What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

i know nothing about dogs in the vineyard so can’t weigh in on that. But your billet list breakdown does not sound like what Justin is describing to me (I could be misunderstanding but a lot of that doesn’t seem like my reading of it). Either way though lots of people in the gaming community have independently arrived at similar places (I arrived at a similar place to sandbox before ever hearing the term). I can’t speak to where dogs in the vineyard is on the spectrum of styles. I think there is more going on with his hooks than meets the eye. I would frame it more as the content is made with an eye toward game ability, but you don’t know how players will sink their teeth into the hooks he is describing or which direction they will go. The synergy he describes is something that most sandbox GM’s cone to understand naturally with tone IMO. And that was just one example of sandbox advice. I included it because Justin has a distinct gaming philosophy and tends to be very precise with language and terms; as well as laying out and breaking down procedures

Are you talking about the top bullet list or the bottom?

The top 3 bullets were pulled directly from the video.

The bottom 4 are pulled directly from Dogs in the Vineyard (and are not in the video).

The 3rd bullet point is shared by both.

The point of the post was to contrast the top 2 bullet points (Alexander's) with the bottom 4 bullet points (Baker's) and the implications of the differences between those on the shared, 3rd bullet point and how it pertains to Protagonistic Play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).

However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.

Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities. Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem. The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.

Great example of how a given technique clashes strongly with some play goals.

 

[Aldarc]

There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).

However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.

Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities. Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem. The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.

But I think that in order to incorporate, mix, or hybridize these different "forms," one first has to understand how these different elements work and function in these different styles along with their strengths and limitations. Otherwise you'll be frustrated when bringing over Element 3 from Story Now game Y into your Skilled Play game X or vice versa. One thing that I do appreciate about the indie scene is that there are a number of creators who are clearly cross-pollinating ideas between these different game styles and types, and recombining them to achieve new sorts of games.

 

[Manbearcat]

Great example of how a given technique clashes strongly with some play goals.

Thank you. I figured most everyone on here would agree with it (as almost everyone in this conversation has been involved in conversations in the past where we've discussed the implications of Fail Forward).

But I think that in order to incorporate, mix, or hybridize these different "forms," one first has to understand how these different elements work and function in these different styles along with their strengths and limitations. Otherwise you'll be frustrated when bringing over Element 3 from Story Now game Y into your Skilled Play game X or vice versa. One thing that I do appreciate about the indie scene is that there are a number of creators who are clearly cross-pollinating ideas between these different game styles and types, and recombining them to achieve new sorts of games.

Yessir

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are you talking about the top bullet list or the bottom?

The top 3 bullets were pulled directly from the video.

The bottom 4 are pulled directly from Dogs in the Vineyard (and are not in the video).

I am talking about your commentary after you quote him. I don't think hooks like that or the fact that deciding to explore something is dependent on knowledge of it existing, are low on protagonism (though I may misunderstand what you mean by protagonism). I also think if you observe how he talks about hooks, he sees them as a very adaptable thing in the setting where eventually PCs are also helping to establish hooks of their own by setting agendas for themselves and interaction with the people and organization there

 

[Bedrockgames]

The 3rd bullet point is shared by both.

Can you clarify the third that is shared by both so I can make sure I understand before weighing in on that

 

[Imaro]

You might try, sometime, assuming that the other poster isn't an idiot. This would reduce how often you make statements like this in response.

I've clearly said that techniques both group naturally, and that different groups can fight against each other. If you're mixing and matching, then, yes, a technique that may work for you in one grouping will not work in another.

I am curious, though, how you're using that clock. Is it player facing, and do they understand what ticks it and what they can do to affect it? Otherwise, it's really just a countdown timer, and not actually the clock mechanic from Blades.

Ok, honestly, can you explain to me how the bolded part happens... without me ascribing to a playstyle agenda? The fact that you use the word grouping when I am approaching individual techniques seems to suggest that you are still approaching it from a play style perspective as opposed to a results driven perspective but I could be wrong.

The clock was going to be player facing, I didn't see a list of how they could affect it but I know me and I would have preferred to have presented that in fiction with clarification taking place OOC if needed. I would have left the things that could affect it open ended but I would have clearly telegraphed if an action would either through the fiction or again with an OOC offside note.

