What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

Yeah. I didn't think it was what you've been describing as "Setting Solitaire." I guess I'm thinking it's something I'm doing in 5E--a game some (maybe you) seem to think incapable of supporting Protagonistic Play.

My position on 5e is that its default orientation is extremely at-tension with Protagonistic Play. There are many reasons for this up to and including:

* GM as Storyteller is mandate (have fun and create a memorable story is the paramount play priority) and all of the latitude that comes with that.

* Ignore/change the rules if necessary to facilitate "fun" is a major play priority rather than Follow the Rules as a play priority.

* Opaque, GM-facing action resolution (by design).

* The intersection of the 3 of those creates not just a hospitable environment for Force and the subversion of Protagonstic Play...but it encourages it (and you can clearly see it in the adventures/APs for the game). This is just a simple matter of design.

* The extremely wobbly CR/Encounter building mechanics (borne on the back of building top-down from the Adventuring Day rather than bottom-up from the individual Encounter Unit). This was something I pushed hard against in the playtest because I was certain exactly where it would lead (and it has...and most of the people who pushed back against me then are now aggressively taking my position 6.5 years later). This coupled with the 4 things above leads to serious GM intercession in moments of play, and, through that, the overall trajectory of play.

* The reward cycle and structures of play not being set up to promote and reward Protagonistic Play. Where are the player-authored Quests as xp? Where is the IBFT fulfillment as xp? The IBFT > Inspiration cycle and economy is not quite toothless, but it is relatively EXTREMELY meek. And with no sense of irony at all, you see the overwhelming % of GM/table testimonials say "yeah, I just ignore that crap entirely." They do that because its meek and not deeply integrated and almost surely because it wrests control of the trajectory of play from the AP/metaplot (eg GM) or from the thematically-neutral "troupe premise" to Protagonistic Play (dramatic need of a PC).


Now go back to my matrix and continuum of Protagonistic Play way upthread.

5e isn't to the far right of all 4 of those. But its well right of center in each and the sum total of that is that "yes, you can get a level of Protagonistic Play out of 5e, but the system won't help you much and will actively fight you in a lot of ways."

That shouldn't be controversial. A system built with the above design conceits must be overcome to have Protagonistic Play be an outgrowth of table time (eg it doesn't support it and it works against it in many ways). But you can surely get to the left of each of those 4 values that I composed above by fighting the system and integrating other stuff.

 

[prabe]

Where is the IBFT fulfillment as xp? The IBFT > Inspiration cycle and economy is not quite toothless, but it is relatively EXTREMELY meek. And with no sense of irony at all, you see the overwhelming % of GM/table testimonials say "yeah, I just ignore that crap entirely." They do that because its meek and not deeply integrated and almost surely because it wrests control of the trajectory of play from the AP/metaplot (eg GM) or from the thematically-neutral "troupe premise" to Protagonistic Play (dramatic need of a PC).

LOL

I ignore Inspiration and all its associated dross. They do more to add to the DM's workload than to encourage Protagonistic Play. (And I find they are not closely-correlated to PC's dramatic needs, anyway.)

I'm not inclined to argue with the rest of your analysis other than to say (this probably won't surprise you) that I'm a storyteller at the table, not the storyteller at the table; most of what I bring to the table is setting and opposition--not plot. I haven't found the game to fight me as hard as you seem to, but different people are different.

 

[pemerton]

there are probably about 2 dozen other Factions in Duskvol that are doing things in the background offscreen. However, the PCs haven't interacted with those Factions/Setting elements.

<snip>

They haven't interacted with most of the wards of the city.

<snip>

So every Fortune Roll, every Faction Clock that has been undertaken has either been (a) what those Factions are now doing (that they've been perturbed/interacted with) or (b) to resolve some setting-relevant situation that the PCs are indirectly involved with (eg, if a big fire manifests as a result of a Score in the wood-framed, stacked row houses of the artist/entertainment ward of Silkshore...does the Brigade get there in time to resolve it...what happens due to the fire?). Both (a) and (b) will change the situation of the setting and have some kind of mechanical teeth (Factions Tiering up, triggering an Entanglement decision-point for the Crew, triggering worse Position in particular conflict types against a Faction, gaining a permanent Asset, the Crew losing or gaining Faction with a Gang or gaining a friend/enemy that will open up later player moves or Complications/Entanglements for the GM).

