What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

Well, it's a bit hard to tell what's going on, in terms of table decision-making, until we know:

• Who narrated the existence of the wall, and why - ie via what process and according to what principles?
• Similarly, who narrated the existence of the guards?
• Similarly, who established that there is an alley for the guards to look down?
• Perhaps most importantly, what has brought it about that the PC is in this place trying to achieve this particular thing?

EDIT: I've seen @Ovinomancer's posts in response to this example. We're not carbon copies but I think nevertheless are in broad agreement. His point about what follows, in the fiction, from getting to the top of the wall (eg hiding as opposed to being discovered by a hitherto-unnoticed NPC the GM has secretly recorded as present) is particularly well-made.

What does any of this have to do with who decided what happened? Scene framing sure but the resolution of action in this example is determined by the roll of the dice... so the DM couldn't have determined everything that happened.

 

[tetrasodium]

But your pst didn't say anything about dramatic needs. That was my point. Your post seemed to be about ways to avoid turtling (both player-side and GM-side ways); but turtling is nothing to do with dramatic needs and rather is a problem particular to some GM-driven play.

it did, I talked about "traps" & ways to make them into dramatic elements. The players need to proactively act in some form of competent/dramatic action with an expectation of plausible actions reaping meaningful results to really crank up the drama they offer & make them more than a speedbump or hunting for the right solution though.

edit: I recommend the video I linked in it

This one is good too

 

[pemerton]

I talked about "traps" & ways to make them into dramatic elements. The players need to proactively act in some form of competent/dramatic action with an expectation of plausible actions reaping meaningful results to really crank up the drama they offer & make them more than a speedbump or hunting for the right solution though.

Sure, I understand that advice. I've run dynamic traps and similar in 4e D&D (eg a flooding room full of coffins to float on; a chain across a river to stop the progress of the PCs' boat; a "gauntlet" of blasters that needs to be traversed to get to where the real action is; etc). It just has nothing to do with the issue of protagonism/dramatic need that @Ovinomancer introduced into the discussion.

 

[pemerton]

What does any of this have to do with who decided what happened?

Because what happened was that the PC ended up on top of a wall with some guards below looking for him but (it seems) assuming that whatever they might have heard was just some noise down an alley. (We don't know why the PC was there or hiding from the guards, which is also part of what happened.)

Until we know those things, and who decided them, we can't really say who decided what happened.

For instance: suppose that the player turned up to the session and the GM said today's mission is for you to break into the Tower of the Elephant. And then narrates a bit of context and backstory (mysterious wizard, fabulous jewels, etc). And then there is a bit of free narration which ends up with the GM telling the player that his/her PC is at the wall that surrounds the Tower of the Elephant. The player describes his/her PC trying to force the gate, but the GM says (perhaps after calling for a check; maybe not) that you can't force the door, but you do make quite a loud noise which is probably audible to anyone in the neighbourhood. And then follows up with you hear the approach of guards, and can see the shadows of their flickering torches as they approach the corner of the wall nearest you!

And so the player declares the action to climb the wall so as to hide from the guards (and perhaps also gain entrance to the Tower). And the GM sets the DC by referring to his/her notes made about the wall around the Tower of the Elephant, and decides whether being on top of the wall exposes the PC to observation by other NPCs by reference to those same notes.

I can't speak for @Ovinomancer, but for me this would count as an example where the GM has decided much of what has happened.

 

[Imaro]

Because what happened was that the PC ended up on top of a wall with some guards below looking for him but (it seems) assuming that whatever they might have heard was just some noise down an alley. (We don't know why the PC was there or hiding from the guards, which is also part of what happened.)

Until we know those things, and who decided them, we can't really say who decided what happened.

But the fact that dice decided failure or success does tell us the DM doesn't decide everything... right?

For instance: suppose that the player turned up to the session and the GM said today's mission is for you to break into the Tower of the Elephant. And then narrates a bit of context and backstory (mysterious wizard, fabulous jewels, etc). And then there is a bit of free narration which ends up with the GM telling the player that his/her PC is at the wall that surrounds the Tower of the Elephant. The player describes his/her PC trying to force the gate, but the GM says (perhaps after calling for a check; maybe not) that you can't force the door, but you do make quite a loud noise which is probably audible to anyone in the neighbourhood. And then follows up with you hear the approach of guards, and can see the shadows of their flickering torches as they approach the corner of the wall nearest you!

