I made a bit of a hash of that last post. I’ll try and explain more thoroughly but it’s a hard subject and to write diplomatically would take too long. So I’m going to have to attack a huge amount of Narrativist play.
Hidden backstory is stuff given fictional positioning that the players aren’t yet aware of.
This became an ‘apparent’ problem because of the important papers in the safe. There are some important papers in the safe and the character tries to pick the lock, is successful and opens the safe. Yet there are no papers to be found. (cue the tears)
Everybody who has ever had a problem with that has massively misdiagnosed why their play was dysfunctional. So they do the really silly thing and try and fix it at the mechanical level.
A common resolution system break down goes as follows. There is an intent (get the papers from the safe), there is an execution (use my lock picking tools to open the safe). And there is an effect (the safe is open and I can get the papers)
That seems to solve the problem because now we’re rolling for intent, not for execution. The GM can no longer welch us.
This basically leads to ‘solving’ the tyrant GM problem by ignoring the actual problem and then destroying the fundamentals of the medium. You’re ignoring fictional positioning and using the resolution system as a back story generator. Everybody is having great fun, lots of hi-jinx. The GM can even get in on the action. You failed a roll so goons kick down the door. The resolution system is at this point just giving narrative control. Everyone is rolling to force their version of events into being. You can see this most clearly by how people use ‘on a miss’ in PbtA games.
Or the other version. You roll for intent and it has be situationally binding. You have to meet the princess which means you have to skip straight to meeting her. It basically cuts the scene (stops escalation as well but that’s almost incidental at this point).
If you don’t immediately cut the scene you have to try and railroad each other towards a preset destination. Nothing of consequence can happen in case it messes up the stakes, that you’ve earned by rolling for them.
If you’re familiar with Apocalypse World you’ll see people who think intent is binding get really confused by the seize by force move. They’ve rolled for it and yet the GM can immediately take it away again.
IMHO this is ALL a problem of failure to allow the player to initially establish what they're putting at risk! That could be a failure of transparency in which the GM and player are failing to communicate, or a result of hidden backstory which clobbers the fictional position. Now, interestingly, you CAN have hidden backstory of a sort, like in DW (or AW for that matter) where dangers might not be known ahead of time but 'on a map' or 'part of a front'. HOWEVER, the GM is heavily bound by principles which, if followed correctly, will prevent the sorts of issues you are encountering here.
So, for instance, if the player is rolling for his PC to find the papers in the safe, by cracking it presumably, then IT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED that the consequences of not getting those papers is on the table. Fictionally the GM can describe it as "the safe is empty" and in AW/DW that would simply be a GM move that would be perfectly fine on a 6-. Success is likewise not a problem, the player and the GM have already established that this outcome is within the bounds of what can happen. Thus 'intent' and 'action resolution' can, in this sort of case, be brought fully into harmony with each other.
Anyway on the creative level what starts to happen is that there’s just a push and pull over the course of the story. The fundamental dysfunction hasn’t been fixed and if you’re not 17 then you’ll almost inevitably have to change the role of the GM. Or in games without a GM everybody becomes the GM.
This new GM ends up being a facilitator of the players. They’re not actually answering premise because their job is to challenge the players characters. They have the same (or similar) relationship to the players as Brennan Lee-Mulligan or Matt Mercer has to their players.
So that’s my issue.
I don't know much about your examples here, but the GM in games like BW seems to be pretty much a 'framer of scenes and bringing of opposition'. That's fine. This IS Story Now Narrativist play, there's no place things are supposed to go. Play to Find Out. The GM isn't pushing, the GM is simply letting the poo fall where the poo may fall.
Now I’ll talk about what the original dysfunction was/is for anyone who finds my ranting at all compelling.
Yeah it is kind of the GM having story control but probably not in the way most people think.
The basic act of role-playing is that I say something, you listen to what I say and use that when you say something in return.
Creative agenda pay off is the shared social reward between two people. If there’s an agenda mismatch. Say you open the safe and there’s nothing there and the GM grins at you like you’re an idiot (which is rewarding for both people with a G agenda). Then if you’re playing for story you’ll be really confused as to what’s going on. There is no communal reward, you just do actually feel like an idiot. If the GM is exerting plot control as well. You’re already in the bad creative relationship I outline above, just a different version of it. The GM is still and always will be a tyrant but now you have system tools to wield against them.
I disagree! Why does the player feel like an idiot? He's playing, and he's finding out! What does he do now? His sister is going to be executed tomorrow and he's got no evidence to exonerate her. This is where the rubber meets the road, you are now going to find out what your PC is made of.
So what should the relationship look like?
You’re both interested in where the fiction leads by fundamentally disinvesting your control of it. You shouldn't want to meet the princess (as author), it should simply not be a concern. As audience, yeah, you can want your character to meet her all you want. In fact play is a failure if you aren’t emotionally invested in certain things happening. That just has no impact at all (or very minimal) in how you utilise the fiction and system. That’s both of you. Even in a gmless game that should be the attitude. As author you do not care.
All I as the player have to do is play as my character. I want to meet the princess, so I do all the things necessary to achieve that. If, as a player, the dice tell me this is not how it will play out, then that's fine too, those are the terms of engagement with the game. I might, at most, think "gosh it would have been interesting." Oh well. I RP my now very disappointed character going on a 3 day drinking binge and waking up in the King's gaol with a bad hangover and a 300 coin fine that he cannot pay!
So what do you do as author? Well you make creative decisions in line with what has been established with no regard to the outcome. One common way of doing this is known colloquially as ‘Doing what my character does’ or as GM ‘doing what my character does (as NPC)’ (I'm dumbing this down but that’s the basic gist of it)
Well, as GM, the PC is in the gaol and now I drop the news on him that he owes 300 coin. Now a new set of priorities and exigencies has established itself by dint of 'soft move, announce badness'.
Then we’re both in this together, looking at how the game fictions internal logic and causality drive play.
So back to the safe. You open it and there’s nothing there. Your character might be annoyed, you might be annoyed on behalf of your character. But if you’re annoyed as a player, you’re doing it wrong.
I don't need causality AHEAD OF TIME at all though, IMHO. I only need it to use AFTER some dice got rolled. First establish what the obstacle is, what the PC is risking, roll the dice, and tell the tale. Pure Fortune-In-the-Middle design!