What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

The daylight I see here is that the GM, in many games, is not required to honor the PC cues, but is instead allowed to do whatever they want. I'll be the first to agree that this is something I'd find deeply unrewarding, but it's also what most people unfamiliar with games that center protagonism immediately think of when considering 2a play. That view is colored by the GM's role in 1a/b play as the sole author of the fiction (outside of action declarations), that is then drug through into the idea that the GM reacts to the PC's action, but remains the sole author of the fiction. It's literally the point of view that is the source of many of the arguments against Story Now style techniques. So, when I was accounting for the play, I left that as uncertain because it's entirely up to the GM without constraint by system or mechanics (except those constraints accepted by the GM in the moment of choosing which mechanics to use), which is how the vast majority of players with primary experience in D&D or GM centered games imagine improv games must work.

OK, I can see that. What you're describing here reminds of the sort of GM-as-tale-spinner that Lewis Pulsipher was critical of way back in the late 70s/early 80s White Dwarfs. Part of his criticism was that it renders the players passive recipients of the tale the GM is spinning.

Whereas the sort of approach I have in mind rests on the players being active and interactive.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks, that's clearer, and it makes clear that I'm running games in a very different way.

Based on your posts upthread, and the rest of this post I'm quoting, I very much get that impression.

<snip initial aspects of setup>

The first piece of my prep is looking up how good the available shielded spacesuits are, and thus how much time will be available. The answer looks like "This is manageable, but it's going to have to be planned right and done smartly." That's the biggest constraint on PC actions.

That would be an example of what I tried to get at upthread referring to your notes as establishing the "solution space". Not to say that they dictate the solution, but they establish very meaningful parameters around what would count as a viable solution.

I'm getting the impression pure protagonistic play (literally everything comes form the player's stated goals) is something I've only rarely experienced and did not enjoy. If everything in the setting exists only to serve a particular plotline, the world will feel flat and empty. A setting that's only answers to direct, plot-related questions isn't an engaging setting.

Again, from your posts in this thread I did not get the impression that you are running a protagonistic sort of game, so what you say here does not come as a surprise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm only sort-of following this, but I'm getting the impression pure protagonistic play (literally everything comes form the player's stated goals) is something I've only rarely experienced and did not enjoy. If everything in the setting exists only to serve a particular plotline, the world will feel flat and empty. A setting that's only answers to direct, plot-related questions isn't an engaging setting.

Of course, the other extreme, where the setting exists without player input even after the game happens (ie what the pc's do has no influence) is a game with no stakes, because you can't lose if you can't win.

So the goal, obviously, is to find a balance between the pc's being the focus of the narrative and the world feeling real. It's really that simple.

May I ask where you experienced this, and what system is was in?

I mean, I've run a game or two of Blades in the Dark, which is strongly protagonistically centered, and the world was absolutely not flat or empty, but dangerous, haunted, and deadly. This is why I'm asking, because system very much matters when it comes to this kind of play, and some systems do a very good job of providing the toolset needed to have a vibrant world.

And, to push back, the world isn't entirely about the characters, but the game is. This may seem a narrow distinction, but only if you're used to equating the two. In a protagonist centered game, the world shows up all the time in ways the PC doesn't want, because the game is only about their dramatic need, it's not all supporting it. Dramatic needs are only dramatic if there is opposition to them, and protaganism should have opposition in spades.

 

[TwoSix]

It is just a different kind of game that is not very D&Dish, but can nevertheless be a lot of fun (though in my own experience, I prefer such games to be one-offs or very limited run games and prefer tradition D&D style games of a long-running campaign). But I see the experiences of them as scratching different itches for me.

Yea, I love them both, but I definitely prefer protagonistic games as a palate cleanser, rather than the main course. Although I think that's because my main group is pretty large (8 people); I've noticed that smaller groups (4-5 people) feel as though they facilitate protagonistic play better.

 

[jmartkdr2]

May I ask where you experienced this, and what system is was in?

I mean, I've run a game or two of Blades in the Dark, which is strongly protagonistically centered, and the world was absolutely not flat or empty, but dangerous, haunted, and deadly. This is why I'm asking, because system very much matters when it comes to this kind of play, and some systems do a very good job of providing the toolset needed to have a vibrant world.

