darkbard
Legend
Would you explain to me this natural process you see at work outside of human decision making?
What is the point of GM's notes?
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Would you explain to me this natural process you see at work outside of human decision making?
Manbearcat
Legend
Because there is some commentary/thoughts in this thread that “Protagonistic Play” is not a discreet play priority that requires specific design/play ethos features (of which I do not agree with and have put a lot of countervailing words out there), I figured I’d copy/paste the below to this thread because I feel it has a lot of explanatory power of both the upstream and downstream effects of Protagonistic Play (as holistically designed into a game) on the adjacent/related parts of design.
TLDR - Deeply Protagonist Play favors PC build on the x axis and relatively mutes y axis power.
I'll have more commentary later on the rest of what you've written above. For now, just going to post on this.
As you and I have discussed personally, I agree that there are some specific "holes in Dungeon World's spellcasting game" when it comes to scaling. I think there are two problems (and they're related to another conversation we had Friday night) that Adam/Sage accidentally introduced or didn't conceptually resolve with the spellcasting scaling:
1) The x axis is more powerful than the y axis in Dungeon World. Because players and player characters (most overlap on the Venn Diagram but the most potent are via discrete and indirect means that hook directly into the Protagonist nature of play; your evinced dramatic needs are the scaffolding for the trajectory of play and this is continuously addressed via "ask questions and use the answers") have so much y axis power already, there is steep diminishing returns on character build toward the y axis. This is further amplified due to the fact that the game's engine creates so_many_pivotal_and_snowballing moments of action resolution.
This can be looked at in the same way that the classic D&D 5MWD can be looked at. Take the 5e D&D Diviner at Epic Tier. The pressure you can put on this character's resources is absolutely minimal because of (a) so many spell slots, (b) so much at-will x and y axis power (Cantrips and low level at-will and Rituals), (c) 3 * Portents, (d) multiple avenues of individual spell refresh, (e) x and y axis power to dictate workday refresh. This isn't even touching magic items. As a result, unless this character is facing something on the order of 30+ PIVOTAL decision-points a day, it is trivial for a skilled Diviner to manage their loadout in a way such that resource pressure never emerges. They're just pressing big, beefy buttons all day long.
In a sort of inverted paradigm (due to all of the pivotal and snowballing decision-points as an outgrowth of action resolution), x-axis prowess (having a wide breadth of answers to questions) is considerably more powerful in DW.
Now I love this model...but it does have design implications and fallout for high level spellcasting (the kind we're talking about here).
2) Reframing ability in Protagonist Play is less potent for a number of reasons. Consider (again) our conversation from the other night. The Elven Ranger move:
Looks great on paper. In play? Here are the implications of this move:
a) You can never get xp on your selected Role on Perilous Journeys.
b) This scene reframing ability ensures that you'll never face a Danger in your role. In Perilous Wilds, you'll always get 2 Boons for example. That is awesome. But that means that you'll never deal with any extended conflict and interesting decision-points as a downstream effect of that perma scene-reframing ability. Go back to (1) above (there is always going to be more pressure points on the stuff you care about/your thematic shtick in this game to review some of the issues with this (as it relates to the scaling such that high level spells increase y axis power situationally but significantly reduces x axis prowess).
What is more interesting and better design in my opinion? The kind of design that (a) lets the Elven Ranger player get xp on from their move made, (b) ensures their competency, (c) lets them roll dice, (d) keeps their thematic stuff onscreen at a dramtically higher rate (across the population of all moves/obstacles faced in the game), and (e) gives the player the opportunity for an interesting decision-point (tactical, strategic, thematic)?
RAISE THE FLOOR of the possible outcomes (rather than ensure the ceiling):
Its now like the Paladin move Staunch Defender where you get 1 Hold on Defend even if you get a 6-. Much, much better design (for all of the reasons above) in my opinion.
TLDR - Deeply Protagonist Play favors PC build on the x axis and relatively mutes y axis power.
I'll have more commentary later on the rest of what you've written above. For now, just going to post on this.
As you and I have discussed personally, I agree that there are some specific "holes in Dungeon World's spellcasting game" when it comes to scaling. I think there are two problems (and they're related to another conversation we had Friday night) that Adam/Sage accidentally introduced or didn't conceptually resolve with the spellcasting scaling:
1) The x axis is more powerful than the y axis in Dungeon World. Because players and player characters (most overlap on the Venn Diagram but the most potent are via discrete and indirect means that hook directly into the Protagonist nature of play; your evinced dramatic needs are the scaffolding for the trajectory of play and this is continuously addressed via "ask questions and use the answers") have so much y axis power already, there is steep diminishing returns on character build toward the y axis. This is further amplified due to the fact that the game's engine creates so_many_pivotal_and_snowballing moments of action resolution.
This can be looked at in the same way that the classic D&D 5MWD can be looked at. Take the 5e D&D Diviner at Epic Tier. The pressure you can put on this character's resources is absolutely minimal because of (a) so many spell slots, (b) so much at-will x and y axis power (Cantrips and low level at-will and Rituals), (c) 3 * Portents, (d) multiple avenues of individual spell refresh, (e) x and y axis power to dictate workday refresh. This isn't even touching magic items. As a result, unless this character is facing something on the order of 30+ PIVOTAL decision-points a day, it is trivial for a skilled Diviner to manage their loadout in a way such that resource pressure never emerges. They're just pressing big, beefy buttons all day long.
In a sort of inverted paradigm (due to all of the pivotal and snowballing decision-points as an outgrowth of action resolution), x-axis prowess (having a wide breadth of answers to questions) is considerably more powerful in DW.
Now I love this model...but it does have design implications and fallout for high level spellcasting (the kind we're talking about here).
