The OOC Tavern

[mb.]

Since he mentioned it in another game but not here, I'll let you know that Joel (Oelle) has a life and will be RL busy until Saturday, maybe Sunday. Oelle's in investigation mode right now, so we can probably get a fair bit done around him until Joel's back.

[KingOfCowards]

Oelle might also be the only one this gnoll will agree to parley with.

[mb.]

Ah yeah, true. He doesn't actually care about talking to Oelle, he just wants his promise. But you're right, for that, we'll probably have to wait for Joel. So it is in PbP!

[mb.]

Another heads-up for everyone: Oelle's player has a bit of a family emergency situation and will be out of it for a couple days. Let's continue on as much as it makes sense without him, and then we can wait a bit.

[KingOfCowards]

I think we went through the tally earlier, and Spartakos was right: there were 6 + alpha, Bedwyr killed two, Boggs killed one & hamstrung one, so 3 dead, 1 immobile, 2 + alpha ran away. So there are 4 chains, as described above, and Boggs has now collected three of them.

So without Oelle for a couple days, we're not going to resolve the living gnoll situation, so maybe let's do the End of Session move?

I moved this to the OOC, because I still disagree with the count. Spartakos was indeed correct in saying that there were four dead, one immobile.

One killed by Bedwyr here
One backstabbed Boggs here
One stabbed in the heart here
One more beheaded here
One hamstrung and immobilized here

[mb.]

Right you are.

[Spartakos]

Just chiming in to say I don't think we learned anything special, did not defeat any foes of special note, or loot anything memorable.
I also don't think I resolved any bonds...ok' Dunwick didn't exactly acquit himself like a hero, and the adventure is far from over.

[mb.]

Okay guys, some news:

Joe (Dunwick) is totally new to PbP, and didn't really manage as he would've liked time-wise, so he has dropped out of the game, now while we have a bit of a pause, instead of at a crucial point later on.

I've got two ideas for how we can continue:

1. One of you takes on Dunwick and plays two characters. Probably my favourite option, but I can totally understand if you'd rather not.
2. I also think it's possible to continue with just three characters without any problems. I'll just scale everything down a bit.

Anyone else have any ideas? Are you all happy to continue in one way or another?

[KingOfCowards]

I personally don't wish to take on another character. I suppose, going ahead with three characters is possible. Is there any chance of recruiting another player?

[Spartakos]

Dunwick could stick with us for a little longer, and then when the next fight happens, he could prove Bedwyr right...

[mb.]

Recruiting is of course possible. I'm just not keen on a random players jumping in. Is there anyone any of you have experience with that you'd recommend?

[mb.]

Let's stick with the classic fantasy adventurer trio for now and see how we go. We can always add someone later if needed.

[KingOfCowards]

10-4

[Pulpatoon]

Okay, So.

I'm enjoying the game tremendously, but I don't feel that I have a handle on the balance between traditional rpg and storygame. I'm playing pretty reactively, responding to the things that mb. presents. Obviously, the game asks for plot and world input, in the form of questions and prompts to the players. And that's been pretty great. But I keep restraining myself, not-entirely-consciously, because I don't want to break whatever mb. has planned (even though I gather that's not the way this works, at all).

Spartakos just introduced an entirely unprompted element—a music box. Super-groovy! How far can we push this? Could the rock slide have unveiled a dragon? Could the dragon have been the Master of the Gnolls? What if I said we uncovered a genie who gave us unlimited wishes? Could we have uncovered Onde in a rockslide-proof crystal bubble?

Basically: humans are bad at predicting what will make them happy, and players are bad at predicting what will make a good game (since the fun of the game comes from overcoming extended frustration, and players tend to cut through the frustration too quickly). I assume that there's a GM'ing mechanism in place to keep us from Happily-Ever-Aftering the whole game. But I don't have a sense of how this works, what the expectation is, and how much I should much with stuff.

tl;dr: Do I play this game exclusively from Oelle's viewpoint, or do I sometimes step into god-mode?

[Spartakos]

In my defense (not that you were attacking me, granted) it was not entirely unprompted:

Bedwyr: wait for Oelle's answer, then tell us: how were the rations lost? Also, the party gained something from the encounter. What is it and how'd you get it?

