What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

Reminds me of the behaviour during RPGA AD&D with tournament modules (scoring points at the end to evaluate the performance of the party).

As both a player and DM, I do like to look over how the group did and do a post game analysis. A retrospective if your an agile person in the IT world. I think skilled play is fun and has a place.

 

[pemerton]

Here's an example from my own play of the use of notes (maybe that should be "notes"):

During a Wuthering Heights one-off, one of the PCs died. It had already been established that this took place in a bookshop in Soho, London. Another PC together with a NPC carried the dead PCs body in a box to the Thames, to dump it. It mattered how long this would take, because in the game a dead PC becomes a ghost within 2d10 minutes. To answer the question I Googled up a map of London. On the basis of this we decided that the body was dumped before the PC ghost emerged from it.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's definitely a railroad but the AP is not necessarily at fault. It's perfectly fine to have linked scenarios. If that is all you have and the expectation is strong you go on to the next one then that is very railroady. If I took an AP and put it into a sandbox then the AP would no longer be a railroad. You could continue the AP or go do something else.

Also even in a railroad, there is some character decision making. Choosing to fight or run. Exploring one area before another. What you do between AP's in terms of stocking supplies and making preparations.

I see the AP approach as something popular with beginners. It takes very little DM work and the players can learn the basics of skilled play. It's just best if they can eventually go on to a sandbox as they'll enjoy it even more I think. I probably did the equivalent of an AP when I was really you. I'd do B2, then the Slavers A1-A4 and then the G1-3 Giants/D1-3 Drow/Q1 Demonweb series. Somewhere in there I might squeeze in White Plume mountain or at the end Tomb of Horrors. It's not what I like now but for beginners it's not a terrible way to learn the game.

I'm saying something slightly different.

The play priority I'm depicting above doesn't need to apologize for Railroading. They aren't playing to protagonize their PCs, to have story emerge organically through play around PC dramatic need, or to imprint their will upon a sandbox.

They're playing to keep score regarding achieving the Win Con of a Railroad. Its actually important that the Railroad aspects be as homogenous/controlled as possible in order to test the variable Skilled Play of the players who are going through the AP.

 

[Emerikol]

They're playing to keep score regarding achieving the Win Con of a Railroad. Its actually important that the Railroad aspects be as homogenous/controlled as possible in order to test the variable Skilled Play of the players who are going through the AP.

I'm not arguing with that point. Though, I think informally groups do self evaluate how skillfully they handled a dungeon but not necessarily with regards to another group. Your concept is very much Gen Con competition module games. Something I might do at a convention but wouldn't waste my time on at home.
I was just adding to what you said that railroads can be viewed as bad but sometimes they act like training wheels. Responding is not always disagreeing. Sometimes you just add an observation.

 

[pemerton]

The play priority I'm depicting above doesn't need to apologize for Railroading. They aren't playing to protagonize their PCs, to have story emerge organically through play around PC dramatic need, or to imprint their will upon a sandbox.

They're playing to keep score regarding achieving the Win Con of a Railroad. Its actually important that the Railroad aspects be as homogenous/controlled as possible in order to test the variable Skilled Play of the players who are going through the AP.

I think I'm following, but to get clear:

You're envisaging something a bit like your (4) above ie classic "skilled play" but not identical.

Classic skill play involves the notes being, initially, the (hidden) map and key, which the players have to uncover, by declaring actions which oblige the GM to reveal bits of it; once these have been uncovered, the notes also establish what rewards the players are able to obtain by declaring appropriate actions (everything from "We empty the contents of the chest into our backpacks" to "We throw the aardvark we captured into the magic pool of transforming-aardvarks-to-platinum pieces"). This is all locked down, in advance, as much as possible to prevent GM deliberate cheating or inadvertent bias.

