What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

How much deeper? What does deeper mean here? Right now, "dramatic need" seems fuzzier than Potter Stewart's comment on porn because I'm not even sure I'd know it when I see it. At least not in any way you'd define it.

"I will get revenge on the man who killed my father."

"I will reclaim my lost one true love."

"I will be tge most famed explorer of my age."

Simply put, a dramatic need is something you can hang a complete story on. If it's driven by the character and not about someone or something else, this protagonizes the character. If the character is just responding to the GM, it's not protagonism. Ie, if I'm exploring because the GM dropped a dungeon, that's not protagonism. If I can drive play such that I can explore and discover world changing things without having to ask the GM, that's protagonism. Yes, D&D doesn't do this well because it's not structured to, and that's fine -- it's not aimimg for this.

And, this isn't binary. You can have a little or a lot. This is why I was pondering on protagonism as picking up things the GM put down as part of a character. I think this can be weak protagonism.

 

[Maxperson]

In my opinion, approaching GM notes from this mindset (as I once did) is an invitation to the GM to guide or curate the fiction as they imagine it playing out in their head in advance. Less generously, such notes can serve as an invitation to Force and Illusionism.

They are means for the GM to stake out limits on PC action declaration via fiat or sometimes subtle manipulation to "keep the game on track."

Of course, notes need not be such. But I do think they provide pressure: if the GM wants to tell this cool story, adhere to this plan, with very little variance.

I'm not interested these days in play oriented around PCs exploring GM precrafted plot. And so I find such notes an unwelcome hindrance, by and large, to playing to find out.[/i]

This is so far away from what DM notes are for in the vast majority of games that it isn't even funny. It sounds like you've had an experience with a bad DM, not notes.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, D&D doesn't do this well because it's not structured to, and that's fine -- it's not aimimg for this.

And, this isn't binary. You can have a little or a lot. This is why I was pondering on protagonism as picking up things the GM put down as part of a character. I think this can be weak protagonism.

I'm curious why you think that D&D doesn't do this well? I'd say it offers a tool (ideals & inspiration) for this this type of thing, but doesn't mandate that you must use them in order to play the game... Not sure I consider making it an optional component necessarily means it's not done well. Now whether it does it in a way that aligns with your personal preference is another matter entirely.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm curious why you think that D&D doesn't do this well? I'd say it offers a tool (ideals & inspiration) for this this type of thing, but doesn't mandate that you must use them in order to play the game... Not sure I consider making it an optional component necessarily means it's not done well. Now whether it does it in a way that aligns with your personal preference is another matter entirely.

Because the basic structure of D&D is that the GM decides. The GM's job is to present the scene, then adjudicate actions, and then to narrate results. At all positions, it's the GM's job to decide what happens. This doesn't well support PC protagonism, because the player has no real inputs into the processes of play except to declare an action, which is already framed by the GM's scene setting.

You have a good point that BIFTs are an attempt to add some protagonism, but it's very weak. The way it's presented puts it as yet another point the GM decides what happens, and it's quite often just ignored. Inspiration is not a tool for protagonism, it's just a way to adjust odds from the player side.

 

[Imaro]

Because the basic structure of D&D is that the GM decides. The GM's job is to present the scene, then adjudicate actions, and then to narrate results. At all positions, it's the GM's job to decide what happens. This doesn't well support PC protagonism, because the player has no real inputs into the processes of play except to declare an action, which is already framed by the GM's scene setting.

You have a good point that BIFTs are an attempt to add some protagonism, but it's very weak. The way it's presented puts it as yet another point the GM decides what happens, and it's quite often just ignored. Inspiration is not a tool for protagonism, it's just a way to adjust odds from the player side.

Wait I'm confused...

Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.
DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
Player A (Rolls a 12)
DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches. They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,

This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"? The player declared their action and intended result and the dice decided success or failure. In what way, besides adjudication based upon the relevant rules of the game (ability checks and saving throws for the most part in D&D) does protagonism need to be supported more?

