Quote from: K BergI set a scene in a maintenance corridor, the player said he was looking for somewhere to hide. I described the escape pod, he didn't challenge its prescense. It was there. And thus it became a solid fact in the game world. This is one of the jobs a gm has in this play style.

OK, so I think I understand - the escape pod did not exist prior to this scene, right?
What determined that it did for this scene?
If a player other than you challenged it's existence, could they force a situation where you have to roll to see if the escape pod exists?

Quote from: K BergSay yes or roll the dice. I saw no need to contest this, neither did they. So we didn't use the dice. It was the stakes of the other conflict, the one between the Captain and the boarders. This was where the escape or not was decided.

*** See Below

Quote from: K BergNo. It [The Gnostic Avenger] never entered any conflict as anything else than a background element or color if you like.

How was The Gnostic Avenger captured by the enemy ship (IIRC you described it as being in the hold of the larger enemy ship)?

Quote from: K BergThe situations (the millenium falcon from Hoth has never cropped up in play, it was an example meant to be widely recongnizable.)

My apologies – from your post, it was not clear that you were making up an example of how you used to play.  Do you have any specific examples of how you played "back in the day" that would provide a counter balance to the examples you provided for TSoY?

Quote from: K BergThe Gnostic Avenger situation was, "can we keep the boarders out long enough to escape". It was the Captains bluff (statted ability) versus the boarders Belligerence (another statted ability).

Which begins to answer this:
On what was the roll based?

The captains player stated he wanted to stall the boarders long enough for the mechanic to jury rig a detonator on the escape pod nuke. This intention stated what the conflict was really about. So if the captain made the roll then they would manage to hold off the boarders long enough. That is how we decided how long it would take him; which was as long as was needed.
As I said above we rolled to see if he managed that based on statted abilities.

At which point we rolled to see how the mechanic did.

***
Did the "conflict" between the Captain and the Boarders take into account any information about the time it would take for the others to rig the nuke and escape?
How did you determine how the mechanic did?

Quote from: K BergI can see how this may seem like Fiat. But the difference between fiat and this is that when it matters (when we do not say yes) we use the rules. And everyone gets to say when it matters, not just one person.

I don't want to get into a discussion as to whether or not this is fiat, or what the differences are between this and fiat (assuming there are any).  I'm just trying to get a handle on how these things play out.

Quote from: K BergWe also adhere to the internal consistency of the world as established beforehand and during play.

What internal consistency of the world was established beforehand?

This is going to be partial, forgive the brief nature.

QuoteWhat determined that it did for this scene?

One of the tasks I enjoy most as a GM is setting the scene (scene framing). It is one of my jobs in TSOY (the shadow of yesterday). The escape pod popped into existence because "every spaceship has an escapepod, right?"

QuoteIf a player other than you challenged it's existence, could they force a situation where you have to roll to see if the escape pod exists?

Not in the way we played the Shadow of Yesterday. However, if they had objected to it (dude that was lame, or dude that doesn't make sense) I would have let it go. The ship was defined as mainly my character in the game. The other escape pod was then sold (yeah, we had to sell the other one) immideatly by the player. In this way the ship accrued more and more imaginary weight because it grew as we played. Which was the point of bringing in this AP.

Imaginary weight isn't only given by statting.

Got to run.

Part two of many

QuoteHow was The Gnostic Avenger captured by the enemy ship (IIRC you described it as being in the hold of the larger enemy ship)?

The GA was dead in space because of the players rampaging around inside it. And before you ask how we came to this I'll explain one of the rules in effect as we played (this is ours and not official TSOY):

If a player wins a conflict the GM narrates, if he/she losses the player narrates the outcome. The player lost a conflict around the engien room and this was one of the narrated outcomes.

QuoteDid the "conflict" between the Captain and the Boarders take into account any information about the time it would take for the others to rig the nuke and escape?

Why should it? It was covered in the set up of the conflict. Counting down the seconds really didn't matter here. I belive that counting down the seconds would have been contrary to the purpose of this conflict.