All of this stuff is directly relevant to play.

So the questions I'm proposing are this:

1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?

2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things? Whatever is happening there is offscreen.

This is a good post.

There is a modest parallel to my Traveller star map: the PCs have visited 9 worlds (I think) and have indirect connections to 3 or 4 more. Classic Traveller doesn't have the mechanical tools that BitD does for managing those interactions and generating downstream consequences - it's more like Burning Wheel, or a "traditional" RPG, in that all that stuff is left for the GM to draw on in framing and narrating consequences.

But I don't see any need to think about changes to places the PCs haven't been and haven't indirectly interacted with. If/when those places become relevant I'll treat my notes as expressing the status quo at that time.

I'm going to quickly answer my two questions above in the only compelling way that I can personally conceive of

Here's another answer: if I as GM do that stuff behind the scenes, and if the PCs then end up interacting with that stuff so that I as GM need to tell the players some stuff about it, then the behind-the-scenes stuff gives me material to tell them (eg they can hear news of the recent starport strike, or royal wedding, or whatever else I've been doing behind-the-scenes).

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't know what a wandering monster clock is, so I can't honestly answer this question without a clear definition of that term.

The Wandering Monster Clock part of it is really a complete aside. You can answer the substantive question of the post without even interfacing with that part of the post (because Wandering Monsters won't impact the opening situation in Room 1 of the Dungeon):

Why would I ever change the framing of Room 1 of the (formerly off-line but now on-line) dungeon I mentioned above?

But as far as Wandering Monster Clock goes, its simply the Wandering Monster machinery in a dungeon:

* WANDERING MONSTERS: At the end of every 2 turns, the DM should check for Wandering Monsters > roll Id6: a result of 1 indicates that the party will encounter a Wandering Monster in the next turn > The Wandering Monster will be 20-120 feet away from the party when encountered (roll 2d6, multiply the result by 10) in a direction of the DM's choosing, and will be headed toward the player characters

* RESTING: After moving for 5 turns, the party must rest for 1 turn. One turn in 6 (one each hour of the adventure) must be spent resting. If characters do not rest, they have a penalty of -1 on all "to hit" and damage rolls until they do rest.

The integration of this is a "Clock" (which then integrates with loadout planning and resource attrition/management). Marching Order/Caller + Exploration Turn Management + Rest Management + Loadout Management + Strategic Move Management (Retainer/Hirelings, Encumbrance, Treasure, push-on or abandon delve, et al) + Encounter decision-points (puzzle, combat, parley, evade/retreat) = the basic play loop of a dungeon delve.

 

[Manbearcat]

LOL

I ignore Inspiration and all its associated dross. They do more to add to the DM's workload than to encourage Protagonistic Play. (And I find they are not closely-correlated to PC's dramatic needs, anyway.)

I'm not inclined to argue with the rest of your analysis other than to say (this probably won't surprise you) that I'm a storyteller at the table, not the storyteller at the table; most of what I bring to the table is setting and opposition--not plot. I haven't found the game to fight me as hard as you seem to, but different people are different.

I do agree that the IBFT machinery are not particularly potent enough and not integrated enough to be worth their weight in cognitive load!

 

[Ovinomancer]

LOL

I ignore Inspiration and all its associated dross. They do more to add to the DM's workload than to encourage Protagonistic Play. (And I find they are not closely-correlated to PC's dramatic needs, anyway.)

I'm not inclined to argue with the rest of your analysis other than to say (this probably won't surprise you) that I'm a storyteller at the table, not the storyteller at the table; most of what I bring to the table is setting and opposition--not plot. I haven't found the game to fight me as hard as you seem to, but different people are different.

BIFTs should absolutely be dead center in Protagonistic Play. These are the dramatic needs of the PCs, or at least some of them. That these are discarded, and considered to be not dramatic needs, is very interesting in that I'm not quite sure, now, what you might consider dramatic needs for PCs.