Now, that was pretty open-ended, and I thought a bit about what it should be. I settled on the music box because it's nice and ambiguous...it could be anything from a meaningless trinket to a MacGuffin. Aside from it's appearance, nothing about it is fixed...it's history, it's powers (if any), it's value, it's prior owners, etc. All of that can be developed through play, either by the DM, or (if prompted) by us.

And that's the angle I'm taking with my own authorial role in this co-op game; the DM is guiding the current story, and my own additions I'm trying to limit to background that can affect the setting, but which does not directly impinge on the current story, and most of the time to do so only when prompted. So to me, introducing something like Onde trapped in a bubble, or a magic gnoll-killing sword, or something of the like, would be direct interference. By introducing the music box, instead of producing something that conflicts with the DM or that he has to react to, I have handed him an element that he can weave into his story however he wants (at least, that's what I tried to do).

IMX, There's also in these co-op sorts of games (whether completely freeform or with rules) a certain "gentleman's agreement" that one will not post anything that is too disruptive to what others are doing, or 'unfair' for lack of a better term. I introduced Bedwyr's parents, and the DM accepts that. If I had tried to say "Bedwyr's mother was The Faerie Queen, and so all the fey of the wood always pay him homage and do his bidding"...that would have been disruptive, to say the least. So I don't do that. Same with your 'infinite wishes' scenario; that would totally short-circuit what we're doing here.

I say let your conscience be your guide as far as introducing elements; but if the DM has guidelines, I'm reasonably sure he'll share 'em with us.

[Pulpatoon]

Thanks for the feedback, Spartakos. That all jibes with what I was assuming. I just wanted to make sure that I was being insufficient with my contributions.

[mb.]

Firstly, thanks for the thoughts. I've been asking myself similar questions. I haven't GMed anything in many many years, and never GMed Dungeon World before, and never GMed in PbP format before either, so I'm very much in the mode of trying things to see if they work.

I think the "narrowly averted landslide, mysterious music box" story is great. But I totally understand the questions you have Pulp.

Of course "we find the MacGuffin and four flying horses to take us home" would be going a few steps too far, but you all obviously knew that, judging by your responses. But "how far can and should we go?" is a very valid question. Dungeon World differs from typical RPGs in that it's designed for the GM and players to worldbuild together as we go along. This would obviously be easier if we were at a table together – you throw out something, I adjust it slightly, someone else chimes in and we settle on a new fact about the world; "What about…" "Yeah, cool, but…" "And then it'd be great if…" - but that conversation could take days in PbP.

In the DW rules it explicitly says that the GM should prepare nothing for the first session. Being slightly insecure about GMing, I ignored this, and have more of a plan than a DW GM usually should. So you deciding that Onde is sitting in a cave under the landslide waiting for you is certainly something that would've screwed up my plans (and also proved boring for you). Then again, without any explicit setting of limits, it seems like everyone understood that suddenly solving the mystery, completely changing the story's direction or providing yourselves with a matching set of four +10 Vorpal Blades of Snicker-Snacking wasn't really appropriate.

I think DW can be pretty confronting to people who are used to typical d20 games, due to the responsibility the players get and the control the GM loses. But from everything I've heard from most DW GMs, if you're playing with a group of mature people who understand the system, the players massively enrich the world (and are more invested because of their contributions) and usually make things *harder* on themselves (and therefore more fun and interesting), rather than easier.

If you're all cool with it, when these "montage" bits come up, I'll keep doing it as I did this time, leaving it quite open and asking you questions. I'd rather not introduce too much guidance or rules or limitations, and just see what you come up with because you're doing a great job at it so far. But needless to say, what you invent should fit the scene you're in, i.e. if you're travelling a long way to find the MacGuffin, finding it accidentally under a rock during the trip doesn't really fit. And of course I've got to guide things as needed, so I'll fine tune your input and we can assume nothing you invent is fact until we all agree on it. Okay?

[mb.]

Just to let you all know: I'm helping run a course for 200 people right now, so I'll be a bit slow on the replies until Saturday. No need to press pause, but I won't be my usual almost always online self.

[Pulpatoon]

200? Yowza. Is this a live course, or online?

[mb.]

Live. It was a meditation course that happens annually where I live. 200 is actually very small – the biggest we ever had was closer to 2000. But it's all over now so I'm back to normal speed.