What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

Things on maps count, to me, as previously locked in: the map shows merely the results of history. Those walls that don't have any secret doors in them were (in the fiction) built long before the PCs started adventuring and as nobody's cut any secret doors through them since, that's what the map shows. Any hills that were once just north of where that swamp now lies were (in the fiction) eroded ages before any of the PCs' ancestors settled this region, and that's what the map shows. And so on.

These dictate the scope of possible future events. That is one function of GM notes, as I stated in the OP.

To pick two very different RPGs, it establishes a clear contrast between the role of GM's notes in Moldvay Basic and Burning Wheel.

 

[innerdude]

From what I've seen described here, even most of the player facing games don't go that far.

I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that the DM coming up with stuff on the fly = "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes."

Oh believe me, it felt very . . . odd, off-putting, cognitively dissonant, maybe . . . when I thought about it the first time too.

What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my agenda was. I didn't want the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't want play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me.

But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.

And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc.

But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.

I do think that "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is a bit of a . . . needlessly negative descriptor for the process, shall we say. But even if I don't necessarily like how the term is couched, it's pretty accurate nonetheless.

But I think it's very much tuned to the newer zeitgeist of RPG play, which is to "GM from abundance, rather than scarcity." Like, there's this almost perverse need from the "Philosophy of the Old School" to hide information from the players, or only dole out information in a parsimonious fashion.

Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the how to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat to see what happens next?

And I'm not saying that both of those can't be fun---but I think there's a strong pushback, largely derived from the indie game segment of the market, against the "GM-as-information-miser" trope.

I also reject the idea that improv = DM's notes. Those don't jive with my experience and how people on both sides of this issue describe how things work in RPGs.

Yeah, this one's weird too. Like, thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.

And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.

But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.

A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.

But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"

In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."

Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."

Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."

Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.

This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.

But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.

The issues most traditional GMs raise with this are 1) that it basically negates GM pacing---the GM can't "draw out" the mystery for too long if the game is forcing them to provide information; and 2) it means the GM can't pre-arrange or sequence the info drop scenes/encounters. For a certain GM style, this probably feels like a punishment to be avoided.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh believe me, it felt very . . . odd, off-putting, cognitively dissonant, maybe . . . when I thought about it the first time too.

What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my agenda was. I didn't want the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't want play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me.

But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.

And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc.

But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.

I do think that "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is a bit of a . . . needlessly negative descriptor for the process, shall we say. But even if I don't necessarily like how the term is couched, it's pretty accurate nonetheless.

But I think it's very much tuned to the newer zeitgeist of RPG play, which is to "GM from abundance, rather than scarcity." Like, there's this almost perverse need from the "Philosophy of the Old School" to hide information from the players, or only dole out information in a parsimonious fashion.

Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the how to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat to see what happens next?

And I'm not saying that both of those can't be fun---but I think there's a strong pushback, largely derived from the indie game segment of the market, against the "GM-as-information-miser" trope.




Yeah, this one's weird too. Like, thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.

And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.

But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.

A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.

But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"

In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."

Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."

Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."

Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.

This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.

But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.

The issues most traditional GMs raise with this are 1) that it basically negates GM pacing---the GM can't "draw out" the mystery for too long if the game is forcing them to provide information; and 2) it means the GM can't pre-arrange or sequence the info drop scenes/encounters. For a certain GM style, this probably feels like a punishment to be avoided.

Looking at this, the major difference is how the DM's notes are brought into existence and sussed out.

In your example, instead of the PCs rolling an investigation check and finding out 2 pieces of important information that the DM comes up with, the players roll a different check that shows that they get 2 pieces of information that the DM comes up with. The rules on how they get there may be different, but the flow and outcome is the same. Players want to know something, make a roll, get 2 pieces of information from the DM.

That leads me to believe that either both methods are "Playing to discover what is in the DM's notes." or neither are. And my 38 years of experience tell me that neither are.

 

[Umbran]

I was responding to a Rubicon long since crossed.

I think the movies are relevant because, as a group, the Avengers make a decent stand-in for a party of adventurers. It is a popular example we can use for analogy to gaming.

Continuing on about a technical definition of "protagonist" that isn't relevant to the gaming context was a choice. I'm not sure you can toss that on others and make it stick.

 

[innerdude]

Looking at this, the major difference is how the DM's notes are brought into existence and sussed out.

In your example, instead of the PCs rolling an investigation check and finding out 2 pieces of important information that the DM comes up with, the players roll a different check that shows that they get 2 pieces of information that the DM comes up with. The rules on how they get there may be different, but the flow and outcome is the same. Players want to know something, make a roll, get 2 pieces of information from the DM.

That leads me to believe that either both methods are "Playing to discover what is in the DM's notes." or neither are. And my 38 years of experience tell me that neither are.

Only if you believe that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM. In Ironsworn, this would never be the baseline assumption.

The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.

Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.

Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.