And, to push back, the world isn't entirely about the characters, but the game is. This may seem a narrow distinction, but only if you're used to equating the two. In a protagonist centered game, the world shows up all the time in ways the PC doesn't want, because the game is only about their dramatic need, it's not all supporting it. Dramatic needs are only dramatic if there is opposition to them, and protaganism should have opposition in spades.

Masks: A New Generation, although running it by the book this shouldn't be an issue this was a convention game so explaining the setting for more than a sentence or two would be too long. And I've had the issue crop up in games like DnD and Werewolf: the Apocalypse a couple times.

As to your second point: that's broadly true, but sometimes things need to happen because it makes sense for the setting even if it doesn't have anything to do with the characters' motivations. Many episodes will be about people other than the main cast in most long running shows, for example, and the shows/games that do focus purely on character motivations often feel overly dramatic or narrowly focused. If it isn't handled with finesse - that is:, if you don't balance the needs of verisimilitude with the desire to keep the characters in focus.

Assuming, of course, your desired balance is anywhere near pc-centric.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Masks: A New Generation, although running it by the book this shouldn't be an issue this was a convention game so explaining the setting for more than a sentence or two would be too long. And I've had the issue crop up in games like DnD and Werewolf: the Apocalypse a couple times.

The issue being a Con game? Those aren't usually great introductions to a game, for the reason you note. Masks isn't my cup of tea, either, nor is it representative of what protagonist play is in general. It's absolutely a protagonism game, no doubt, but not all of them have the same focuses as Masks. Look at Dungeon World or Ironsworn, these have the largely the same trope set as D&D, but center on protagonism.

As to your second point: that's broadly true, but sometimes things need to happen because it makes sense for the setting even if it doesn't have anything to do with the characters' motivations. Many episodes will be about people other than the main cast in most long running shows, for example, and the shows/games that do focus purely on character motivations often feel overly dramatic or narrowly focused. If it isn't handled with finesse - that is:, if you don't balance the needs of verisimilitude with the desire to keep the characters in focus.

I'm not sure about the "many" part, but TV isn't an RPG, and the structures of play are very different. I mean, how many sessions do you have where the PCs aren't involved? This seems like a misdirection to me. You don't have to like protagonist play -- I'm certainly not going to insist that you do -- but I'm not sure this criticism actually lands.

 

[pemerton]

Then why in hell would anyone ever GM such a game? Seriously.

@Ovinomancer has answered for his part; I can only answer for mine.

Finding out what happens in RPGing is fun for me. There is the action and colour; in more dramatic games, there is that too; sometimes there is comedy; there is mystery and revelation.

There is an obvious resemblance between these pleasurable parts of the activity, and watching a film or (less so, I think) reading a book. Compared to a film it is slower-paced and (related but not identical) less well edited. But compared to watching a film it is creative. And compared to writing a story on one's own it has all the fun and surprise and sociality of doing something with one's friends.

The preceding few sentences aren't any sort of attempt to explain everything about what is fun for me in RPGing, but try to point to some of it.

(When I play rather than GM the creative aspect is a bit less evident, but the intimate inhabitation of my character, and the emotional experiences that flow from that, are present in the way that they are not when GMing.)

you can't present any sort of mystery for solving or later reveal, you can't present the players a living setting that has things happen - both now and in the past - independent of the PCs and-or their actions meaning said PCs and their players are largely operating in a vacuum beyond the here-and-now, and if by "naturalistic extrapolation" you mean "if the PCs do x, then y happens; if they do not, z happens" then their actions (or lack of) have no future consequences. What's the point?

Someone has to put the mystery or secret in place, be it the GM or a player, for there to be a mystery to solve; and whoever that person is must by default know the solution or what the secret is. Ditto puzzles, riddles, or anything else where there's a clear but not-immediately-obvious answer: someone's got to put it there, and that someone already knows the answer.

These claims are not true. What I mean by that is that they are claims about what is possible when adopting a certain approach to RPGing, and I know from my own experience of RPGing using that approach that the things you say can't be done, can be done; and that the things you say are necessary, are not.

Presenting mysteries, secrets, puzzles
The way that I do this, when I GM, is to introduce a situation - an event, a NPC, an object, etc - which does not yet have an explanation (in the fiction) known to anyone at the table. (This is just what @Ovinomancer said upthread.)

