What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

Would you then make the same claim about 4e games who use the climbing check as part of a skill challenge, that they are facilitating a low protagonist game (at least at that point)?

So, some streams got crossed here, and I was talking specifically about the intricacies of check resolutions in 5e and not about the climb check serving protagonism at all. With regards to protagonism, I don't see how the climb check cuts either way -- it's not really about anything, and could be part of anything else. This is part of the reason I say 5e does protagonism poorly -- it's primary out-of-combat resolution focus is task, not goal. You can try and use it for goal resolution, but this is blurry and unfocused.

So, for the individual climb check, I don't think it matters at all if it's in 5e or as part of a 4e skill challenge -- we don't know the purpose of either example of play, and so cannot say what play agenda or play goals it's serving. Both could serve protagonism, or neither could.

I will echo @pemerton, though, in saying that the 4e skill challenge framework is much nicer towards protagonism than any other version of D&D. Unlike @pemerton, though, I don't think it's presented as clearly as such in the early 4e core books, and so takes bringing in an outside D&D understanding and approach. The mechanics don't need any changes, just how you interface with them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My personal game is a mixture of the two there are times where the game is about the dramatic needs (we just call them PC goals) and there are times where it is the PC's exploring, adventuring in the creation of the GM. The first is facilitated by our discord server where those who can participate for the coming weeks session (on Saturday or Sunday afternoon depending on the groups preference) let me know by Wednesday. It is also here, by Wednesday, that those who have specific goals, desires, dramatic needs, etc. in mind post in a dedicated chat room detailing what those goals they want to explore are. I'm open to broad suggestions but both I and my players leave the details of said goal exploration largely up to me as DM. They want an element of the unknown to be present. Honestly I rarely if ever (I actually don't remember a time where the entire group had personal goals they wanted to explore) have had to prep like this for the entire group. Usually 2 or 3 post in the forum and the rest either don't have a strong desire to explore their own goals this week or find the goals another player posted for their character interesting enough that they are willing to go along to see what happens.

That said I have had weeks here and there where all of the players just wanted to explore or weren't up for pursuing their goals or just wanted a low investment session and what I've found is, just like an ongoing tv show, those interludes serve as refreshers and to help them blow off steam at times while giving me a chance to flex my own creativity outside the boundaries of what my players have set as their goals.

Let me provide an example. Let's say we have the character I used as an example previously, the one who's dramatic need is to get revenge on their family's murderer. Let's further say that the PCs have arrived in a new town. The example PC's player declares an action to search for clues to the murderer's location in this town, because the PC believes that it's likely the murderer passed through here (all on their own). The response from the GM can be a number of things, but here's the two big categories:

1. The GM checks their notes:
1a. The notes indicate that the murderer did indeed come through this town, and there are clues, and so play progresses with the player trying to discover these clues.
1b. The notes indicate either that the murderer when in a different direction, or say nothing about the murderer in this town, and so play on this matter stops or is thwarted because the GM narrates failure to the action (or provide some non-answer).

2. The GM goes with the player's action and assumes that the may be something in this town:
2a. The GM wings this entirely on their own estimation of the what's here.
2b. The GM uses the mechanics of the system to test the player's action, and honors the results, narrating clues on a success.

In this structure, all of 1 is no or low protagonism. The PC's need are not centered in play, but rather the GM's notes are. By this I mean that the GM is protagonizing the murderer, and has written down their story, which the PC then can discover if the notes indicate the are in a place to be discovered.

2a is uncertain protagonism -- this is still very subject to the GM protagonizing other things, but may not be.

2b is high protagonism. Play centers on the PC's dramatic needs.

That said, I think all of 1 is a great way to run a mystery game that focuses on the player solving the mystery through play. This can be very engaging and lots of fun, and is absolutely a fun way to play. Protagonism isn't an absolute good, it's just a way to play.