As to your second point, I don't think it's weak... I think it's purposefully optional. Again I'm confused by how it is a point where the GM decides what happens, can you elaborate more on this? My opinion is that Inspiration = incentive without control, though again if you care to expound on why you think it's "just a way to adjust odds..." (isn't that nearly any mechanic in an rpg?), I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[pemerton]

The Temple is in a place. If the pc's are close enough, they can see it and choose to go there or not. The priest has motivations and resources, and so would be doing things to make that happen (not in these notes but would be in mine). This creates rumor the pc's might hear, which they can follow up on or not. A teleport mishap might lad them there

<snip>

The map would guide any attempt to do things at the Temple - if there's a back way or not, etc. (Although depending on my mood I might add one if it makes sense that it would be there but isn't on my map.)

The Temple being in a place suggests that it is used both in framing eg "You've arrived at such-and-such. You see the gleaming black marble of the temple of Olath."

It sounds also like you use it to resolve action declarations. eg "We look around - what do we see?", then you check your notes, observe that the PCs are near the temple, and so reply "You see the gleaming black marble of a temple." Or alternatively - "I'm looking around for the Temple of Olath - can I see it?" and you respond by checking your notes and map, and on that basis answering yes or no.

With the secret entrance/back way, you seem to suggesting the same general approach - using the map/notes to resolve the action declaration. (With the possible exception of mood-dependent departures.)

I guess as you describe protagonism the world reshapes itself to fit the players desires and not what would be their characters desires in game? For example if a player expresses the fact he always wanted to save a princess from a dragon then whatever the world was like before it now has a dragon holding a princess who needs rescued? Is that what you mean?

That's a slightly strange way to describe the play of a RPG, because it seems to treat the fiction as if it was real and mind-independent.

In the sort of protagonistic-play @Ovinomancer is describing, action declarations like My ears are open for any rumours of dragons in these parts are not resolved by the GM inspecting notes that were written in advance, and on that basis resolving the declaration. Rather, the GM frames situations or sets difficulties for checks or whatever it might be having regard to the players evinced preferences for their PCs' protagonism.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wait I'm confused...

Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.
DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
Player A (Rolls a 12)
DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches. They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,

This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"? The player declared their action and intended result and the dice decided success or failure. In what way, besides adjudication based upon the relevant rules of the game (ability checks and saving throws for the most part in D&D) does protagonism need to be supported more?

As to your second point, I don't think it's weak... I think it's purposefully optional. Again I'm confused by how it is a point where the GM decides what happens, can you elaborate more on this? My opinion is that Inspiration = incentive without control, though again if you care to expound on why you think it's "just a way to adjust odds..." (isn't that nearly any mechanic in an rpg?), I'd be interested in hearing it.

That's not protagonism, supporting characters doomed to die often do amazing stuff in books tv & movies, sidekicks like Robin & even Arthur have successfully climbed walls as sidekicks. With that example though 5e* does a particularly bad job of empowering the GM to feel like they can make things up while players have nothing to latch onto for a common frame of reference in what is plausible. in 3.x you had +2/-2 & the bonus types so both players & gm had an area where they could find common ground to negotiate how that back & forth could work & what benefits might go from doing it or doing it differently.

Also in prior editions there was a lot less box text & random tables to build things for the gm than todays HC campaign length modules because you were usually expected to work them into your own campaign & refluff as needed to fit. Sure you might see x module is meant to be run after Y module, but even then there was more gm empowerment.

All of that results in the GM being left with a dearth of tools & resources to build the skills needed to handle the kind of activity you describe. Lets say bob succeeds in climbing over the wall.... so what? he escaped... and?... And the GM needs to do something on the fly for bob & maybe everyone else to do or even worse it was written with two outcomes of climb the wall or fight the guards & now bob left his buds behind to fight the guards without him if any of them fail to climb over too. If Bob wants to stand on top of the wall & shoot the guards he has an idea how that can work in 3.x & earlier the GM has experience+advice making up how it could help... in 5e bob has no idea & the GM has "hmm... it doesn't list any bonus for that"

* and maybe 4e, I mostly skipped it so won't go there & shall pretend it never happened in this post.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wait I'm confused...

Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.

This requires an earlier step, where the GM frames an obstacle for the PC to overcome. The GM decides this. Honestly, this is pretty common in most RPGS -- opposition is part of the GM's job.

DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
Player A (Rolls a 12)

Here, the GM decides if the action can succeed, and if it can, whether or not it's uncertain. If uncertain, the GM determines the ability to be used, and assigns a DC. In your example, the GM is also picking what proficiency is to be used with the ability check. In all of these regards, the GM is the one deciding.

DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches. They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,

This is not the only possible outcome. The GM may have checked their notes and noted an heretofore unnoticed guard at the top of the wall, and so narrated the player climbing the wall only to have the alarm raised anyway. You've selected an outcome here, but the upshot is that you did this selection in the guise of the GM. I'm not even postulating bad faith GMing here -- it's literally up to the GM to narrate the result of a check -- nothing in the 5e rules demands they particularly honor success in any specific or defined way. Heck, the GM might actually call for a second climb check after the first if they determine it's necessary, meaning the first check isn't really a success but just a wicket passed on the way to the second check.

The GM is deciding what happens here, at all points along the way after "I'm climbing the wall to avoid the guards."

This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"? The player declared their action and intended result and the dice decided success or failure. In what way, besides adjudication based upon the relevant rules of the game (ability checks and saving throws for the most part in D&D) does protagonism need to be supported more?

As to your second point, I don't think it's weak... I think it's purposefully optional. Again I'm confused by how it is a point where the GM decides what happens, can you elaborate more on this? My opinion is that Inspiration = incentive without control, though again if you care to expound on why you think it's "just a way to adjust odds..." (isn't that nearly any mechanic in an rpg?), I'd be interested in hearing it.

Optional doesn't require it to be weak. Feats and multiclassing are both optional and not weak. The point remains that the only mechanic in 5e that remotely goes to protagonism is both optional and very weak. D&D does protagonism poorly, and by design. Having a game that does a thing (or doesn't) by design means it's just not meant to be played in a way that promotes that play agenda. This is fine. Blades in the Dark is terrible for skilled-play dungeon crawling -- by (or rather because of) design. D&D is pretty good at this.

 

[Imaro]

That's not protagonism, supporting characters doomed to die often do amazing stuff in books tv & movies, sidekicks like Robin & even Arthur have successfully climbed walls as sidekicks.

It's not supposed to be an example of protagonism... it was addressing the statement that the GM/DM decides everything that happens. that said could you provide an example of protagonism?

With that example though 5e* does a particularly bad job of empowering the GM to feel like they can make things up while players have nothing to latch onto for a common frame of reference in what is plausible. in 3.x you had +2/-2 & the bonus types so both players & gm had an area where they could find common ground to negotiate how that back & forth could work & what benefits might go from doing it or doing it differently.

Also in prior editions there was a lot less box text & random tables to build things for the gm than todays HC campaign length modules because you were usually expected to work them into your own campaign & refluff as needed to fit. Sure you might see x module is meant to be run after Y module, but even then there was more gm empowerment.

I am truly lost if this is supposed to be addressing what I posted since I wasn't specifically speaking to empowering GM's, HC's or text boxes...

All of that results in the GM being left with a dearth of tools & resources to build the skills needed to handle the kind of activity you describe. Lets say bob succeeds in climbing over the wall.... so what? he escaped... and?... And the GM needs to do something on the fly for bob & maybe everyone else to do or even worse it was written with two outcomes of climb the wall or fight the guards & now bob left his buds behind to fight the guards without him if any of them fail to climb over too. If Bob wants to stand on top of the wall & shoot the guards he has an idea how that can work in 3.x & earlier the GM has experience+advice making up how it could help... in 5e bob has no idea & the GM has "hmm... it doesn't list any bonus for that"

* and maybe 4e, I mostly skipped it so won't go there & shall pretend it never happened in this post.