For instance, in a reasonably recent session of my Classic Traveller game the PCs found an ancient alien pyramid complex with a pendulum apparatus in it. What is the pendulum for?, they wondered. Good question!

In the Burning Wheel game I GM, the players learned that the sorcerer Jabal - the nemesis of at least one PC, the employer of two others - was going to marry the Gynarch of Hardby, heself a powerfl mage. What is the reason for this wedding? Good question!

Presenting a living setting that has things happen independent of the PCs or their actions
The wedding above would be an example of this. Another example would be our Classic Traveller game, where the PCs encounter various vessels that are travelling for reasons that are not caused by the PCs: eg an Imperial armada attacking the world the PCs were on.

It's true that the GM is not doing much imagining of events in the fiction that are not narrated, in some fashion, at the table but that sort of imagining is not presenting a living setting.

Presenting naturalistic consequences
In my Burning Wheel game, the players failed some sort of check as their PCs were fleeing a tower carrying the blood and head of a decapitated sorcerer. I narrated an encounter with some guards. The PCs failed to persuade the guards that they were just innocently out for a night-time stroll. The guards took them into custody.

That sequence of events is completely naturalistic. And is established via the narration of consequences of failed checks: had the players' checks succeeded, they would have naturalistically escaped observation (first check succeeds), or duped the guards (second check succeeds) and then events would have headed into a different direction instead of the imprisonment that the PCs suffered.

In my Classic Traveller game, the a PC used psionic power in front of a NPC who had the conventional Imperial hostility to psionics. The reaction roll indicated that she was hostile; then a player succeeded on a check made to see if his PC was able to calm her down for the moment, and so she was calmed. Then the psionic PC ended up being placed in charge of the overall situation (as Imperial Overseer), which the NPC reluctantly accepted (I can't remember if there was a check made for this or not). Then when that same PC ended up temporarily incapacitated due to an attack by an alien creature, the hostile NPC (being a noble of the same rank as the PC) asserted her authority over the situation (this was a GM decision to establish a complication that followed from the incapacitation).

That sequence of events is also completely naturalistic.

The GM approach of first make a soft move that signals a risk, threat or danger and then make a hard move that follows through with some irrevocable consequence is formalised in PbtA games but is easy to use even without that formalisation. The PCs are out at night doing unlawful things: on the first failure signal the risk (they meet guards) then on the second failure follow through (they are taken into custody). A PC uses psionics in circumstances where this might cause ire, and the reaction roll indicates as much: that's the threat. A series of events ameliorate the threat for the moment (the NPC is calmed down; the PC is put into a position of authority over her). But then when the PC (and thus his player) comes unstuck, I as GM follow through: the hostile NPC takes charge of the situation.

The upshot (as I've posted in another recent thread) was an attempt by some PCs to break into the NPC's base, which failed; and a consequent trial, which was brought to an end by the PC blowing everyone and everything up, and the PCs then abandoning their position.

The bottom line
Presenting mysteries, presenting a living world, and establishing consequences do not depend upon treating things written in the GM's notes prior to play, and not yet revealed in play, as constraints on framing and on action resolution. I've just posted a few hundred words of examples that prove the point.

 

[Maxperson]

@Ovinomancer has answered for his part; I can only answer for mine.

Finding out what happens in RPGing is fun for me. There is the action and colour; in more dramatic games, there is that too; sometimes there is comedy; there is mystery and revelation.

There is an obvious resemblance between these pleasurable parts of the activity, and watching a film or (less so, I think) reading a book. Compared to a film it is slower-paced and (related but not identical) less well edited. But compared to watching a film it is creative. And compared to writing a story on one's own it has all the fun and surprise and sociality of doing something with one's friends.

The preceding few sentences aren't any sort of attempt to explain everything about what is fun for me in RPGing, but try to point to some of it.

(When I play rather than GM the creative aspect is a bit less evident, but the intimate inhabitation of my character, and the emotional experiences that flow from that, are present in the way that they are not when GMing.)



These claims are not true. What I mean by that is that they are claims about what is possible when adopting a certain approach to RPGing, and I know from my own experience of RPGing using that approach that the things you say can't be done, can be done; and that the things you say are necessary, are not.

Presenting mysteries, secrets, puzzles
The way that I do this, when I GM, is to introduce a situation - an event, a NPC, an object, etc - which does not yet have an explanation (in the fiction) known to anyone at the table. (This is just what @Ovinomancer said upthread.)

