[Pitfighter] SBP: the GM's role in resolution
Anders Gabrielsson:
If you've got a rhythm where the GM does some story narration between the scenes then that could probably work.
Player: The bad guys are all dead now. Hey, I've got a great idea - let's take their ship!
GM: Actually, I was going to do a story bit here. Could you wait a bit? *narrates the PC's moving on to the next scene, throwing in the ship being on fire*
contracycle:
I'd speculate that once this expectation became established, it might be quite easy to handle. Frex, a player in this case, instead of narrating action directly, as in "I take the ship", could wonder out loud "I could take the ship...", and thus flag up this potential course for the GM to approve or refuse.
David Berg:
My first stab at a broad takeaway from this thread follows, but I'm still thinking.
Styles of SBP resolution:
1) There are certain types of fictional developments that the GM always resolves. Players will look to the GM when such situations arise. "We've finished the battle. Where do we go next?"
2) There are certain types of fictional developments that the GM might choose to resolve in any given instance. In applicable situations, players may either ask the GM directly ("Where to next?"), ask the GM indirectly ("I'm thinking about boarding the ship..."), or just proceed, but not mind being shot down ("I board the ship!" "No you don't." "Oh, okay.").
3) The GM might resolve anything at any time if doing so is important to their planned plot. Players just need to not mind being shot down.
Personally, as a player, I find it easier to permanently relinquish control or consistently ask permission than to whole-heartedly accept unexpected manhandling.
Perhaps the thing to do now is to look at the above and ask "Which types of fictional developments?" I'll re-read a bit and think on this more.
David Berg:
Random inspiration for representing "GM makes higher-level decisions, modeling mechanics produce specific sub-outcomes":
GM keeps all the dice. Different dice resolve different levels of uncertainty. 2d6 resolves what an action looks like, but leaves its outcome to the GM; 3d4 resolves a task's outcome but leaves the GM to narrate the resulting situation; 1d12 means players can heavily interpret and narrate the results with impunity.
So, players have no dice, and when they try stuff, the GM decides which dice to hand them. When handed 2d6, they know it's time to get in reaction/reflection mode, and when handed 1d12 they know they're allowed to steer for a bit.
I think Danger Zone does something like this with scene types? But this dice system, while worse at setting ongoing expectations, might nicely allow GMs to flexibly adapt to changing circumstances.
Anders Gabrielsson:
You could also use the same type of dice but of different colours (which would fix some of the math wonkiness of using different types of dice).
As a way to clearly but indirectly describe the limits of the player's actions, I like it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page