Huh? You seem to be making alot of assumptions about what I posted by taking it out of the context of what it was addressing. If you want to discuss something besides what I was addressing I'm all for it, just post it as a statement or question... but taking an example out of context and using it to prove things it was never intended to address really doesn't show anything.

 

[pemerton]

If the player has taken Indiana Jones as a character, places to explore that they don't know about are necessary components of their dramatic needs, no?

If someone asked me what Indiana Jones dramatic needs are, these would include:

* To repair his relationship with Marion;

* To prove himself as an archaeologist by outwitting his rivals in his quests for treasure;

* (At least in the last movie) to prove himself to his father as an appropriate heir to the family tradition.​

This brings with it a number of components of the fiction: Marion; a father; treasures to be recovered; rivals to be outwitted.

There's a bazillion dramatic needs I, the player, could set my character up for that would be enjoyable for me. If it is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, why not choose the ones that will be less work for the GM? Do I, the player, have to be willfully difficult for it to be protagonism?

What are you even talking about? Being willfully difficult? This is only a concept if the game is about what the GM says it's about, and you the player have to adapt to it.

I 100% agree with Ovinomancer here: the idea that choosing a dramatic need for a PC could be difficult - moreover wilfully so - is strange to me. The last time I GMed a RPG session in which I, as GM, already had situation and broad parameters of resolution sketched out as a one-session run through Castle Amber (we did PC generation and then a modest number of rooms). But precisely because the parameters were already established I didn't bother asking the players to decide on dramatic needs for their PCs!

But in other games, where I generally do have some interest in dramatic need, I don't establish the situation or any broad parameters of resolution until after the players have said what their dramatic needs are.

I think Imaro's post gives a clear outline of what seems to me a fairly typical way of using GM notes:

My prep notes usually involve the following (Note this is for D&D play)...

1. General facts about people places and things the players may or may not encounter.
2. Suggestions for what the result may be for certain decisions or actions the players/PC's may or may not make during gameplay.
3. Includes maps for geography and/or structures I expect the players/PC's to encounter and interact with.
4. Contains stats for monsters & NPC's I expect the players/PC's to encounter and/or initiate combat with.
5. Generic stats based around level for improvising unexpected combat encounters.
6. Various tables for random generation of things such as neighborhoods in a city, weather during travel, random encounters, etc. Depending on what direction I expect the game session to go in.
7. Names for people & places for use on the fly.

I tend to run a game that is a mix between GM driven and player driven. If there is something the players wish to explore, attain or some aspect of their character they wish to delve into then that is what will drive the session. However if the players just want to explore and adventure amongst my creations they can also do that within the agreed upon paradigms of the campaign.

We can see here that the role of notes (beyond serving as memory aids for mechanics - 4, 5) is to support framing (1, 2 3, 6) and to help determine consequences of action declarations (maybe 1, definitely 2, and also 3 and perhaps 6).

In protgaonistic play the notes that the GM makes at 1, 2 and 3 would all be done after learning of the dramatic needs established for the players.

If you assume that your PCs are proactive competent & dramatic individuals living a life or engaging in an exploration of something* with those elements it's easy even. It helps if your players also view their characters that way as they are more likely to charge in dramatically when your are describing some dramatic person place thing or event even though Ackbar is screaming about traps in the background. IME you can encourage them to engage in the dramatic rather than tomb of horrors style poke every square first by rewarding it with meaningful results.

I am big fan of non-turtling play, for much the same reason that I prefer backgammon to chess as a boardgame and five hundred to bridge as a card game. But this really doesn't have much connection to the idea of protagonistic RPGing. And it doesn't really shed light on the role of GM notes.