[Fir Bolg] Fortune (near or maybe at) the Start, and GM Fiat.

[Rafu]

"Gamist" Fir Bolg (or the game of story-swapping)

I pretty much intended to write:
"Gamist" Fir Bolg (or the game of clever thinking)

[Simon C]

Here's the updated rules from the Mechanics chapter, which pretty much echo what you're saying here:  (Sorry about the length)

	Logged

[Rafu]

Still, if you want this game to be "gamist" (or if you want it to be "narrativist", for that matter) I believe you need to get ride of GM fiat as the core underlying "mechanic".
Thus, you can't just describe "Challenge" and "Story" as "approaches": this does not resolve any authority issues and ultimately asks for an omnipotent GM.
I still think "Challenge" and "Story" should be mutually exclusive "modes": the gaming group as a whole chooses one or the other before they start playing, and stick with that. It may be possible to change "mode" in between sessions, alright, but never *while actually playing*.

In addition, I insist that:

• "Challenge" approach/mode requires the GM to actually write down the "solution(s)". Any advanced "hints" (or at least the Gifts that lead to them when activated) should be written down as well: in a "gamist" mode, there has to be an "objective" challenge that players either succeed at or fail at, the GM acting as a "referee" and not being enabled to help them nor to hinder them in any way once the challenge is issued.
• "Story" approach/mode would be funnier with some limitation to a players ability to create narration, to a GM's power to interfer (preferably very limited) and especially a way to adjudicate who narrates when (who can activate Gifts when).

[Simon C]

Hey Rafu,

Thanks for your input! I really appreciate you challenging me on this one, and coming back with such great ideas.

You're spot on that I need to explain these as mutually exclusive modes that the group decides upon before play starts - not a wishy-washy thing that can be tinkered with by the GM.  That's kind of what I was aiming at, but you've convinced me to use stronger language to underline that.

I think writing down the challenge ahead of time, including any "hints" is probably a good idea, but I wonder if that would work out in actual play.  I'm worried about this becoming a game of "guess the GM".  If there are a set number of Gifts that will resolve the scene, it's just a dice-roll and a guess as to whether the scene works out or not.  That's not immensely satisfying to me, so I wanted some recourse for coming up with a good idea, and having that benefit the players somehow.   I'm not sure though.

I'm toying with the idea of pinning down narration rights in the "Story" mode, but I'm not sure if it's essential.  In practice I've found groups are very good at coming up with their own balance of what works with narration, and I don't think I need to interfere with that unless it becomes a problem during playtesting. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that would work better as a more general guideline, rather than a strict rule? I think the descriptions of the Gifts provide a reasonable limit to what the players can narrate, and the veto thing should hopefully prevent Rube-Goldberg narrations like "I smash the wall which frightens the guards who run into the hut and trip over the washstand which spills on the map and ruins the invasion plans."(Which is otherwise perfectly allowed).  I kind of like the balance of power between players and the GM at this point, where the players are able to resolve the scene almost without restriction, but the GM is free to come up with complications that result from that. 

What do you think?