I think it is possible to enjoy the heck out of non-linear storytelling, while not thinking much of the Flashback mechanic. Heck, in my case it's that a large part of the pleasure I'd get from a heist adventure would be the planning.
What is the point of GM's notes?
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
hawkeyefan
Legend
Why?
AnotherGuy
Hero
So just to bring it a little back to the OP, one way I use GM notes to assist me is with Skilled Play over the course of the campaign.
Just to be clear I’m not referring to combat strategy or old school dungeoneering when discussing Skilled Play over the course of a campaign. I’m zeroing on impactful PC choices which would influence the final result or end challenge of the campaign.
The only way I can think of representing that is by codifying such choices, in a similar way that 5e's Tyranny of Dragons storyline does it with its Council Scorecard where certain actions undertaken by the party would curry or lose favour with a particular faction for the final showdown and thus make things easier or harder.
Here begins my dilemma, so I begin codifying certain actions undertaken by the party over the course of the campaign and of course should PCs come up with constructive ideas and actions of their own, that data too when then be inputted. Furthermore I increase pressure by injecting a strict timeframe of events.
Now in all of this, I have designed the code as well as the timeframe. It does sort of feel illusionary because I could adjust the set code or timeframe at any time without the PCs knowledge, since much of it is secret backstory or not player-facing. And this of course frustrates me somewhat - in that I could describe in part what I'm doing as Setting Solitaire. Now I don't know if these feelings stem from the fact that I'm doing the designing as opposed to say following an AP, which perhaps would remove my own sense of bias, similar to a map does in old-school dungeon crawls.
There are parts which I can make player-facing and have indeed done so, but I'm not perfectly content, since I can still amend things. The other concern is that should I choose to reveal the entire "scorecard" to the payers, I may lessen the Skilled Play element of the game. Not an attractive option for me.
I do not know if I'm making much sense in all of this rambling, but this is where I'm at - where I'm trying to, for the lack of a better word, make the game True.
Although I have never played the game, would the clocks system be a fair comparison for something like this in BitD?
What system does Dungeon World use to emulate this, or is there such a thing?
EDIT: Another option I have is running something like post-action 4e Skill Challenge check to resolve the outcome of the "scorecard". Perhaps before the final showdown, I call for a sit down session with the players and DM lobbing for what actions over the course of the campaign would be deserving of a roll.
Just to be clear I’m not referring to combat strategy or old school dungeoneering when discussing Skilled Play over the course of a campaign. I’m zeroing on impactful PC choices which would influence the final result or end challenge of the campaign.
The only way I can think of representing that is by codifying such choices, in a similar way that 5e's Tyranny of Dragons storyline does it with its Council Scorecard where certain actions undertaken by the party would curry or lose favour with a particular faction for the final showdown and thus make things easier or harder.
Here begins my dilemma, so I begin codifying certain actions undertaken by the party over the course of the campaign and of course should PCs come up with constructive ideas and actions of their own, that data too when then be inputted. Furthermore I increase pressure by injecting a strict timeframe of events.
Now in all of this, I have designed the code as well as the timeframe. It does sort of feel illusionary because I could adjust the set code or timeframe at any time without the PCs knowledge, since much of it is secret backstory or not player-facing. And this of course frustrates me somewhat - in that I could describe in part what I'm doing as Setting Solitaire. Now I don't know if these feelings stem from the fact that I'm doing the designing as opposed to say following an AP, which perhaps would remove my own sense of bias, similar to a map does in old-school dungeon crawls.
There are parts which I can make player-facing and have indeed done so, but I'm not perfectly content, since I can still amend things. The other concern is that should I choose to reveal the entire "scorecard" to the payers, I may lessen the Skilled Play element of the game. Not an attractive option for me.
I do not know if I'm making much sense in all of this rambling, but this is where I'm at - where I'm trying to, for the lack of a better word, make the game True.
Although I have never played the game, would the clocks system be a fair comparison for something like this in BitD?
What system does Dungeon World use to emulate this, or is there such a thing?
EDIT: Another option I have is running something like post-action 4e Skill Challenge check to resolve the outcome of the "scorecard". Perhaps before the final showdown, I call for a sit down session with the players and DM lobbing for what actions over the course of the campaign would be deserving of a roll.
Last edited:
darkbard
Legend
@AnotherGuy, I don't have time for a more substantial post right now, but I think what you describe above is a classic example of why system matters, and how you are finding 5E's system fighting you as you try to foster different desiderata from play from what it presumes.
Manbearcat
Legend
@AnotherGuy
Don't have time for anything thorough, but I skimmed your post. I used Clocks for every AW-derivative game to resolve Front-related stuff, player down-time projects, player vs Front-related stuff.