Your "skilled railroad" involves the notes being a sequence of events - probably many but perhaps not solely fights - that will be worked through, either literally in sequence or via "node-based" choices, and which the players have to succeed in, with a constrained resource pool, in order to win. Lose a combat and you lose. Or spend too long restoring your resources, and you lose because (in the fiction) the cultists have completed their evil ritual. Etc.

Have I got that roughly right?

 

[Emerikol]

Have I got that roughly right?

I think he is talking about something pretty much like the tournament modules from the old days. All of the C modules were "competition" modules and the Tomb of Horrors was as well. Given how deadly the Tomb of Horrors is it makes sense. Losing characters is not an issue when it's a competition module.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think I'm following, but to get clear:

You're envisaging something a bit like your (4) above ie classic "skilled play" but not identical.

Classic skill play involves the notes being, initially, the (hidden) map and key, which the players have to uncover, by declaring actions which oblige the GM to reveal bits of it; once these have been uncovered, the notes also establish what rewards the players are able to obtain by declaring appropriate actions (everything from "We empty the contents of the chest into our backpacks" to "We throw the aardvark we capture into the magic pool of transforming-aardvarks-to-platinum pieces"). This is all locked down, in advance, as much as possible to prevent GM deliberate cheating or inadvertent bias.

Your "skilled railroad" involves the notes being a sequence of events - probably many but perhaps not solely fights - that will be worked through, either literally in sequence or via "node-based" choices, and which the players have to succeed in, with a constrained resource pool, in order to win. Lose a combat and you lose. Or spend too long restoring your resources, and you lose because (in the fiction) the cultists have completed their evil ritual. Etc.

Have I got that roughly right?

Not "roughly" right. Exactly right.

I think this form of play would do itself a much better service (like all forms of play), if it didn't apologize for Railroading. If it proudly and transparently claimed what it was trying to do. And if it got better/more prolific at performing post-mortems of play excerpts so everyone hoping to optimize that play priority could improve their craft.

EDIT - Its very kindred with what Gloomhaven is doing.

 

[Emerikol]

Not "roughly" right. Exactly right.

I think this form of play would do itself a much better service (like all forms of play), if it didn't apologize for Railroading. If it proudly and transparently claimed what it was trying to do. And if it got better/more prolific at performing post-mortems of play excerpts so everyone hoping to optimize that play priority could improve their craft.

Agree. I'd probably rather play this than a full improv game. Neither though satisfies me as much as my traditional sandbox. As long as it is clear what the point of the game is everyone can partake of what they want. It's why I've always favored better terms to describe the different sorts of play.

It's kind of like calling dice a game.

"What are you guys playing?"
"Dice"
"Yeah I realize you roll dice but I need more detail than that"

I feel like even table top rpg has gotten to the point that it is practically like saying "dice". Okay not that bad but bad. It's a bad thing for a group to show up and realize they don't want to play the same game.

 

[Umbran]

Goodness gracious, how did a discussion of notes become a thing about railroading? Sheesh!

My notes are there for me to remember stuff I thought of to use in game. That's it. There's no deep theory or style connotation to notes.

 

[pemerton]

Not "roughly" right. Exactly right.

I think this form of play would do itself a much better service (like all forms of play), if it didn't apologize for Railroading. If it proudly and transparently claimed what it was trying to do. And if it got better/more prolific at performing post-mortems of play excerpts so everyone hoping to optimize that play priority could improve their craft.

I don't know enough contemporary modules to comment on how "abashed" they are relative to this play goal.

Module A4 Scourge of the Slave Lords is a bit like this, though. It's not really a scour and loot the dungeon adventure, though it has some superficial dungeon trappings. It's a can you work through this sequence of events to win the story adventure. This would also be a good structure for a Ravenloft-y PCs-vs-Strahd adventure. No need to pretend it's about player choice of what happens next!

I think he is talking about something pretty much like the tournament modules from the old days.

Many of them have strong dungeoneering aspects, I think, rather than being sequence-of-event based. Though because of the time constraints they don't have the scout-first-then-loot aspect that Gygax at least tends to emphasise in his PHB.