iserith
Magic Wordsmith
As an observation, it seems to me that the framing techniques @Ovinomancer considers to be a necessary part of goal-and-approach may be required specifically when one is trying to emphasize high-stakes, point-of-action action declarations. If I understand correctly, a low-stakes action declaration of walking down a hallway (approach) to get to the other side (goal) is undesirable at @Ovinomancer's table. It makes sense to me that if one want to avoid low-stakes action declarations one has to exclusively frame high-stakes situations. (I just personally don't see low-stakes goal-and-approach action declarations, like character movement, as undesirable, and therefore see no issue with describing a hallway as part of my description of the environment.) @Ovinomancer, if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know.
In any case, goal-and-approach clearly means slightly/somewhat/significantly different things to different people. (I mean, you and @Ovinomancer are disagreeing about whether you agree on what the concept requires. ) Nomenclature will be a bit tricky if you do put together a summary thread.
The definition has become muddled in my view, yes. Goal and approach is just player a player stating, well, a goal and an approach. But it's now become lumped together with other techniques like telegraphing or associated with particular personalities on the forums and further confused by the attempts of some people to break it down and refute the basis of some aspects of it which are tied to the game's rules. (Hint: Some aspects are directly tied to the rules and others, like telegraphing, are not. Not verbatim, anyway.) The method of play is fantastic in my view, but the discussions surrounding it are a mess and need cleaning up.
I don't really see how the game is playable without at least some low-stakes or no-stakes action declarations, even if one's preference is to focus on conflicts with higher stakes. But then, that's all relative.