 

[Imaro]

From the 4e D&D PHB, p 179:

In contrast to an obstacle that requires one successful skill check, a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter. . . .​

​

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks).​

From the 4e D&D DMG, pp 72, 74 76:

An audience with the duke, a mysterious set of sigils in a hidden chamber, finding your way through the Forest of Neverlight - all of these present challenges that test both the characters and the people who play them. The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions. . . .​

​

Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. . . .​

​

Level and complexity determine how hard the challenge is for your characters to overcome. The skill challenge’s level determines the DC of the skill checks involved, while the grade of complexity determines how many successes the characters need to overcome the challenge, and how many failures end the challenge. . . .​

​

What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail?​

​

When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure. . . .​

​

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. Running the challenge itself is not all that different from running a combat encounter . . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​

​

When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat - experience and perhaps treasure. The consequences of total defeat are often obvious: no XP and no treasure.​

​

Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure - the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure.​

This is all pretty clear, as clear now as it was a decade ago: a skill challenge is the resolution of a particular challenge/situation that arises in the fiction; the players (and their PCs) succeed or fail based on their checks made within a "clock" framework of successes-before-failures; and the success or failure is just that: either the players (and PCs) achieve their goal within the situation, or they do not.

I'm still not seeing a rule that states that the DM must enable a player stated goal of a SC upon success. This is what I was asked to provide for 5e.

 

[Imaro]

Let me provide an example. Let's say we have the character I used as an example previously, the one who's dramatic need is to get revenge on their family's murderer. Let's further say that the PCs have arrived in a new town. The example PC's player declares an action to search for clues to the murderer's location in this town, because the PC believes that it's likely the murderer passed through here (all on their own). The response from the GM can be a number of things, but here's the two big categories:

1. The GM checks their notes:
1a. The notes indicate that the murderer did indeed come through this town, and there are clues, and so play progresses with the player trying to discover these clues.
1b. The notes indicate either that the murderer when in a different direction, or say nothing about the murderer in this town, and so play on this matter stops or is thwarted because the GM narrates failure to the action (or provide some non-answer).

2. The GM goes with the player's action and assumes that the may be something in this town:
2a. The GM wings this entirely on their own estimation of the what's here.
2b. The GM uses the mechanics of the system to test the player's action, and honors the results, narrating clues on a success.

In this structure, all of 1 is no or low protagonism. The PC's need are not centered in play, but rather the GM's notes are. By this I mean that the GM is protagonizing the murderer, and has written down their story, which the PC then can discover if the notes indicate the are in a place to be discovered.

2a is uncertain protagonism -- this is still very subject to the GM protagonizing other things, but may not be.

2b is high protagonism. Play centers on the PC's dramatic needs.

That said, I think all of 1 is a great way to run a mystery game that focuses on the player solving the mystery through play. This can be very engaging and lots of fun, and is absolutely a fun way to play. Protagonism isn't an absolute good, it's just a way to play.

Since you include purposeful pre-prep around the players dramatic needs in the same category as no prep around the players dramatic needs (Both being no or low protagonism) but improvisation around the dramatic need is categorized differently (high protagonism) I can only conclude that improv vs pre-prep is the main (only??) difference... is that correct?

I really don't see a practical difference in the results generated by 1a and 2a since both are being determined by the GM (either in the moment or beforehand). While 2b seems to mostly be a principle (honor the result of testing a player's action where success equals clues) that can be applied to D&D pretty easily, especially in the method of 1a.

 

[Imaro]

FYI: Here is the passage that lays out the process for an Ability Check from the 5e PHB...

ABILITY CHECKS
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate
talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results...

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the
relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply
bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC.
If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check
is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the
character or monster makes no progress toward the
objective or makes progress combined with a setback
determined by the DM.

Emphasis mine. It seems to pretty clearly lay out that a success = overcoming the challenge at hand (Avoiding the guards) while failure would result in failure or progress with a setback. I don't see how this could be more clear for defining process of play and expectations. Yes you could disregard it but that boils down to DM'ing in bad faith.

 

[Manbearcat]

ON PROTAGONISM

The best place to start to illustrate the concept is the Indie TTRPG My Life With Master.

