What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

The problem is it is going to be very hard to talk about what it means if half the people here feel it was coined as an insult to our style or as a way of dismissing it. I am not saying there aren't important distinctions to be explored but this is a case where you really need to figure out the language that is going to be able to carry the discussions. I think my mind, and the minds of many others, really have a hard time with this particular term because it feels so loaded, and it feels like it shifts slightly in a direction that is not accurate enough (it keeps moving us towards the GM's notebook and that isn't the point of play here at all)

If you could distill it to just two-4 words (or something nearing it) tags, that would be enormously helpful.

For instance:

Story Now

Skilled Play

No Myth

Those three descriptors of those three play priorities/styles are obviously reductive, but they have enormous explanatory power in both the sensory axis is play and the actual machinery of play in ways that something like “Living World” does not.

Interactive Sandbox

GM Curated

Those two descriptors are helpful.

For instance, if I was going to describe Blades in the Dark, I might say:

Story Now, Interactive Sandbox, Skilled Play

If I was going to describe Dungeon/Apocalypse World, I might say:

No Myth, Story Now

If I was going to describe Classic D&D Sandbox, I might say:

GM Curated, Interactive Sandbox, Skilled Play

 

[Bedrockgames]

Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?

A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!

Q: Um....okay, but....how?

There is tons of material written on this. The sandbox community has its various blogs, articles, GM advice sections, etc on it. A lot of people have taken the time to write about it. But it is a bit like the early church in the sense that we all came to it from slightly different places and there isn't a 'canonical gospel' on the matter (and I hope there never is one to be honest). A lot of what we are doing is finding the tools that work for us and using them. And Rob Conley does have a step by step guide to making a sandbox. The only issue is that is just an example and it is based on how he personally does it. If I wrote a step by step guide it might look quite different. I think what to keep in mind here is any orientation you see online or in a book to a sandbox is just one GMs take. One problem with that I sometimes see is it sort of becomes gospel for small clusters and then they end up butting heads with people who do it slightly differently.

Here is Rob's break down (I can't say how much he would have changed his views on sandbox since putting this out though): How to make a Fantasy Sandbox

A lot of people like Jeremy Crawford's discussion of Sandbox.

If you want procedural breakdowns, the Alexandrian has quite a fe for these styles of games (for me they are probably too procedural but know plenty of people for whom the writings are useful). He did a recent video entry on it:
My approach revolves more around creating groups and characters with motivations and goals that help serve as fuel, empowering players to take initiative, and rolling with where things go. I don't know that I could provide a step by step guide like Rob. My brain is not as orderly as his is. I have strong beliefs in things like fate being a live factor in play, running the game in a much more wild, emotionally inspired GMing style. Anytime I've tried to lay it out, I think I get it, then when I go back and read something in one of my books or on my blog, I feel like I haven't managed to really get out all the unspoken and unconscious assumptions at play. I think part of that is because it is a constant evolution too.

 

[Manbearcat]

The problem a lot of sandbox, living worlds people have with settling on a core play loop is it seems to be overly reductive and potentially could lead to more constrained play. But I think most sandbox GMs agree the fundamental exchange in play is: player declares what they want to do, know, see, etc; and the GM determines what the result is (often by invoking rules, formulating rulings, or declaring based on what seems most reasonable/exciting/etc). But the exchange is a lot more varied and organic than that breakdown suggests. I think players wandering into a such a session with that set of steps loaded into brain, will actually have more trouble navigating what is going on, because the exchange isn't that A to B all the time. Also a lot is unspoken social dynamic. That is very hard to pin down

It is.

But my suggestion (same as it has always been) is that we get better at it (pinning it down).

For instance, this might be how one would describe the play loop of a social conflict in a GM Curated, Interactive Sandbox, Skilled Play game:

SOCIAL CONFLICT

1) The GM rolls on the NPC Reaction Table for the primary NPC, taking any adjustment for PC Charisma Score or present/past PC activity. Example:

+2 for lead PC
- 1 for past transgressions against NPC motivations
+1 for decorum in arrangement of meeting.

+ 2 total.

2d6 + 2 = 9. Hospitable. NPC considers offer.

2) GM presents the situation which includes the setting, the relevant NPCs, and the depiction of their orientation of the PC based on the NPC Reaction Roll.

GM roleplays through the NPC, using their motivations, and presents the PCs with the NPC's position on the subject matter at hand. This should be something to either put the PCs on the defensive or provoke the players to present their own viewpoint through their PCs.

3) This back-and-forth continues (with a player possibly declaring an action that forces dice to be rolled - History or Insight to develop rapport for instance) until the GM decides that either the players has made the case and the NPC agrees (ending the social conflict), hasn't made the case and the NPC rebuffs them (ending the social conflict), or the GM is unsure if the case has been made. The GM then sets a DC (with the NPCs orientation as a base and adjusted for the factors of the NPC Reaction Roll and any transgression or well-made point in the course of conversation) and the player then makes a Charisma roll. If this Charisma roll meets or exceeds the DC, the NPC agrees to the PC proposition. If the Charisma roll does not meet or exceed the DC, the NPC rebuffs the PCs.