 

[Imaro]

There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).

However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.

Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities. Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem. The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.

But if I am only adopting techniques for the question... how do I get result X... why would I ever adopt a technique that is anathema with how I am playing. If I want clear cut pass and fail criteria... would I ever be looking for a technique that does the opposite? On the other hand if I want to have multiple results besides fail and succeed then I would explore that as well as other techniques that accomplish that. Again you're coming from the stance that I have a defined playstyle that I don't want to violate... I am coming from a stance of hey in my upcoming game I want to do this (X), what are some techniques to accomplish that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think I more agree with @Imaro 's take that it does illuminate though I move in the opposite direction that he does.

I would say that from first principles you can make evaluations that are testable and falsifiable. For instance, whether or not MMA coaches have reached a consensus or not is irrelevant to the fact that across the generations of MMA, the overwhelming distribution of MMA greats had a devastating grappling substrate. There can be no question (in no particular order):

Fedor
Jones
Khabib
Silva
Aldo
Couture
Henderson
GSP
Shogun
Hughes
Johnson
DC
Miocic
Gracie
Liddell

The only guys that you could make a case for out of that group is Holloway, McGregor, and Stylebender...but even those three have enormously underappreciated wrestling, clinch-game, and takedown defense.

Develop the foundation and integrate weaponry (meaning everything else works in concert, coherently synergizes...they aren't discrete things) is a first principle that absolutely translates to game design.

I think these martial arts forays are pretty pointless. But I think it is worth pointing out this isn't a comprehensive list and many on that list have stellar striking skills too (when I think Chuck Liddell the first thing I think of is his striking power----he was a knock out artist). If anything these lists are arguments in favor of blending styles and adapting to the needs of specific sport you are playing (MMA has involved and both grapplers and strikers have had to evolve their training away from the roots and adapt them to the MMA). I have some experience with MMA (more with striking). I can't just take my boxing whole cloth into an MMA fight (and to be clear because it is the internet, I am not nor have I been a fighter, but I have sparred plenty in MMA and I used to compete in other styles). That boxing must be adapted for the specifics of MMA. Same for if you take boxing into Muay Thai, or muay thai into boxing (I've switched between those and the change is always a bit jarring). I agree with you fundamentals are important. But we can also probably agree there were a lot of flawed fundamentals that didn't pan out very well in MMA in those early days.

But a sport like MMA is pretty objective, you either win or lose the match. People can see what works and what doesn't. They can debate and theorize but at the end of the day this is a sport that has winners and losers. In RPGs, you can take a 'what works at the table approach' (which I do, and I always elevate that over theory), but it is a much more subjective experience as we see in these threads. With martial arts, especially combat sports, there is only so much room for me and you to disagree. At a certain point it has to be acknowledged that a particular fighter knocked out another or didn't win, etc. But in gaming we are not asking "who won" but "who had fun"

 

[Bedrockgames]

The point of the post was to contrast the top 2 bullet points (Alexander's) with the bottom 4 bullet points (Baker's) and the implications of the differences between those on the shared, 3rd bullet point and how it pertains to Protagonistic Play.

That is fair. I was honestly having trouble following this aspect of your post (partly because it was bullet pointed and partly because I have zero knowledge of Dogs in the Vineyard). I can't say anything about dogs in the vineyard. In terms of the differences between him and baker you identify, I think there is more going on in Alexander's argument than you've identified. The ideal end state he is guiding people to (remember this is for folks who tried to run a sandbox and bombed, so he is underlying things and exaggerating techniques in order to get the ball rolling: that is at least my reading, I don't want to put words in his mouth): seems to be the sandbox ultimately running itself (which is something me and others have described). And for that to happen, the players need to start taking initiative and almost creating their own hooks (just like he describes where at first the GM has an organization approach the players and ask for something in exchange for an alliance, then the players understand this is a viable thing to seek out and start doing it themselves proactively). The latter is something I see a lot, it is the wheeling and dealing side of sandbox, especially when you are dealing with power groups and players trying to carve out a space for themselves in the setting. Maybe you identified that in your analysis and I missed it.