1) At the outset of the game, the GM and the players design "The Master" with a series of tags; Wants, Needs, Aspect, Type. This serves two purposes:

a) It gives the players a level of protagonism because they're defining (i) what the nature of their enemy will be and (ii) therefore what their Minions (their PCs) will be struggling against.

b) Along with the rest of the gaming tech (PC build, action resolution mechanics, feedback loops, GMing techniques), this orients The Master as THE PROTAGONIST at the outset of the game.

2) The point of play is for the players to advocate for their Minions, carve out their thematic portfolio during play, create relationships with the Townsfolk (or carry out The Masters brutal regime of orders and deal with the fallout depending on how any given scene plays out), all in effort to wrest protagonism from The Master (thereby transferring it to any given Minion, some Minions, or the Townsfolk), culminating in the realization of either The Master's Wants/Needs, or the Minion(s) and the Townsfolk.


Basically, its a crucible of protagonism where the players orient the game (by creating the NPC protagonist) and then attempt to wrest the protagonism from their creation (which the GM plays).

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

A game like Dungeon World (and Apocalypse World and Dogs in the Vineyard and Blades in the Dark) shares kindred procedures and ethos with MLWM except in orientation:

1) Making the map and building PCs and connecting them (through Bonds) is not a process for creating protagonism to wrest control of. Its a process for creating antagonism and obstacles to thematically oppose the players initial and persistent state as protagonists (through the dramatic needs that they invest their PCs with and through the related antagonistic mileu that is built at the outset of play and is continuously built through play).

2) Asking questions and using the answers throughout play ensures the continual renewal and assurance of "protaganist-centers/dependent antagonism and obstacles" throughout the course of play. Its a means of authority distribution that is subtle but robust.

3) Outside of scene framing (which the players have a huge role in via (1), (2), and the procedural generation of content via the action resolution mechanics), where the GM is at their most active, the GM is much more reactive in DW (and the like). That is, until action resolution mechanics dictate Hard Moves need to be made and/or new scenes need to be framed.

4) The GM is framing scenes and deploying consequences that don't just address the broad premise of play (where Dungeon World genre-wise differs ZERO from D&D), and this is where I think people are confused (just because you're "on premise" - eg exploring dungeons and acquiring treasure - doesn't mean the players are situated as the protagonists; through their PCs or NPCs), but they also overwhelmingly address specific thematic focus that the players have invested the game with.

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

All of the above are facets of protagonism. It is a very different arrangement of all of:

* Table orientation to content generation where the players are overwhelmingly dictating what play is about.

* Authority distribution broadly (and specifically) during play (even if its authority-by-proxy like in the case of ask questions - use answers)

* The orientation of the GM as (i) much more reactive than in traditional D&D, (ii) much more constrained by the rules/resolution mechanics/principles of the game than in traditional D&D, (iii) the "player whose pieces in play orbit around PC protagonism...opposing and provoking it", (iv) and the GM gets to "play to find out (what happens)."

You are NOT THE LEAD STORYTELLER

You do NOT GET TO BREAK/CHANGE RULES

You do NOT USE YOUR PIECES TO CONVEY A THEMATICALLY NEUTRAL, PC-DISINTERESTED WORLD

You do NOT USE SECRET BACKSTORY (it doesn't exist) OR NATURALISTIC EXTRAPOLATION TO OPPOSE PC

 

[tetrasodium]

Suppose that the players do not blurt out anything about possibly being followed by guild thieves. What, then, is the effect on play of the GM having made notes about what the Thieves' Guild is doing?

The thieves guild & other off screen stuff are quantum when they aren't being observed or interacted with. In games like fate mentioning it like in the example can actually cost(and potentially gain) the player a resource but it gets done anyway because they are already there if at any point in the future their presence there can improve something in an interesting way so why not spice it up by putting them there now so things are interesting today.


I think that touches on a lot of the problem I have with some of @Ovinomancer's protagonistic examples. D&d doesn't have anything like compels & frankly unless your vin diesel most of the group probably doesn't much care about you getting revenge or whatever. Instead of asking if the guy who killed your family is in town, the players engaged in this sort of play should focus on ways to make their goal connect to an inclusive thing like "this seems a lot like the town I remember my family meeting the killer and some of the killer's loyalists back when I was a kid, maybe the veg we are fighting is related to the killer"if the gm says yes they are the player now has all kinds of ties and maybe imperfect memories of the visit(including maybe those "traps") that could prove useful or sticky so the rest of the group has reason to care. Game systems that support thst type of play tend to assume dynamic characters that grow and include ways to change your goals as you complete them or realize they are obsolete/you irrelevant

 

[pemerton]

I'm still not seeing a rule that states that the DM must enable a player stated goal of a SC upon success. This is what I was asked to provide for 5e.