Like you mention, Clocks serve the same purpose as 4e Skill Challenges (and this tech predates both 4e and AW); complex conflict resolution. Because of that, they're applicable to a whole host of conflicts (from "social combat" Tug-of-War Clocks to "can we save the ward from the supernatural disaster" Racing Clocks to "do the ritual/enchant the thing" project clock).
Don't have time for anything thorough, but I skimmed your post. I used Clocks for every AW-derivative game to resolve Front-related stuff, player down-time projects, player vs Front-related stuff.
Like you mention, Clocks serve the same purpose as 4e Skill Challenges (and this tech predates both 4e and AW); complex conflict resolution. Because of that, they're applicable to a whole host of conflicts (from "social combat" Tug-of-War Clocks to "can we save the ward from the supernatural disaster" Racing Clocks to "do the ritual/enchant the thing" project clock).
Aldarc
Legend
I once felt that way too, but not any longer.
@AnotherGuy
I'll give you a perspective from someone who runs 5E, albeit probably very differently from how you're doing so. The fact I do things very differently from you doesn't mean I think you're doing it wrong--I want that to be clear up-front; different approaches and techniques work for different people.
It seems as though you are wanting your campaign to come to a specific point at the end of it--which seems to be why you're looking at something like a scorecard--and you're expecting "skilled play" to be, roughly, "the players doing things before the end scenario that make that end scenario easier (with a plausible allowance for the players also doing things that make the end scenario more difficult)." (I can see why you might choose to call that "skilled play"--it's much, much shorter.)
I ... never intentionally prep much more than the next session, so I probably wouldn't be thinking in terms of a specific end scenario; I'd be thinking more in the lines of what the goals of the BBEG (or whatever) are, and what the goals of the party are, and where those goals come into conflict. I'd probably have a place outside my session notes where I was keeping track of what it would look like in-game as the BBEG progressed toward its goals. I'd probably look after everything the PCs accomplished (or didn't) and consider how that would change the position of that track--or perhaps how it would change what was on the track, depending on what the PCs did. Everything the BBEG did would be in service of its goals (if occasionally indirectly) and if the PCs interfered sufficiently those goals might change to "kill the PCs."
Having said that, I know that I probably wouldn't have most of that written down, at least not in my session notes binder. If I had a write-up for the BBEG, its goals would be in that write-up; I'd prep its actions based on the situation in-game and its goals; those actions would trigger scenarios in-game.
That's possibly not as helpful as I was hoping it would be. Oh comma well.
I'll give you a perspective from someone who runs 5E, albeit probably very differently from how you're doing so. The fact I do things very differently from you doesn't mean I think you're doing it wrong--I want that to be clear up-front; different approaches and techniques work for different people.
It seems as though you are wanting your campaign to come to a specific point at the end of it--which seems to be why you're looking at something like a scorecard--and you're expecting "skilled play" to be, roughly, "the players doing things before the end scenario that make that end scenario easier (with a plausible allowance for the players also doing things that make the end scenario more difficult)." (I can see why you might choose to call that "skilled play"--it's much, much shorter.)
I ... never intentionally prep much more than the next session, so I probably wouldn't be thinking in terms of a specific end scenario; I'd be thinking more in the lines of what the goals of the BBEG (or whatever) are, and what the goals of the party are, and where those goals come into conflict. I'd probably have a place outside my session notes where I was keeping track of what it would look like in-game as the BBEG progressed toward its goals. I'd probably look after everything the PCs accomplished (or didn't) and consider how that would change the position of that track--or perhaps how it would change what was on the track, depending on what the PCs did. Everything the BBEG did would be in service of its goals (if occasionally indirectly) and if the PCs interfered sufficiently those goals might change to "kill the PCs."
Having said that, I know that I probably wouldn't have most of that written down, at least not in my session notes binder. If I had a write-up for the BBEG, its goals would be in that write-up; I'd prep its actions based on the situation in-game and its goals; those actions would trigger scenarios in-game.
That's possibly not as helpful as I was hoping it would be. Oh comma well.
Last edited:
Sorry, which way? I'm figuring it's your feelings about the pleasures of heist adventures that have changed.
Planning in heist games has downsides to, usually characterized as planning paralysis. In the imaginary world of an RPG, and with players who aren't (usually) actual criminals, the process of heist planning can quickly spiral out of control. Plans with contingencies and back-ups and sub-plans and whew, I'm tired just typing it out. I don't find that really detailed planning adds anything to my enjoyment of heists. I love making plans, but the fiddly detail is often boring and doesn't end up getting used anyway in the case of back-ups and contingencies and the like. I prefer the Blades method, where you rough in a plan, maybe do a little light prep, and get stuck in. YMMV.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
This. I like planning things out in advance. If I forget or miss something, then I didn't plan well enough. I'd hate to be able to "plan" things in the middle of the heist.
And I love heist movies.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Upcoming Releases
-
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