In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."

I know from where you sit, the end result looks exactly the same. I'm here to tell you that even in the (rare) cases where the outputs are essentially the same, the process of play, the resulting mind space I inhabit as a GM, and the ways in which the group approach the fiction, are very, very different.

Most of the time I'm not even considering "what should happen next" or trying to set up the next set piece, or thinking about, "Hmmm, what would be a cool challenge to throw out here?" The play flows from an organic give-and-take between the shared fictional space and the character interactions and the "moves" they generate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's better than every Savage Worlds campaign I've ever run. I personally had tremendous enjoyment running a campaign in a homebrew fantasy setting that I prefabricated significant portions of the world, its history, and its inhabitants.

But to say that the process is the same---what I'm doing and the internal thought mechanisms in operation when running Ironsworn vs. Savage Worlds---is factually incorrect. They're not remotely the same.

*Edit---in retrospect, I don't know if I properly emphasized---in Ironsworn, the rules constrain the type, value, and relevance of the information gathered in ways that are simply not present in D&D. Even if the GM is forced to create something "off the cuff" (again, not even the baseline assumption for Ironsworn), the nature of the "notes" must fall in line with the rule as presented, or (s)he is just as guilty of breaking the rules as a player would be for adding an extra, unwarranted +1 to every combat roll.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if you believe that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM. In Ironsworn, this would never be the baseline assumption.

The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.

Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.

Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.

In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."

I know from where you sit, the end result looks exactly the same. I'm here to tell you that even in the (rare) cases where the outputs are essentially the same, the process of play, the resulting mind space I inhabit as a GM, and the ways in which the group approach the fiction, are very, very different.

Most of the time I'm not even considering "what should happen next" or trying to set up the next set piece, or thinking about, "Hmmm, what would be a cool challenge to throw out here?" The play flows from an organic give-and-take between the shared fictional space and the character interactions and the "moves" they generate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's better than every Savage Worlds campaign I've ever run. I personally had tremendous enjoyment running a campaign in a homebrew fantasy setting that I prefabricated significant portions of the world, its history, and its inhabitants.

But to say that the process is the same---what I'm doing and the internal thought mechanisms in operation when running Ironsworn vs. Savage Worlds---is factually incorrect. They're not remotely the same.

I'm glad you enjoy those kinds of games, but they just don't sound fun to me at all. I like to inhabit my character and interact with the world as a separate thing from me. To have to sit around collaborating with the rest of the group on what information we find out would ruin the game for me. It would take me out of my character and into a collaboration session, then I guess back in for a bit until we want to know something else. No thanks.

 

[Emerikol]

Oh believe me, it felt very . . . odd, off-putting, cognitively dissonant, maybe . . . when I thought about it the first time too.

What finally sunk in for me is that I realized that it didn't matter what my agenda was. I didn't want the players to have to expend time, resources, action declarations going around trying to figure out just how, exactly, they could pull off "stealing a boat," to use your earlier example. I didn't want play to turn into a tug-of-war with the players trying to drag information out of me.

I think there are many DMs who have an agenda but I think a true sandbox DM does not have an agenda. He has the truth yes but that truth is vast and varied and what the players do with it is up to them. So the DM is not really trying to get the players to do anything. He is providing information about what is true in the world. The players decide what to do from that. Now it is absolutely true that if the players up and decide to steal and ship and sail it to a non-existent island they won't succeed at finding an island. They could have just as easily hired on as caravan guards or looked for rumors in the local tavern. Lots of things are going on in the world.

But ultimately, even if I completely created the scene framing off-the-cuff, there was still just a metric ton of information that the players didn't have access to---i.e., "notes," whether physically written down in my OneNote campaign folder, or just floating around in my head.

And it's not that the players suddenly decide, "Ah! I must now perform every action necessary to get the GM to divulge those notes!" At the table it feels much more organic, right? The players perform Gather Info checks, they have their characters watch the docks to see the guard rotation, they scry on the harbor master, they sneak into the merchant's headquarters to look at shipping manifests, etc.

But really all of that is ultimately just a means to the end---to get all that info out of my GM notes and into their hands.

It is part of what I would call skilled play. Good players do all of that. Good players also equip resources to accomplish the mission. So yes there is a payoff to doing things well. You are far more likely to succeed and the satisfaction of a great plan coming together is very fun. At least for me.

I do think that "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" is a bit of a . . . needlessly negative descriptor for the process, shall we say. But even if I don't necessarily like how the term is couched, it's pretty accurate nonetheless.

I think it is a fine descriptor but it is not the primary purpose of the campaign. Players will set goals and advance those goals by doing actions in the campaign. Obviously knowledge is power so they will try to gather the knowledge they need to overcome whatever obstacles block their path. For example, a player may want revenge against the man who murdered his father and usurped the throne forcing his mother into a marriage. That is a goal that will not be accomplished on day one of a campaign. But they player will build his strength and one day he will return. This is fun for a lot of people.

