RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Manbearcat]

Negotiating stakes is not "saying no" to an action declaration because of Story Before (prepped story...GM notes...whatever we want to call it...we're banishing words and long-standing techniques/system tech and phenomena from the lexicon in this thread so call it whatever you want to call it)...which is what the context of "saying no" has been forever in conversations on ENWorld. How do you not realize this is a complete pivot and recontextualization of "saying no?"

Negotiating stakes is a meta-conversation about (a) situation-framing and (b) what is on the line in a given conflict in Dogs in the Vineyard. It has nothing to do with forbidding play trajectories and vetoing action declarations based on prescribed story imperatives/outputs.

This has absolutely no bearing on "say yes or roll the dice" in Dogs in the Vineyard. None.

Actually read the texts. Actually play the games.


@Lanefan , you were heavily involved in the Shrodinger's Gorge conversation of yore. The one where you protested heavily at my introduction of The Gorge complication/obstacle due to the failed Nature check where the player's goal was "to find the trail out of the badlands" (which that final success would have been the endpoint to the closed scene conflict resolution mechanics and cemented the "escape from the snake-men cultists pursuit with the stolen idol" goal). Remember that? You levied that protest because your headspace in games is governed by task resolution. You protested my introduction of the gorge on that failure because you felt (a) it violated your personal sense of causality and (b) your sense of sufficient granularity-in-resolution and (c) it didn't connect to/reflect your sense of "a rider's competency at using their horse to navigate terrain and find a remote badlands trail while under the duress of being chased by a horde of naga cultists." The rider should have been thrown from their horse and it should have been tighter blow-by-blow and endpoints of closed scene resolution cementing the goal for the scene was artificial and having overt conversations about all of this stuff (goals and stakes) in-situ is bad metagaming, etc, etc.

Be aware that your preference for task resolution has been formally banished from the hobby; both the lexicon and from all game engines in TTRPG. It no longer exists (in fact it apparently never did exist in the first place so we have to retcon your protests from 10 years ago out of existence!)! So you can no longer protest the conflict resolution of that game and advocate for your preferred model of task resolution. Your mental model of that situation is no longer allowed. Assimilate into the Shrodinger's Gorge collective!

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's a simple diagram, to help out

drama resolution <----------------------> conflict resolution

If you 100% care whether set up and performance are right, before you will say yes, you're on the left.

If you 100% care what player said they wanted to achieve, you're on the right.

Nearly all play falls somewhere between those poles.

Just a note here - it seems there’s a feeling from at least 1 poster that in conflict resolution a players stated goal can be substituted for a related but unstated player goal. Maybe that’s technically included in the middle ground you are talking about, but that’s not clear to me.

Also, there is the case of the dm saying no to the players goal (possibly proposing a different one) and that doesn’t seem to be mapped on this. The DM obviously cares about player intent and not performance. This and my first paragraph my be explaining similar stances - but I’m not lumping them together in case there’s some nuance I’ve missed.

(Unless performance includes the player stating an intent the dm won’t ‘veto’ or agreeing with the DMs proposal of a different intent.)

Anyways I’m probably digging to deep - you did say it was a simple diagram.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Player: "How about we get the whole truth from her about everything that's going on?"
GM: "How about 'Do you win her trust about some small matter?'"

Where is the saying no? Nothing has been decided about whether or not the PCs can get the whole truth from her.

If saying "not now, maybe later" is not saying no, then GM's almost never say no in any case. No is almost always contextual and does not preclude yes later if the situation changes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Negotiating stakes is not "saying no" to an action declaration because of Story Before (prepped story...GM notes...whatever we want to call it...we're banishing words and long-standing techniques/system tech and phenomena from the lexicon in this thread so call it whatever you want to call it)...which is what the context of "saying no" has been forever in conversations on ENWorld. How do you not realize this is a complete pivot and recontextualization of "saying no?"

You asked earlier not to be tagged about specific topics, but it’s not clear to me if this is something you are open to responses on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

and to make it personal.

Please stop doing that!

 

[Manbearcat]

You asked earlier not to be tagged about specific topics, but it’s not clear to me if this is something you are open to responses on.

I didn't tag you on purpose (I used your post as a quote for the prior post and you expressed annoyance at that after I requested not to be engaged with further on the subject).

The only way I'm interested is if your response leads with "ok, yes, I see what you're saying that GM's right to veto action declarations based on the GM's pre-prepped story/extrapolation of setting has nothing to do with negotiating the system-correct scaling of stakes for a given conflict in Dogs in the Vineyard...and yes, that is the governing, historical context of "say no" in every ENW conversation ever (the right for a GM to veto action declarations based on the GM's pre-prepped story/extrapolation of setting)...so shoehorning that into this situation doesn't make sense."