I'll requote:

a skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks, often using a variety of skills, before you can claim success in the encounter (4e D&D PHB, p 179)​

​

Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. (4e D&D DMG, p 72)​

If the players succeed at the skill challenge, they achieve the goal of the challenge and thus "claim success in the encounter".

FYI: Here is the passage that lays out the process for an Ability Check from the 5e PHB...

ABILITY CHECKS
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate
talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results...

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the
relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply
bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC.
If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check
is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the
character or monster makes no progress toward the
objective or makes progress combined with a setback
determined by the DM.

Emphasis mine. It seems to pretty clearly lay out that a success = overcoming the challenge at hand (Avoiding the guards) while failure would result in failure or progress with a setback. I don't see how this could be more clear for defining process of play and expectations. Yes you could disregard it but that boils down to DM'ing in bad faith.

The challenge is not defined in terms of a goal nor in terms of success in the encounter.

So the PC can avoid the guards (that are about to come around the corner) but not successfully avoid discovery in the current situation (in virtue of climbing the wall into the line of sight of a hitherto-unnoticed guard).

That is all @Ovinomancer is saying.

 

[Imaro]

Can we please just list out what is meant by protagonism concretely? Not what it isn't, or how games achieve it... but what it actually is, how it's defined? Like seriously what we are talking about here still seems to be be various games around this nebulous and shifting thing that changes depending on who is posting about it and what previous posts have been made concerning it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Since you include purposeful pre-prep around the players dramatic needs in the same category as no prep around the players dramatic needs (Both being no or low protagonism) but improvisation around the dramatic need is categorized differently (high protagonism) I can only conclude that improv vs pre-prep is the main (only??) difference... is that correct?

Not quite. The prep was establishing the story of the NPC, which the PC then discovered. This puts the story of the NPC in the place of primacy -- ie, the thing that is true.

Prep is difficult to do for protagonism, largely because it tends to protagonize the NPCs over the PCs. Prep, in this case, needs to be focused on having interesting complications handy, in case they become useful. "Hold on lightly" is the usual advice for prep in this case -- it's fine to think ahead, and jot down some notes, but you need to be ready to ditch that entirely on a moments notice if play moves in a different direction. This isn't entirely improvisational play, though, as systems that implement this also have strong constraints and tools for enabling this play.

I really don't see a practical difference in the results generated by 1a and 2a since both are being determined by the GM (either in the moment or beforehand). While 2b seems to mostly be a principle (honor the result of testing a player's action where success equals clues) that can be applied to D&D pretty easily, especially in the method of 1a.

I don't disagree -- 2a, though, has a bit more space, which is why I put it down as uncertain and called out the same issues as likely.

And, yes, 2b does follow the 'honor the result' philosophy. There's a difference between how you might implement this in 5e, though, and that sits within the space of who controls the fiction. In D&D (5e included), the GM is absolutely framing the situation however they want -- there are no constraints on the GM to address the PC's dramatic needs. Second, the GM is under no compulsion to allow a check -- they have the unilateral authority to declare the action as a failure. This is actually good and required, because otherwise an action that conflicts with prep that hasn't yet been revealed (secret notes, if you will) cannot be negated, which is a cornerstone of the importance of prep. So, to even get to a check, the situation is controlled by what the GM has presented and whether or not the GM decides a check is even needed. Then you can get to the GM picking up a principled approach to always honor the result of the check with regards to the goal of the action, but this is again still moderated by checking for conflict with prep, or by the GM being able to determine the effect level (you may just move towards your goal, and the GM calls for another check, a la some climbing examples). But, yes, clear stake setting, open DCs, and honoring results does move towards enabling protagonism. It at least doesn't fight strongly against it.