---

That expresses the elements of the play priorities/style pretty clearly.

GM Curated (the GM created this NPC and the setting)

Interactive Sandbox (the players interact with NPCs and the NPCs respond based on their motivations and resolution mechanics)

Skilled Play (the players will be more apt to have success if they build their PCs correctly and declare actions/converse skillfully in the social conflict)

 

[Fenris-77]

I think this is an important distinction for sure. Whether the players themselves have authorial control or can contribute in that way, versus whether they are limited to doing so through their character, I think is certainly a dividing line between a pure sandbox and something else. That said, as I have said in other threads elsewhere, I think sandbox can contain what you are talking about. It is just a different style of sandbox (and how much players having authorial control could vary a lot). I don't know the best term (story sandbox, narrative sandbox, new school sandbox, player controlled sandbox). But whatever term works, I think the idea of it is sound and should be welcomed into the umbrella of sandbox (I do think distinctions are helpful though---like noting the difference between a wilder lands sandbox and one where players have control). This is why I often call mine a Drama sandbox or Sandbox+Drama. I realize that term can also be misleading because it isn't drama in the sense of say drama system where players have authorial control through their dialogue and scene framing. But it denotes that the GM often makes choices using drama as a guide

I wasn't attempting to replicate that argument from elsewhere about what a frickin' sandbox is (and I agree with you anyway). I was just using that particular sandbox, one without authorial permissions, to make a point. Someone else has said you needed something like that in the setting to have protagonist play and I disagreed.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Bedrockgames

I just listened to the video you linked from Justin Alexander.

Upthread I wrote a list of 4 continuums to evaluate Protagonistic Play.

I hope its clear that:

* "Festooned With Scenario Hooks" with PCs on the uptake is not high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.

* They can also "choose to 'Explore Undermountain' which they can only do if they know Undermountain exists" is not high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.

Meanwhile:

* Don't prep plot, prep situation is very high on the Protagonistic Play continuum.

This is Vincent Baker Dogs in the Vineyard 101 circa 2004 (and he said it before then); How to GM 137-138 (abridged) - Don't play the story > don't play "what's going to happen" > play the town > provoke & react.

What Justin Alexander is depicting above is Dogs in the Vineyard 101 except (I'm assuming given his system and "setting before" proclivities) without:

* the initiating scenes for the PCs (which are seminal and provide anchoring for subsequent play).

* the thematic PC build flags that constrain the GM toward what play should be about (therefore how to build setting/situation - frame 'the town' and how to play 'the town'...how to provoke the players).

* the resolution mechanics that escalate conflict, impose difficult decisions, and forcefully evolve (and advance) PCs.

* the focused premise of Dogs in the Vineyard.

 

[Manbearcat]

I wasn't attempting to replicate that argument from elsewhere about what a frickin' sandbox is (and I agree with you anyway). I was just using that particular sandbox, one without authorial permissions, to make a point. Someone else has said you needed something like that in the setting to have protagonist play and I disagreed.

Going back to the Protagonistic Play continuum. Look at what I've posted directly above (about Dogs).

I assume you agree that "don't prep plot, prep situation" has its "Protagonistic Play Factor" amplified considerably if all of the stuff I wrote at the bottom (inherent to Dogs) is present in the game? And the inverse is true as well ("Protagonistic Play" is reduced without it).

 

[Imaro]

Just something I'm musing on and I'm not sure it's totally coherent but here goes...

Should we be confining ourselves to styles of play or should we be striving for something akin to being styleless. I would think the single best practice for running any session of a ttrpg game would be to pick and choose what works for you and your table in the moment of play, sort of like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do or the way modern MMA tends to work.

A modern MMA fighter (at least a good one) doesn't define himself as a striker and then summarily swear off ever learning or using grappling so then why should I seek to purposefully limit what can or cannot be a part of my game by defining a play style or accepting a play style for myself? Now don't get me wrong being styleless play isn't about accepting and using everything either, if something does not work for you and/or your group you don't use it, plain and simple. IMO moving in this direction isn't really about accepting and practicing a specific style but instead the discussion, usage and (at times) discarding of specific techniques and what result their usage produces. I think styleless play would elevate results, real experiences and practicality while discarding or eschewing obscure terminology, rote and pseudo-intellectualism. It would ask the simple question... If I want to achieve X in my game what are the techniques (in an easily understandable breakdown) that can do this? It would then be left up to the one asking the question which is the best technique for his or her particular game and the answer they choose would have the fluidity to change at anytime once it either no longer serves it's purpose, a better technique is discovered or the result it produces is no longer desired.

