Wises, Declarations, and Saying Yes/No

[Irminsul]

@Dean

NPCs: I care about character integrity too. I won’t change NPC BITs that have been established as fact. But if the BITs are still just “in my head”, whatever man, I just RP 'em however it makes sense to best drive the story forward. In my mind, NPCs are not important characters… Why do I believe this? Because, the story is not about the NPCs.

I’m not sure how to articulate this, but this is the most important part of the discussion to me, so I’ll try.

If the NPCs were not important then in many ways I’m saying to the players that the PCs aren’t important. The NPCs exist soley because the PCs exist. Their only purpose, other than color, is to Bang against the PCs. By creating an NPC that I advocate for I’m acknowledging the PC BITs. If I change the BITs at the drop of a hat or because a player wants to say, Circle up the Set-demon possessed mayor in the church of Mitra, it is my obligation to the fidelity of the setting to say no because it has been established that demons can’t enter the church of Mitra. Yeah?

But what I heard was, “I’d totally change that because whatever the players want the players get”. Which is apparently not what was being said.

Because I heard: Luke creates the Storm King and has his Beliefs, but then Thor complains and says that the Storm Kings Beliefs are too hard for him and it makes his decision difficult and they should be more like “I want to help you all, this was just a big misunderstanding, I like cookies”. Which is absurd, but that is what I heard!

The way the game works, for me anyway, is the NPCs have BITs that directly oppose or challenge the PC BITs. The NPCs have motivations and goals, they are active and go after those. If those are up in the air how would the GM even Bang? How would the game progress? The GM sits there passively and only reacts to the player-declarations? Or that was what I heard originally.

Of course the game isn’t about the NPCs! This isn’t some White Wolf Storyteller game with some canon metaplot on rails. Ick! But without advocacy for the NPCs and their BITs, which directly translates to Bangs for me, what are the NPCs there for? They are there to challenge the PCs! As you said.

But it isn’t the only method of challenging Beliefs, and changing up your challenge types can make for a refreshing session.

Are you talking about passive environmental challenges? Sure I use those. Part of the reason for this thread is because someone said that they don’t create challenges for PC Wises and only allow players to make declarations with Wises. And I was like, “what? That is crzy talk!” it is your duty to challenge the players and that includes integrating and challenging Wises, not just making the players the sole arbitrator of when they are used.

What I do is push my Bangs in such a way that it hopefully creates a good story.

Okay, sure. I just don’t worry about “story” is all. I worry about making Bangs and NPCs and keeping the setting consistant. That is where all my prep is devoted.

EDIT:

@Dean

Yeah, we get it now. I think the communication breakdown wasn’t just one-sided though. You also overreacted to lots of our statements. Say Yes to everything? WTF ARE YOU CRAZY MAN!!! Lol… Pink marshmallow rain indeed.

Totally. Internet communication phone game fail!

[Dean]

@Irminsul

I’m not sure how to articulate this, but this is the most important part of the discussion to me, so I’ll try.

If the NPCs were not important then in many ways I’m saying to the players that the PCs aren’t important. The NPCs exist soley because the PCs exist. Their only purpose, other than color, is to Bang against the PCs. By creating an NPC that I advocate for I’m acknowledging the PC BITs. If I change the BITs at the drop of a hat or because a player wants to say, Circle up the Set-demon possessed mayor in the church of Mitra, it is my obligation to the fidelity of the setting to say no because it has been established that demons can’t enter the church of Mitra. Yeah?

But what I heard was, “I’d totally change that because whatever the players want the players get”. Which is apparently not what was being said.

Because I heard: Luke creates the Storm King and has his Beliefs, but then Thor complains and says that the Storm Kings Beliefs are too hard for him and it makes his decision difficult and they should be more like “I want to help you all, this was just a big misunderstanding, I like cookies”. Which is absurd, but that is what I heard!

The way the game works, for me anyway, is the NPCs have BITs that directly oppose or challenge the PC BITs. The NPCs have motivations and goals, they are active and go after those. If those are up in the air how would the GM even Bang? How would the game progress? The GM sits there passively and only reacts to the player-declarations? Or that was what I heard originally.

Of course the game isn’t about the NPCs! This isn’t some White Wolf Storyteller game with some canon metaplot on rails. Ick! But without advocacy for the NPCs and their BITs, which directly translates to Bangs for me, what are the NPCs there for? They are there to challenge the PCs! As you said.