2) Reframing ability in Protagonist Play is less potent for a number of reasons. Consider (again) our conversation from the other night. The Elven Ranger move:
Looks great on paper. In play? Here are the implications of this move:
a) You can never get xp on your selected Role on Perilous Journeys.
b) This scene reframing ability ensures that you'll never face a Danger in your role. In Perilous Wilds, you'll always get 2 Boons for example. That is awesome. But that means that you'll never deal with any extended conflict and interesting decision-points as a downstream effect of that perma scene-reframing ability. Go back to (1) above (there is always going to be more pressure points on the stuff you care about/your thematic shtick in this game to review some of the issues with this (as it relates to the scaling such that high level spells increase y axis power situationally but significantly reduces x axis prowess).
What is more interesting and better design in my opinion? The kind of design that (a) lets the Elven Ranger player get xp on from their move made, (b) ensures their competency, (c) lets them roll dice, (d) keeps their thematic stuff onscreen at a dramtically higher rate (across the population of all moves/obstacles faced in the game), and (e) gives the player the opportunity for an interesting decision-point (tactical, strategic, thematic)?
RAISE THE FLOOR of the possible outcomes (rather than ensure the ceiling):
Its now like the Paladin move Staunch Defender where you get 1 Hold on Defend even if you get a 6-. Much, much better design (for all of the reasons above) in my opinion.
darkbard
Legend
I suspect that many humanities professionals, such as myself, take exception at your view of literary theory (here represented by deconstructive analysis (however inexpertly applied as a term in this thread)) as anything outside the humanistic tradition.
darkbard
Legend
Am I a bad man for liking your post twice?
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Well in terms of setting prep, there is usually a lot on the front end (at least for me). I thought I laid this out earlier but will quickly try to restate here (this may be fuzzy, simply because I lack time). I establish the setting in the manner I described before: often beginning with cosmology, then progressing to physical places (for instance the setting I made most recently was a flat world, square inside a kind of celestial dome). I take that map, put peoples on it and languages, and chart the development and movement of these things over centuries or millennia (this for me is really important because it leads to answers to questions like "what relics and ancient structures would be in this spot"). I chart he development of empires, etc. And then I move to mapping the present day of the setting: places, locations, institutions, groups, organizations (this is often a combination of mapping and notes). Then I flesh out my notes on groups and npcs, on specific locations, etc. For the living world concept, in my wuxia setting, the most important things to elaborate on and prepare were my sects, gangs, and religious institutions. When I get to the NPCs, I make a point of knowing their goals (something I also do for things like sects). This is a very quick sketch overview but that is just to get me to a starting point. Then I drop the players in the setting and see what they do. Things accrue as they take action. From session to session I am noting down all the important people they meet, what they do, who they form enemies with. I often rely on my Grudge tables when the players make enemies. When players explore and move around we rely on survival rolls (which I have spoken about in other posts and in a blog entry).
But the important thing is, as the players come into contact with various NPCs, groups and organizations, I am treating them as volitional pieces on the board (my language for that is living adventure and the NPCs live). This creates a synergy as friendships, alliances, resentments and enemies are made. I don't know what will happen until the rubber hits the road. But I am guided by the goals and personalities of my living NPCs and institutions, by the logic of the world, by a sense of openness and fairness to what PCs try to do, by a sense of what the reality ought to be (i.e. 'yes I suppose they would have pearl farms here', 'No they don't practice any form of monotheism in this village'), by system, and dice.
For me to explain how you do this, I would probably need to have a conversation with you. I can't really give you isight if I am not getting immediate responses to any points I raise (for all I know for example I lost you in the first paragraph and you have three or four questions that need answering before I can even get to paragraph two: or in my haste I am forgetting details or being cloudy).
Also I do think this is the style of play you kind of have to experience as a player before you can really do it well as a GM (because you need to see what works and what doesn't work on the player end). Then you need to learn by doing. It took me a bit to get the hang of (and I often stared out in very limited ways just to make things manageable: i.e. just running a really small sandbox on a piece of graph paper for instance). And some GMs just have a hard time with this style (just like I have a hard time with doing voices or getting deep into the performance of my NPCs like say Mercer does). If it is a style that doesn't click with how you see things (I tend to be very historically minded, very into genre, and very into impulse and intuition), it just might not be a good fit. I am not saying Living World is great, or better than other styles. My only contention is it exists and it is possible, and for those with my sensibilities it can be a lot of fun.
Manbearcat
Legend
Your worth as a human being is directly proportional to the number of times I repost this and you like it.
Im going to repost it 47 more times. For the sake of your own humanity, have the Like button on speed dial.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
My visceral response to Drama System was "That will ruin immersion". My experience of the game was the opposite. Maybe you are right, maybe for you, this isn't a style you can wrap your head around, or maybe it is not a style that is worth your time or effort. Those are fair reasons for not being interested in it. Or maybe you've run it, and felt it didn't work like people said, you didn't like. Fair enough. I've tried playing adventure structures friends of mine like and rave about, that I don't really care for, and my response is usually "I don't understand why people like this" or "it doesn't feel like they say it does". But I wouldn't doubt that for them it works and feels just like they say. My way of thinking and enjoying things is just different from theirs.
darkbard
Legend
Gah! Now I'm torn between ROTFL and Like! What's a man to do?!?
Manbearcat
Legend
This is like a Protagonistic Play decision-point regarding a dramatic need.
Do you want it to be true that your character (you) is more likable/charming (ROTFL) or accurate on matters of import (Liking a devastatingly correct appraisal like the above)?
Its a key decision and your future hangs in the balance.
darkbard
Legend
Ohdearlord. This is like trying to stat oneself out as a D&D character. Do I assign my highest score to WIS or CHA? (I've always been "humble" enough to assign INT a close third.)
Similar Threads