For instance, in a reasonably recent session of my Classic Traveller game the PCs found an ancient alien pyramid complex with a pendulum apparatus in it. What is the pendulum for?, they wondered. Good question!

In the Burning Wheel game I GM, the players learned that the sorcerer Jabal - the nemesis of at least one PC, the employer of two others - was going to marry the Gynarch of Hardby, heself a powerfl mage. What is the reason for this wedding? Good question!

The problem with those is that since mysteries, secrets and puzzles have set answers, what you are describing do not qualify. They are unknowns which you will discovery through game play, but they are not mysteries, secrets or puzzles. The answers to the above questions could be any of thousands(or more) of things.

Presenting a living setting that has things happen independent of the PCs or their actions
The wedding above would be an example of this. Another example would be our Classic Traveller game, where the PCs encounter various vessels that are travelling for reasons that are not caused by the PCs: eg an Imperial armada attacking the world the PCs were on.

It's true that the GM is not doing much imagining of events in the fiction that are not narrated, in some fashion, at the table but that sort of imagining is not presenting a living setting.

It takes more than things happening independent of the PCs to be a living world. In a living world politics, events and such are linked together in a very tight knit way. The world works like a complex gear system.

Would that Armada have attacked that same world at the same time had the PCs in mid flight there decided to go to a different world? If the attack did happen would you know what the repercussions and results of the attack would be? If the answer is yes to both of those, it sounds like it could be a living world to me. If either one is no, then it's not a living world.

Presenting naturalistic consequences
In my Burning Wheel game, the players failed some sort of check as their PCs were fleeing a tower carrying the blood and head of a decapitated sorcerer. I narrated an encounter with some guards. The PCs failed to persuade the guards that they were just innocently out for a night-time stroll. The guards took them into custody.

That sequence of events is completely naturalistic. And is established via the narration of consequences of failed checks: had the players' checks succeeded, they would have naturalistically escaped observation (first check succeeds), or duped the guards (second check succeeds) and then events would have headed into a different direction instead of the imprisonment that the PCs suffered.

In my Classic Traveller game, the a PC used psionic power in front of a NPC who had the conventional Imperial hostility to psionics. The reaction roll indicated that she was hostile; then a player succeeded on a check made to see if his PC was able to calm her down for the moment, and so she was calmed. Then the psionic PC ended up being placed in charge of the overall situation (as Imperial Overseer), which the NPC reluctantly accepted (I can't remember if there was a check made for this or not). Then when that same PC ended up temporarily incapacitated due to an attack by an alien creature, the hostile NPC (being a noble of the same rank as the PC) asserted her authority over the situation (this was a GM decision to establish a complication that followed from the incapacitation).

That sequence of events is also completely naturalistic.

That seems like naturalistic consequences to me.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with those is that since mysteries, secrets and puzzles have set answers, what you are describing do not qualify.

My mystery has answers. I just don't know them yet! (Well, in fact, in the case of the pendulum an answer emerged in play. The reasons for the wedding, though, are still a bit obscure to me.)

And it's certainly not true that every mystery, secret or puzzle has a known answer. The world we live in is full of unsolved mysteries and unrevealed secrets.

It takes more than things happening independent of the PCs to be a living world. In a living world politics, events and such are linked together in a very tight knit way. The world works like a complex gear system.

Just to be clear: you're now telling me that my world is not a living one.

Please review my actual play posts - they're easy to find - and then tell me where the absence of living-ness of the world presents itself.

Perhaps you'll also make some actual play posts of your own so I can see how your living world flows out of your pre-authored notes onto the gaming table.

Would that Armada have attacked that same world at the same time had the PCs in mid flight there decided to go to a different world? If the attack did happen would you know what the repercussions and results of the attack would be? If the answer is yes to both of those, it sounds like it could be a living world to me. If either one is no, then it's not a living world.

I don't even understand what this question has to do with anything. Are you asking do I write fan fiction about the setting of my RPGs? Then the answer is no.