Eh, maybe I'm being crazy here if so just disregard but this makes more sense to me and is where I believe alot of people (including myself) already are in how they approach their games, they don't adhere to a "style" they pick and choose and bend and adapt and that's why for some these discussions of "styles" are so hard.

 

[Fenris-77]

Going back to the Protagonistic Play continuum. Look at what I've posted directly above (about Dogs).

I assume you agree that "don't prep plot, prep situation" has its "Protagonistic Play Factor" amplified considerably if all of the stuff I wrote at the bottom (inherent to Dogs) is present in the game? And the inverse is true as well ("Protagonistic Play" is reduced without it).

I agree. My point was about possible/not possible rather than degrees of success. There are lots of mechanics and play style stuff that can amplify protagonist play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just something I'm musing on and I'm not sure it's totally coherent but here goes...

Should we be confining ourselves to styles of play or should we be striving for something akin to being styleless. I would think the single best practice for running any session of a ttrpg game would be to pick and choose what works for you and your table in the moment of play, sort of like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do or the way modern MMA tends to work.

A modern MMA fighter (at least a good one) doesn't define himself as a striker and then summarily swear off ever learning or using grappling so then why should I seek to purposefully limit what can or cannot be a part of my game by defining a play style or accepting a play style for myself? Now don't get me wrong being styleless play isn't about accepting and using everything either, if something does not work for you and/or your group you don't use it, plain and simple. IMO moving in this direction isn't really about accepting and practicing a specific style but instead the discussion, usage and (at times) discarding of specific techniques and what result their usage produces. I think styleless play would elevate results, real experiences and practicality while discarding or eschewing obscure terminology, rote and pseudo-intellectualism. It would ask the simple question... If I want to achieve X in my game what are the techniques (in an easily understandable breakdown) that can do this? It would then be left up to the one asking the question which is the best technique for his or her particular game and the answer they choose would have the fluidity to change at anytime once it either no longer serves it's purpose, a better technique is discovered or the result it produces is no longer desired.

Eh, maybe I'm being crazy here if so just disregard but this makes more sense to me and is where I believe alot of people (including myself) already are in how they approach their games, they don't adhere to a "style" they pick and choose and bend and adapt and that's why for some these discussions of "styles" are so hard.

No. Some approaches are antagonistic towards each other (meaning they drive to divergent play goals and do not work well with each other). This is a similar argument to System Doesn't Matter, which is really only true if you're using the same approach to play regardless of system, overwriting or ignoring the system when conflicts emerge.

You cannot have a game of Blades in the Dark as it is designed to be played if you prep it like a D&D sandbox. It just doesn't work.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just something I'm musing on and I'm not sure it's totally coherent but here goes...

Should we be confining ourselves to styles of play or should we be striving for something akin to being styleless. I would think the single best practice for running any session of a ttrpg game would be to pick and choose what works for you and your table in the moment of play, sort of like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do or the way modern MMA tends to work.

A modern MMA fighter (at least a good one) doesn't define himself as a striker and then summarily swear off ever learning or using grappling so then why should I seek to purposefully limit what can or cannot be a part of my game by defining a play style or accepting a play style for myself? Now don't get me wrong being styleless play isn't about accepting and using everything either, if something does not work for you and/or your group you don't use it, plain and simple. IMO moving in this direction isn't really about accepting and practicing a specific style but instead the discussion, usage and (at times) discarding of specific techniques and what result their usage produces. I think styleless play would elevate results, real experiences and practicality while discarding or eschewing obscure terminology, rote and pseudo-intellectualism. It would ask the simple question... If I want to achieve X in my game what are the techniques (in an easily understandable breakdown) that can do this? It would then be left up to the one asking the question which is the best technique for his or her particular game and the answer they choose would have the fluidity to change at anytime once it either no longer serves it's purpose, a better technique is discovered or the result it produces is no longer desired.

Eh, maybe I'm being crazy here if so just disregard but this makes more sense to me and is where I believe alot of people (including myself) already are in how they approach their games, they don't adhere to a "style" they pick and choose and bend and adapt and that's why for some these discussions of "styles" are so hard.

Its an interesting essay. But personally, I would say the "Be water..." space has an extremely robust history in TTRPGs in all of the general use games and the "kitchen sink D&D" approach (in genre and technique).

There is definitely value in that, but there is also conceptual and realized threats there (that happen both in MMA and TTRPGs):

• Not having a well-developed, focused base/substrate to build from and rely upon when the bullets fly.
• Not having strong fundamentals in any given discipline/style because you've spread yourself thin.
• Not being able to integrate the disciplines/styles (either because you personally cannot do it...or they aren't practically/efficiently able to be integrated).

I like your essay but mostly because of the inherent danger in the message to both fighting and TTRPGing.