If you're going to try to dispute the above by eliminating the fundamental, extremely meaningful to the process and experience of play, distinctions between those two concepts, ramming them together into a homogenous blob of "negotiating stakes for a given conflict in DitV is basically the same as a GM action declaration veto in AD&D because the GM's story demands that NPC001 lives until plot point x or because the GM's conception of causality or extrapolations of setting diverge from the player's"...well, feel free to say your piece...but I'm not going to involve myself with even a moment spent on a back-and-forth on that.

I suspect that response incenses you because you feel like I'm telling you what to do or whatever. So be it. I have to make it as clear as possible that I cannot express how unsalvageable I perceive this conversation to be and I'm not going to waste time on perpetuating it. I'll write what I wrote above as an attempt to correct the record...but I'm not going to spend time on the kind of (what looks to me to be either absolutely rudderless or morbidly partisan) back-and-forth that this thread represents.

I have no one on block, I have never reported a single post/soul on this message board (nor any other). But you may want to really consider blocking me at this point because you clearly think I'm being "atypically unreasonable" (contrast with your "you're typically reasonable" to me upthread) and/or that its actually me acting on partisan, motivated reasoning in this thread. I personally don't think you and I have a future that involves constructive communication.

EDIT- <To Everyone> The amount of brand new, out-of-nowhere, jargon that has been reflexively accepted (without a sniff of either hand wringing or protest about exclusionary, ivory tower, x/y/z) in this thread while I've been absolutely bitched at incessantly about jargon the last 7 years...think about how that looks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Negotiation of stakes might involve the GM saying no. However, in different games the reason why the GM is allowed/advised to say no are quite different, making the decision making process fundamentally different too.

But originally when I brought up "say yes" it was indeed in the context of the GM not vetoing stuff based on secret myth. And I still believe that existence of solid secret myth and the GM not being allowed to say no based on it are rather difficult to successfully combine.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't tag you on purpose (I used your post as a quote for the prior post and you expressed annoyance at that after I requested not to be engaged with further on the subject).

Can I ask for a favor? Can you clearly identify the posts or parts of your posts that you will engage in discussion around. I don’t want to ask everytime I’m in doubt and I don’t want to waste my time responding to something you have no intention of replying to. Invent a short hand if you want, just some indication would be really helpful.

I’m not opposed to discussing with you, I am just opposed to discussions in which I don’t get to speak.

The only way I'm interested is if your response leads with "ok, yes, I see what you're saying that GM's right to veto action declarations based on the GM's pre-prepped story/extrapolation of setting has nothing to do with negotiating the system-correct scaling of stakes for a given conflict in Dogs in the Vineyard...and yes, that is the governing, historical context of "say no" in every ENW conversation ever (the right for a GM to veto action declarations based on the GM's pre-prepped story/extrapolation of setting)...so shoehorning that into this situation doesn't make sense."

we could probably meet in the middle there, but can’t do that without some back and forth speaking - so looks like it won’t happen.

If you're going to try to dispute the above by eliminating the fundamental, extremely meaningful to the process and experience of play, distinctions between those two concepts, ramming them together into a homogenous blob of "negotiating stakes for a given conflict in DitV is basically the same as a GM action declaration veto in AD&D because the GM's story demands that NPC001 lives until plot point x or because the GM's conception of causality or extrapolations of setting diverge from the player's"...well, feel free to say your piece...but I'm not going to involve myself with even a moment spent on a back-and-forth on that.

Thanks, but saying my piece on something you won’t engage with seems mostly pointless to me.

I suspect that response incenses you because you feel like I'm telling you what to do or whatever. So be it. I have to make it as clear as possible that I cannot express how unsalvageable I perceive this conversation to be and I'm not going to waste time on perpetuating it. I'll write what I wrote above as an attempt to correct the record...but I'm not going to spend time on the kind of (what looks to me to be either absolutely rudderless or morbidly partisan) back-and-forth that this thread represents.

I’m not incensed or mad or anything at all. I respect that there’s some things you don’t want to discuss. If everyone was so open on that front it would make for better discussions (and I include myself there too).

I’m sure you can respect my not wanting to be pulled into commenting on stuff you say that you don’t want to engage about.

I have no one on block, I have never reported a single post/soul on this message board (nor any other). But you may want to really consider blocking me at this point because you clearly think I'm being "atypically unreasonable" (contrast with your "you're typically reasonable" to me upthread) and/or that its actually me acting on partisan, motivated reasoning in this thread. I personally don't think you and I have a future that involves constructive communication.

I have quite a few on ignore but I mostly read the comments, and will reply at times - it’s mostly for a reminder that past interactions haven’t ended well and to tread carefully.

I have no intention of putting you on ignore. If you really think we have no future of constructive communication then let me be your first block! I don’t think the same or I would put you on ignore.