We roleplayed up to a point when it was cruchtime (do they belive his bluff or not), while the mechanic kept speaking in a fictional radio (a few more seconds, a few more seconds) and then brought out the dice.

At no point did a second pr. second countdown matter.

Later

Jackasshattery aside, both playstyles are fun.  Events driving characters vs. characters driving events.  Color is subjective to the playstyle.  It's almost macro vs. micro color.

Quote from: GunslingerJackasshattery aside, both playstyles are fun.  Events driving characters vs. characters driving events.  Color is subjective to the playstyle.  It's almost macro vs. micro color.

Gunslinger,

Which one is events driving characters and which one is characters driving events?

Thanks!
Jim

In the spirit of clearing up misunderstandings here. What do you guys mean when you use the world color here?

Quote from: K BergWhat do you guys mean when you use the world color here?

To me color references detail of the setting, NPC, & PCs that are outside of the mechanics of the game or detail how the mechanics work.  Color is window dressing that detail the mood of the game for the players.  Quirky, silly, gritty, dirty, etc...  That's how I define color.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich one is events driving characters and which one is characters driving events?

This is a good question James because this where the confusion lies.  Discussing the two methods shows a tremendous amount of overlap when describing an individual's experience during play.  Both playstyles are delivering what the players want from two different focuses.  Both playstyles are delivering but the black and white methodologies are using different strategies to explore the gray.  

As much as I hate labeling playstyles, I'll try to explain.  In AM, Setts, & my style of campaigns, players are steered by the events in the campaign.  The "skeleton" of the campaign is the major details for the characters to react to.  The other style of play creates a "skeleton" of the characters for the GM to react to.  One is easier for a player to GM and the other is harder for a GM to play and vise versa.

Gunslinger thanks for the quick reply. James how do you use it?

Part three - finally finishing up.

Quote from: JamesWhat internal consistency of the world was established beforehand?

It began with a one-sheet defining the world as a Riddick meets Warhammer 40K meets Firefly. I explained my vision to the players and they came with their own input. Unspoken we agreed to to a set of "realism givens" (no sound in space e.g. The laws of physics operate as expected except where large and clunky machinery transcend them like artificial gravity and interia dampers. More in line with the Star Wars universe than our own, yet with a tinge of Traveller.)

Compare this to having a list of key elements of the setting and then using these to maintain coherence with regards to the internal logic of the setting.

Quote from: GunslingerI'll try to explain. In AM, Setts, & my style of campaigns, players are steered by the events in the campaign. The "skeleton" of the campaign is the major details for the characters to react to1. The other style of play creates a "skeleton" of the characters for the GM to react to2

*I've added the numbers

I'm not sure I am following you here.

In 1. (the skeleton of the campaign) are you saying:
The players react to elements of an already established sandbox and interact with these?
Where in 2. (the skeleton of the character) are you saying:
The GM reacts to the elements of the characters and their actions and interact by creating the sandbox?

Quote from: K BergJames how do you use it?

Color?  I think I tried to define it (before this thread I didn't give "defining" it a thought) earlier in the thread, if for no other reason than to see if I understood things that were being said.

Now?  I'd go with something not to unlike something similar to something that resembles a facsimile of what gunslinger said.

Quote from: K BergIt began with a one-sheet defining the world as a Riddick meets Warhammer 40K meets Firefly. I explained my vision to the players and they came with their own input. Unspoken we agreed to to a set of "realism givens" (no sound in space e.g. The laws of physics operate as expected except where large and clunky machinery transcend them like artificial gravity and interia dampers. More in line with the Star Wars universe than our own, yet with a tinge of Traveller.)

Compare this to having a list of key elements of the setting and then using these to maintain coherence with regards to the internal logic of the setting.

Not to belabor a point, but I'm confused by what you mean when you say compare - is it you expectation that I will find the two different, or use the second as a shorthand version of the detailed explanation.

Thanks,
Jim

A shorthand of the whole process.