And so the player declares the action to climb the wall so as to hide from the guards (and perhaps also gain entrance to the Tower). And the GM sets the DC by referring to his/her notes made about the wall around the Tower of the Elephant, and decides whether being on top of the wall exposes the PC to observation by other NPCs by reference to those same notes.

I can't speak for @Ovinomancer, but for me this would count as an example where the GM has decided much of what has happened.

Again no one is claiming the DM can't decide the lions share (I chalk this up more to individual playstyle in D&D as it's pretty flexible when it comes to this sort of thing... though I would think it's a rare game where DM and player responsibility for scene framing, adventure design, antagonist creation and so on are equal...do you know of one perchance?)... that said, IMO the DM doesn't decide everything, unless he is DM'ing in bad faith.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe I'm not understanding the defintion of protagonism being used in this thread, I'd appreciate if someone could tell me what is meant by it so that I can perhaps understand better??

It seems, and I could be wrong, that there is some sort of criteria outside of having the freedom to declare actions for my character within the fictional confines of the game with all parties applying the rules in good faith that is being used here to define... "true protagonism"?? if so what are we using the word to mean here?

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure, I understand that advice. I've run dynamic traps and similar in 4e D&D (eg a flooding room full of coffins to float on; a chain across a river to stop the progress of the PCs' boat; a "gauntlet" of blasters that needs to be traversed to get to where the real action is; etc). It just has nothing to do with the issue of protagonism/dramatic need that @Ovinomancer introduced into the discussion.

It has quite a bit to do with "the post from 118 from Umbran about how the gm can predict the dramatic needs of exploring" Ovinomancer was saying is not a dramatic need & has no drama. It seems like you are very upset about my point about how it can be a predictable dramatic need and are attempting to actively dismiss it on the grounds of... who knows. With that said, I don't know what point your trying to make so... I'll say "sure ok."

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yes, because apparently my phrasing didn't hit home. To be "willfully difficult" is to willfully make life harder for someone else.

The issue is not that it is difficult for me, the player, to choose a dramatic need. The issue is that the GM is trying to juggle a half dozen players and all their dramatic needs at once, and as a player, my choice can make the GM's job more difficult... or easier.

And then, if it is all the same to me, why not make the GM's job easier - set myself up with dramatic needs that are easy for the GM to meet?

This started with an example where I posit helping a GM make a published adventure into a tool for protagonistic play - by choosing dramatic needs that fit the published work easily. But that's hardly the only example. Consider romance - some GMs are not comfortable with playing through romantic scenes in game, and others are good at and enjoy it. The former kind of GM will have difficulty meeting dramatic needs for romance, the latter will find it easy. Does is cease to be protagonism if, in creating my character, I take the GM's comfort and skills into account?

I, personally, don't think it ceases to be protagonism - it is simply a thoughtful choice by the player to recognize some practical realities of play. The end result is still about the character's dramatic needs, after all. I've just chosen what those needs will be, which is my right, as a player, is it not?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I'm not understanding the defintion of protagonism being used in this thread, I'd appreciate if someone could tell me what is meant by it so that I can perhaps understand better??

It seems, and I could be wrong, that there is some sort of criteria outside of having the freedom to declare actions for my character within the fictional confines of the game with all parties applying the rules in good faith that is being used here to define

Correct. What you describe in your second paragraph is a general property of RPGing.

Whereas, as @Ovinomancer has explained, by player protagonism he is referring to a phenomenon that is a particular property of only some RPGing.

Hence what he is referring to is not what you describe. It is the sort of approach that is quintessentially found in such games as Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, DitV, and most PbtA games. Ovinomancer's own experience of this sort of play is, I believe, primarily with Blades in the Dark.

One feature of those games, relevant to this thread, is that the GM's pre-play notes do not serve the function of establishing the principal parameters for framing or for action resolution.

 

[pemerton]

The issue is that the GM is trying to juggle a half dozen players and all their dramatic needs at once, and as a player, my choice can make the GM's job more difficult... or easier.

And then, if it is all the same to me, why not make the GM's job easier - set myself up with dramatic needs that are easy for the GM to meet?

Games which emphasise the centrality of player-authored dramatic needs for PCs typically have a range of formal and informal techniques and processes for handling this.

Collaboratively establishing the setting is one of those: @hawkeyefan gave a good example in a recent thread, though it may have been the antagonism/opposition thread rather than this one.