [B]What YOU say my rights are vs what I say my rights are.[/B] [I]The young herald steps forward, clears her throat and makes significant effort not to gawk at the massive form of the Goliath slave next to the lowly merchant Chanvati. (…) Two well-armed and armored members of The Inquisitors' Guard step forward next to the herald to back up her claim with force if necessary.[/I] Seems like, thematically, our conflict of interest COULD be about Chanvati and Pa’avu’s ability to push their way into the. Like, that’s a legitimate move either player could have acted on, yes? [B]How far YOU are able to go vs how far I am able to go? [/B] A few questions at this point: 1. I imagine that there might even be more possibilities that I have not addressed initially: Like, “[I]Spectral Servants[/I]”, taken literally for this example, depending on the protagonist’s religious beliefs, one of them might say “[I]I did not expect you to also enslave undead souls at your house of knowledge.[/I]” [B]A conflict of morals.[/B] “[I]The Inquisitors' Guard”, “Not so long ago you and I served in the same war…[/I]” [B]A conflict of loyalty. [/B] Am I reading too far into this? Given a No-Myth style of game, are all of these pronouncements legal/fruitful/conducive to good play? Is my suggestive interpretation of the players role, one where they truly read the initial fiction and endow it with dramatic meaning, in line with what we are talking about here? 2. When framing the initial circumstances, the GM is, not only, TRULY divesting themselves of how these will resolve, but also WHAT they are truly, and ACTUALLY, about. That [I]aboutness[/I] is hinted at, but only made real by the players pronouncement of these as [B]issues[/B]. Is this correct? This is very similar to “Trollbabes’” player-initiated conflict, no? 3. Notably absent, is any form of stake establishment prior to player initiation. While “retrieving the ancient Scrolls of Xanthar” is one of the Minor Quests, the GM does not immediately assume that the achievement (or not achievement) of those stakes are on the line here. 4. When you framed this scene, [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], did you have a threshold or rubric for deciding, if the scene had enough promise for conflict or are you more neutral? ________________ Ok, so moving on, the way [USER=1282]@darkbard[/USER] and [USER=20459]@Nephis[/USER] decide to play this, is that Chanvati decides to “outsmart” the herald and convince him that the circumstances deserve a reassessment of their entry, and Pa’avu both backs Chanvati but also buys into my teased-out conflict of "a tests of wills". They both roll, unprompted by the GM, notably punctuating that conflict about "something” is in their purview to initiate. The GM’s response is to formalize their actions into SC and finally set stakes. ___________________ I don’t want to extend past here in case there are some elements that I am getting wrong, mostly out of fear that I might end up going too far in the wrong direction. Is there anything in what I have said that rings wrong? I haven’t truly gotten to my REAL QUESTION which eventually seeks to contrast this approach with the one [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] teases out where he himself actually has some level of prep (I’m thinking of the Beholder rising up from the chasm) and how that works (or not) with @Manbearcat’s approach. I am also a bit confused as to what happens now that we are within a SC when it comes to the GM moving us to the next "scene". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Reconciling 4e's rough edges with Story Now play
Top