I never said anything about cookies and ice cream or “Why can’t we all just get along?” I GM my games fairly hard, as I mentioned before. I pull the plugs whenever I spot them. All I was talking about is that (edit: undeclared) NPC BITs can be easily changed to Bring the Pain, and I don’t feel bad about doing it. My actual-play example was when I changed Karthos the Smuggler’s benefactor from being a local lord to a powerful guild, all due to a player declaration. Karthos’ backstory is in every way just as important as his BITs, yet I overhauled everything I had previously secretly decided about him due to a player declaration, and it was no skin off my back. I did not feel bad that my NPC lost “character integrity”. It served the story better, and that was the important thing.

@Irminsul

Are you talking about passive environmental challenges? Sure I use those. Part of the reason for this thread is because someone said that they don’t create challenges for PC Wises and only allow players to make declarations with Wises. And I was like, “what? That is crzy talk!” it is your duty to challenge the players and that includes integrating and challenging Wises, not just making the players the sole arbitrator of when they are used.

Environmental challenges, yes, as well as others. NPCs can create Bangs without having any BITs. My favorite frequently used Bang to date is “The cops are coming!” Cop mooks need no BITs. It’s also possible to set up the PCs to Bang off each other, though tricky to maneuver.

It was me who mentioned in that other thread that players should make declarations with Wises whenever possible rather than only ask for assessments. I still stand by that statement. I never said that I don’t create challenges for PC Wises. I said that players shouldn’t expect to assess for information all the time, because the GM doesn’t always have the information ready to give. I’ve explained this multiple times now, so I’ll stop here.

[Irminsul]

Yep, like I said: we are going in circles and we agree. Or as noclue put it in the other thread we are “violently agreeing”.

Heck I even agree that NPC BITs can be changed if needed. As long as you aren’t moving goal posts on the players. But because of how the internet works I read, “I change my NPC BITs at every whim of the players”. Which, again, you’ve stamped out.

Just like I really wish the whole OMG SECRETS thing had been stamped out long before it was.

[Dean]

Right. So. Agreeing now. Anything else to debate? I think we might be done.

[Irminsul]

Apparently, done now.

Unless Etsu Riot feels up to explaining anything.

[Etsu_Riot]

@Irminsul

And while I don’t think you are “breaking the game” – I do think you are changing the nature of it.

Curious. I think just the opposite.

@Irminsul

I’m enjoying the conversation as well. The only times I wasn’t is when I’m being called a “railroader” or a “dick GM” or any other rude and untrue name-calling.

No one is name-calling you. Really. Let it be.

@Irminsul

Etsu Riot did not give the correct definition and so can’t be using them “correctly”. I agree with you. No qualms here. I’d like to know how Etsu Riot runs a game without them.

I don’t give you no definition at all.

To me, a Bang is an external situation, something that could happen and can’t be ignored. (Not something the PC do.) An initial scene for example. I can have two or three possible Bangs if I want, and if the players look at me, expecting me to say something, if I can not think of anything interesting to say I look to the Bang list and choose one. But, more often than not, you must to make new Bangs on the fly.

You can play without pre-planned Bangs very easily. (In fact, you must.) Just ask the players what they want to do and run with them. Then, when the players don’t know what to do, only then throw in a Bang.

@Irminsul

Other than that, sure, why keep secrets. But keeping one’s Bangs secret is okay, yeah?

That’s because you don’t want to keep your Bangs in secret. A Bang is not a real Bang until you reveal it to the other players.

[Dean]

@Etsu_Riot

To me, a Bang is an external situation, something that could happen and can’t be ignored. (Not something the PC do.) An initial scene for example. I can have two or three possible Bangs if I want, and if the players look at me, expecting me to say something, if I can not think of anything interesting to say I look to the Bang list and choose one. But, more often than not, you must to make new Bangs on the fly.

You can play without pre-planned Bangs very easily. (In fact, you must.) Just ask the players what they want to do and run with them. Then, when the players don’t know what to do, only then throw in a Bang.

Sounds like a regular Bang definition to me.

I am starting to realize that the focus of this discussion has mostly been nitpicking. Care to hop back over to the other thread for some more exploration of declarations via non-Wises?