EDIT- <To Everyone> The amount of brand new, out-of-nowhere, jargon that has been reflexively accepted (without a sniff of either hand wringing or protest about exclusionary, ivory tower, x/y/z) in this thread while I've been absolutely bitched at incessantly about jargon the last 7 years...think about how that looks.

That’s fair.

Consider this though. We just had a discussion about the word ‘no’. In some jargon it means one hyper specific thing, but in general it’s broadly applicable outside that one thing. I think if the tables were reversed and I had a huge book of jargon where the normal meaning was applicable to both things and the jargon was only 1, it would be a super confusing and frustrating discussion for you as well.

 

[Manbearcat]

Negotiation of stakes might involve the GM saying no. However, in different games the reason why the GM is allowed/advised to say no are quite different, making the decision making process fundamentally different too.

But originally when I brought up "say yes" it was indeed in the context of the GM not vetoing stuff based on secret myth. And I still believe that existence of solid secret myth and the GM not being allowed to say no based on it are rather difficult to successfully combine.

Ok, good. I'm glad we agree on that first paragraph.

I'm not going to answer for anyone else on here. I'm pretty sure I'm the only person on here to have run Dogs in the Vineyard so I'm going to answer as someone who has run an S-ton of it. Please don't ask me to square it with whatever anyone else has written in this thread. I'm not reading all the posts or what everyone is saying.

In Dogs in the Vineyard it works like this:

* You've got a Town with Sin and a handful of codified NPCs making problems or with problems or with pleas for help. You then have some proto-NPCs to fill-in-blanks as needed (because there are more people in Town than just your handfulish).

* Your job is to use all of this stuff to aggressively provoke the PCs (who are young, barely prepared, gun-toting priests with authority vested by The King of Life and their roles in the hierarchy of stewardship within The Faith); their condemnation, their ceremony, their wrath, or their mercy. You're prepping situation that demands action and reflection.

* Everything except the fundamental components of setting is mutable until it enters play. The point of your prep is not tell a story...its the inverse...its to demand of the players, through their PCs, to tackle these situations so you can collectively find out about these young priests, this flock, this Faith.

* If someone has a secret that is shot-through with Sin (Violence, Sex, Deceit, Disunity, Blasphemy, Apostasy, Worldliness, Faithlessness) then you either just straight-up reveal it as a component of framing to provoke the PCs right now (the bulk of the secrets in Dogs) or it gets uncovered when talking to NPCs who aren't apt to escalate to physical/fighting if/when they lose a "just talking" conflict. Alternatively, represent it as Demonic Influence in a conflict where there is no NPC involved and the goal of the players are to (say) "uncover the Steward's terrible secret in his diary within the Faith-house" and the goal of the secret is maybe "to be found and exact a terrible price" or "not be found until its too late." Fallout in that conflict would only be the equivalent of "just talking" so only d4s but could represent whatever pending PC choices. The thing about Demonic Influence-exclusive conflicts is they're basically impossible to win as the GM...but they virtually always extract a toll from the PCs because your dice are sufficient to force the PCs to take Fallout. So, someone (or multiple) is going to change adversely (take Short-Term Fallout) after that conflict whether it be their Relationship to Stewardship or a Trait the reflects their orientation to/past with the Sin in question or an Attribute is subtracted or a Belonging is lost or whatever...but they might gain Fallout Experience and advance their character simultaneously.

Regardless, the Demonic Influence (which wants to isolate the community, endanger the community’s survival, exacerbate the community’s
injustices, prosper the community’s sinners, oppress the community’s faithful, undermine the fabric of their faith, and to have sin become habitual) will reveal itself and the PC (or PCs) will change as the situation escalates.

That is the beating heart of Dogs in the Vineyard.

* If some crazy circumstance occurs (I've run probably 50 or so Demonic Influence conflicts...I think I've actually won...one?...and that conflict had nothing to do with concealing Sin/conspiracy), and Demonic Influence loses and the antagonist/obstacle is "not be found until its too late", its just treated akin to "show signs of an approaching threat" (which you would have already showns signs so you're just perpeatuating/building on that) in PBtA games. The terrible secret gets revealed soon thereafter in a worse situation.

+++++++++++++

Net: Secrets aren't in Dogs in the Vineyard to serve as mystery/puzzle-solving apparatus where PCs poke and prod the setting like a D&D dungeon. They're there for (a) situation-framing and to (b) extract a terrible price (on the PCs, on the community, on the Faith) and to (b) provoke judgement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thank you for the explanation. I understood some of it!

* Everything except the fundamental components of setting is mutable until it enters play. The point of your prep is not tell a story...its the inverse...its to demand of the players, through their PCs, to tackle these situations so you can collectively find out about these young priests, this flock, this Faith.

Right. This is important. It means the game is very low myth, which helps avoiding impasse with established myth and "say yes" principle. This is exactly the sort of wiggle room I would expect for this to function. We probably won't have contents of the safe bindingly pre-determined in this game.