But I think it's very much tuned to the newer zeitgeist of RPG play, which is to "GM from abundance, rather than scarcity." Like, there's this almost perverse need from the "Philosophy of the Old School" to hide information from the players, or only dole out information in a parsimonious fashion.

Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the how to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat to see what happens next?

And I'm not saying that both of those can't be fun---but I think there's a strong pushback, largely derived from the indie game segment of the market, against the "GM-as-information-miser" trope.

I am very much in the campaign where the very best campaign was when I didn't know a single monster in the monster manual and everything was mysterious. I didn't know all the magic items. I was truly exploring not only the world but the very creatures within it. That is hard to maintain after many campaigns but that sense of wonder is the very best to me. So yeah absolutely I want to maintain a sense of wonder about the game. It is why I often create my own monsters, spells, and magic items. Wonder is a big part of the game.

Yeah, this one's weird too. Like, thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.

And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.

But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.

A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.

But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"

In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."

Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."

Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."

Usually, the barkeep is detailed as to his life and those who interacts with on a regular basis. That knowledge would inform any answers. Often I have a personality matrix of some sort to guide how he'd interact. There is some improv here. I have not yet written an AI that can predetermine every possible answer to every possible question. I do know though that it rained a lot last week and if the group asks about the weather the barkeep will tell them how the rains have kept business slow or something like that.

Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.

This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.

I am very uncertain that I could assemble any combination of players who play in my campaigns and this turn out well. The world would go to pot quick. It would be a mishmash of discordant ideas and fanciful sidepaths. Note I didn't say that your group would be this way. I don't doubt that some of you have great groups for this style of play. I just don't think many around me are pulling it off that I know about. In fact, I'm not sure I know of anyone even trying.

But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.

The issues most traditional GMs raise with this are 1) that it basically negates GM pacing---the GM can't "draw out" the mystery for too long if the game is forcing them to provide information; and 2) it means the GM can't pre-arrange or sequence the info drop scenes/encounters. For a certain GM style, this probably feels like a punishment to be avoided.

It's less mystery. It's more consistency and verisimilitude. I think you see the GM though controlling the flow of the game far more than I see the GM doing that. Perhaps you are thinking of a GM who basically just runs APs all the time and uses a world like Golarion. Nothing wrong with that style either but it is not my style. I'd find such a style about as much fun as I'd find your style. Meaning with the right people I'd try it once like I would play most any boardgame once. A one off is a small commitment. I don't think though for me I'd want to invest years of my gaming time doing it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Okay. You have the following:

Premise: APs are good training tools for GMs.
Assumption 1: This is because APs have many flaws and flat scenes.
Assumption 2: These flaws are usually not visible until play is occurring.
Conclusion: Ergo, APs are good training tools because they force the GM to react to poor design on the fly.

Why are every single pieces negative? I specifically used both. APs can be reminders of what works in a game, just as easily coming across a situation that needs to be fixed during play. That is the point. An AP is not written by the GM, so it might offer a wider variety of situations/circumstances/writing styles/etc. These can be teaching tools, specifically if they happen in game.

I find this to be a flawed argument. Particularly, A2 is doesn't at all apply to me, as I fix things in prep and so don't often encounter the need to correct for bad AP design on the fly.

I would humbly say this again proves my point. You fix things in prep. And presumably, you identify everything.

I specifically said that earlier on. If you can't accept the fact that:

• GMs can miss things or
• run things as is/not have time to identify
• and thus have to roll with the AP (both positives and negatives) which create learning periods or tricks they may have not known or forgotten

then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Lanefan]

Like, what's really the "fun"---the figuring out the how to steal a boat from the harbor, or the actual stealing of the boat to see what happens next?

The figuring out how.

Planning a heist through in detail and then pulling it off is far more interesting than just being told by a die roll that we were (or weren't) able to steal something after saying that's what we're going to try. I mean, I-as-player could happily spend a whole session just planning out the heist, scouting, info gathering, and all the rest of it. I mean, if we're gonna steal something big, let's go full-bore Ocean's Eleven on it!

Playing through the heist itself, once all the planning's done, would likely not take long at all at the table unless we really messed it up somehow.

And what happens next can sit there and wait until we're done stealing this boat, dammit!

 

[Lanefan]

I think the movies are relevant because, as a group, the Avengers make a decent stand-in for a party of adventurers. It is a popular example we can use for analogy to gaming.

Slight side trek here: it hadn't even occurred to me that yes, once they get going the Avengers do make a decent stand-in; not for a party of adventurers but for a company (or troupe) of adventurers from which smaller parties - sometimes made up of but one character! - go out and do most of the actual field adventuring. The Guardians of the Galaxy are an example of one of these smaller parties. Wonderfully Gygaxian!

The company only acts as a unit when something really big comes up, a la the final battles in both Infinity War and Endgame.