 

[prabe]

BIFTs should absolutely be dead center in Protagonistic Play. These are the dramatic needs of the PCs, or at least some of them. That these are discarded, and considered to be not dramatic needs, is very interesting in that I'm not quite sure, now, what you might consider dramatic needs for PCs.

The PCs' dramatic needs are either in the (entirely optional) backstories the players give me, or they emerge during play. I tie those needs into the scenarios I frame.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here's another answer: if I as GM do that stuff behind the scenes, and if the PCs then end up interacting with that stuff so that I as GM need to tell the players some stuff about it, then the behind-the-scenes stuff gives me material to tell them (eg they can hear news of the recent starport strike, or royal wedding, or whatever else I've been doing behind-the-scenes).

But can't just initial framing, rather than evolved framing, do that work?

Put another way, at the inception of play:

* Faction/Situation X is off-line...or in stasis...or even in a state of superposition (as everyone around here seems to love their Schrodingers)!

* Players do something that requires X be introduced into play (turned on-line, taken out of stasis).

Why can't I just use either (a) that initial framing that is in my notes (or in a text) or (b) make something up off the cuff that is appropriate and doesn't render incoherent the past established continuity?

Again, we're talking about it not intersecting with anything established in play. Its never been "on-line." So if the PCs do something in Ward Y that burns down the hide-out of Faction X, they are no longer off-line! They come on-line immediately and I have to evolve the fiction; where is their new lair?...do they know who is responsible?...what are they doing if they do know?

 

[Manbearcat]

Going to clarify some more here:

Here are some relevant parts of The Billhooks entry in John Harper's Blades in the Dark:

---

The Billhooks - Tier 2
A tough gang of thugs who prefer hatchets, meat hooks, and pole arms.

(looks like a 4e Power Entry thus far!)

Turf: A butcher shop (HQ), stockyard, and slaughterhouse. Animal fighting pits and gambling dens. Several terrified merchants and businesses, which they extort.

Quirks: The Billhooks have a bloody reputation, often leaving the butchered corpses of their victims strewn about in a grisly display. Many wonder why the Bluecoats turn

Situation: Erin and Coran both want to take control of the Billhooks gang, either when Tarvul gets too old (which will be soon) or by taking the position by force. There is no love lost between Erin and Corran and they’ll have no qualms about fighting a family member for leadership. Meanwhile, the rest of the gang wants to continue their reign of terror to pressure a magistrate to pardon Tarvul and other gang members and release them from Ironhook.

(Recommended) Faction Clock (8): Terrorize magistrates to pardon members in prison

---

John Harper's advice (which I agree with) is that I don't need to erect this Faction Clock (directly above) at Downtime (and therefore start resolving it) and I don't need to do anything with this faction at all until they "come on-line."

Why then, would I start this Faction Clock before then? Why would I evolve anything about them before they've formally entered play (come on-line/on-screen)? Why wouldn't I just frame them exactly as they are...no change in any of the info above (same Tier, same enemies, allies, quirks, same situation etc)? Why wouldn't I use this information, as is, to frame them into play when the PCs begin interaction with them? Why would I evolve them beyond any of the above info?

 

[prabe]

Why then, would I start this Faction Clock before then? Why would I evolve anything about them before they've formally entered play (come on-line/on-screen)? Why wouldn't I just frame them exactly as they are...no change in any of the info above (same Tier, same enemies, allies, quirks, same situation etc)? Why wouldn't I use this information, as is, to frame them into play when the PCs begin interaction with them? Why would I evolve them beyond any of the above info?

Because you thought it would be better if you did so? Maybe the faction as written doesn't really fit what's come before, thematically. Maybe you want something lurking in the background (to the extent BitD allows such. I suspect you could frame them as in-progress and still start the clock when first interacted with--if not, you might advance the clock to indicate this has been ongoing.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a mistake, or missing the point of BitD. I suspect it would be. It seems as though it'd be at least a violation of some of the expectations.