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs have visited 9 worlds (Ardour-3, Lyto-7, Byron, Enlil, Olyx, Ashar, Ruskin, Novus and Zinion). Their backstories have directly implicated two more (Hallucida, Shelley). A couple of sessions played with my daughters but set in the same universe saw some play on 3 further worlds (Hobson, Roto and Kuros). My starmaps to date have 34 worlds indicated on them (ie those 14 and 20 others). Across those worlds are many millions of people; Scout and Navy Bases; at least one branch of the Psionics Institute; all sorts of commercial starships carrying on their trade; etc. Beyond my starmaps, by implication, lie the further worlds of the Imperium (no doubt many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them).

I can and sometimes do imagine all sorts of things taking place on those many many worlds. I'm sure my players do sometimes also. But why would I write fiction about that? What is it's purpose? How does it make a difference to the narration that takes place at the table?

As I said in the post you responded to, in our most recent session the PCs abandoned their position on Zinion unexpectedly, the upshot of blowing nearly everyone else up. No doubt had they stayed on Zinion I would have narrated more stuff happening on that world. That would have been part of play. But now that the PCs are not there, I am not going to write private fan fiction about what is happening on Zinion. Why would I waste my time doing that?

The NPCs who also departed Zinion around the time the PCs did may no doubt cross their paths soon. There are constraints on how easily that can happen, which follow from the (known) capacities of their vessels' jump drives and the time it takes to jump, refuel, etc. So I would take that into account in future narration. But if and when those future encounters occur, I certainly won't be worrying about whether the NPCs were playing chess, bridge or yahtzee to while away their time in jump space - at least, not unless gaming is made salient by the actual course of actual play.

 

[Maxperson]

My mystery has answers. I just don't know them yet! (Well, in fact, in the case of the pendulum an answer emerged in play. The reasons for the wedding, though, are still a bit obscure to me.)

And it's certainly not true that every mystery, secret or puzzle has a known answer. The world we live in is full of unsolved mysteries and unrevealed secrets.

I didn't say it has a known answer. I said it has a specific answer, which is true of unsolved mysteries of the world we live in. Your unknowns do not have specific answers. They can be answered by a myriad of things that come up during your game play and fit the bill.

Just to be clear: you're now telling me that my world is not a living one.

Please review my actual play posts - they're easy to find - and then tell me where the absence of living-ness of the world presents itself.

They are not as I understand a living world. That doesn't mean I think they are bad worlds. Fantastic things are different. Diamonds and Emeralds are two very wondrous gems, but one is not the other.

Perhaps you'll also make some actual play posts of your own so I can see how your living world flows out of your pre-authored notes onto the gaming table.

I don't run a fully living world, either. I don't have the time to prepare that much in advance of the game.

I don't even understand what this question has to do with anything. Are you asking do I write fan fiction about the setting of my RPGs? Then the answer is no.

I'm asking if your world is a living one and you had those events planned and that they would have happened anyway, even if the PCs were not there and never went there. If the answer is no, the world is not a living one where such events happen. And I know from your posts that the answer is no. You don't play that style of game.

I'm not knocking your playstyle. It seems like a good one, even if it's not my cup of tea(actually, I hate tea. Let's go with hot chocolate). It just doesn't produce the same style of games as ones where lots of prep happens.

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs have visited 9 worlds (Ardour-3, Lyto-7, Byron, Enlil, Olyx, Ashar, Ruskin, Novus and Zinion). Their backstories have directly implicated two more (Hallucida, Shelley). A couple of sessions played with my daughters but set in the same universe saw some play on 3 further worlds (Hobson, Roto and Kuros). My starmaps to date have 34 worlds indicated on them (ie those 14 and 20 others). Across those worlds are many millions of people; Scout and Navy Bases; at least one branch of the Psionics Institute; all sorts of commercial starships carrying on their trade; etc. Beyond my starmaps, by implication, lie the further worlds of the Imperium (no doubt many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them).

I can and sometimes do imagine all sorts of things taking place on those many many worlds. I'm sure my players do sometimes also. But why would I write fiction about that? What is it's purpose? How does it make a difference to the narration that takes place at the table?

The purpose is so that you know what is happening in the galaxy. Such an attack would have serious implications across many worlds. Trade would suffer in some areas, and perhaps increase in others(arms). News would spread. Mercenaries would likely flock that way, which the PCs could encounter. And on and on and on. Just because the PCs are not there, doesn't mean that the pre-planned fiction you wrote won't have a significant impact on the narration of their story. But again, pre-planning and this sort of impact is a different style of play. It does have a purpose, though. A very significant one.