Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9287299" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Attaching an image of what you linked and asked about as it won't carry through, otherwise.[ATTACH=full]351389[/ATTACH]I agree that it is quite off topic.  I'm going to try to connect my answer to the thread and a point about "plot."* I think The Between is a game that (a) is unabashed that it is "a game and its meant to be played as such", (b) the game's PC-centered protagonism is shared by care for the protagonism of Hargrave House, haunted Victorian London at-large, the Threats and the Mastermind, and (c) the structure injects the game with a very particular pulse, motif, and thematic arc.  In many ways, it reminds me very much of My Life With Master; the deeply structured play, the sharing of protagonism with the setting and the Master as you try to fully wrest that protagonism from The Master.* I think there is a conflation of concepts happening in this thread and probably at-large.  "Clues" (as JA is using it), "Hooks," "Plot Points," and "Situations" are not the same thing...or, if they are in individual's minds or in the collective, work needs to be done to remove that redundancy.  They need to be distinguished from one another and a big problem is that they're just kind of being mashed together as some kind of "GM technique (or constituent of system) gruel."  I'm going to attempt to nail down how I see each of these in a way where they are usefully individuated:Clue (as in JA's Three Clue Rule):  Pulling directly from his essay, a device used to prevent bottlenecks and rudderless exploration that "slams into a wall," thereby funneling subsequent play  "to the correct conclusion" (mysteries) or "for the adventure to continue" (general scenario).Hook:  A device used by GMs or module/AP authors to "hook" players into having their PC involve themselves in setting content when the PC in question has nothing native to their character at stake (goals, ethos, duties, relationships).  This italicized bit is important because it provides contrast with Situation (later).  While a well-done "hook" should be interesting, it has an inherently benign nature with respect to the PC's inherent interests/motivations and is more about (a) "bringing the setting’s vitality to the fore" and (b) giving players interesting content to engage with as it intersects with (a).Plot Point:  A seminal component of a throughline of a plot.  In TTRPGs where the throughline of play features pre-authored plot, its a way station where players interact with or trigger or pick up some necessary encounter or reveal or exposition/lore dump to give context or texture to previous or subsequent Plot Points and The Plot at-large.  Its often not necessary that Plot Points are ordered in some rigid sequence and games typically feature some breaking up of Plot Point interaction with various diversions; an auxiliary side quest, market haggling for provisions/gear (which typically features someone staring at a book in meat space and play is virtually full meta), casual and conflict-free freeform like tavern hijinx or strudel-baking or imagining and describing a wedding and your fancy dress/hat.  Nonetheless, the reality that sequence of Plot Points can be reordered and play isn't relentlessly Plot Point > Plot Point > Plot Point (because its broken up by items that would almost surely be left on the "cutting room floor" if this was a movie) doesn't change the meta-reality and the gameplay experience of (a) the concepts of Plot Points and (b) the nature of The (throughline-governing) Plot.Situation:  In contrast with "Hook," a situation should interact with, and put at stake, something native to one or more characters (goals, ethos, duties, relationships). Put another way, premise or theme of character should be challenged...hopefully provocatively & directly, but even tenuously will suffice.  Tenuously to provocatively & directly is a continuum here, and the better the situation the more provocative and direct its challenge will be.EDIT:  I'm sure those will find all the disagreement because for some reason or another, commenters/TTRPGers seem to either want the ability (or are content with the baggage) of conflating all 4 of those into one incomprehensible, incoherent definition gruel.  Whereas, they're_very_freaking_different concepts in service to_very_different play.  Distinguishing them aggressively is as important to communication as it is to honing particular skills as it is to actual play of games at the table.[HR][/HR]Alright, to connect this back to your question about The Between [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] and your subsequent reply to me regarding construction of JA's "Clues" & "Nodes," The Between is either (a) Situation (probably 90+ % of play) or (b) player-authored, in-situ vignette (answering questions/prompts about their PC's past, composing a clue, Janus Mask, Hargrave House, The Unscene, or a GM-directed question about the Situation before them).  There are no Clues (JA-style), nor Hooks, nor Plot Points.  Everything from the playbook stuff, to the Vulnerable Move, to Side Characters, to Threats, to Paint the Scene (Hargrave House), to The Unscene is Situation (90+ %) or in-situ, brief, player-authored vignette (>10 %).I think one of the big problems in these discussions is that we don't talk frankly about concepts or candidly about what we're doing at the table (or during prep) because we're afraid of judgement.  That is a huge net loss for our combo discipline/artform (running and playing these various games).  Like, if you're going to run a railroad or a game that is clearly GM/module/AP plot-driven (it doesn't matter whether the sequence of plot points can be irrelevantly reordered or that the sequence of plot points is broken up by auxiliary content), so what?  Do_it_well.  Be good at that.  You can be very good at that...you can be terrible at that...you can be everywhere in between.  But be transparent about what you're doing (and that transparency goes for both yourself and your table) so everyone can (a) know what they're supposed to be doing and (b) what they're NOT supposed to be doing (like if you're running an AP/railroad or whatever AND its been clearly conveyed to the table that this is what you're doing...AND a player is opting out/actively trying to stay off the rails and/or disengage with Plot Points?  That is poor play by that player.  And I don't just mean social contract-wise.  They're playing badly, as in not observing best practices of their participant role, as in unskillful play, and they should be called out for that kind of misplay and it should be corrected).  And (c) they can improve their craft (what they're supposed to be doing) in a goal-directed, focused effort.GMs and players of various games can't get better at that particular game if they aren't transparent about what they're doing and/or don't know what their best practices are (if players don't know what their best practices are because they're confused about what kind of game they're playing...how can they be held accountable for their poor play?).Finally, while I don't run plot-driven games of any kind (I imagine you know my history of running games at this point), that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy playing a railroad or a plot-driven game by an extremely skillful GM.  I've played 3 times in my life.  2 of those were railroads with unskillful GMs who weren't honest about what we were doing.  It was awful.  The other time I played under an extremely skillful GM and it was transparent that we were playing a railroad and our "say" was very limited in scope and magnitude (but when we had it, we should press the accelerator to the floor).  It was totally rad.  I would gladly play in that person's railroads now and again...but at the same time I know it is a_very_different_game than other games are.  And so did the GM who ran it (and I'm sure he was really good at it in no small part because he was up front about it to both himself and to the table he was GMing).</blockquote>

Verification