What is the point of GM's notes?

[Aldarc]

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.

I disagree here, but I doubt that continuing this game of he-said/she-said with you would solve matters any.

 

[pemerton]

Can I ask why this distinction matters?

EDIT: And the first is not literal since, as so many of us have posted in this thread and you seem to be choosing to continuously ignore, it does not accurately describe the playstyle only a single facet of it. Do you "Play to discover what can be generated by the improv skills of your group"? That's literal and describes what you must as part of the fabricated definition of "protagonism", some in this thread are using, do. Why instead do you call your playstyle "Play to find out what happens"? Isn't that literally what we are all doing to some point or another in numerous playstyles??

Why should he when you've yet to prove that the first is literal? None of us contesting this with you "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes." If you say it's literal, then it's literally wrong.

When I say "literal" I mean that word in its literal meaning ie contrasted with figurative or metaphoric. It may be true or false - @Ovinomancer and @Aldarc both appear to accept it as a description of RPGing they've done, and I know it's true of plenty of RPGing that I've done - but that has no bearing on the fact that it is literal.

As to why the distinction between literal accounts and metaphor matter: because in any field of analysis or criticism, metaphor can tend to obscure. If someone says "I play to explore the GM's world" what are they actually doing at the table? They're not literally exploring a world. The participants are saying things to one another, which is talking about various imaginary things. How do they decide what to say? How does what one person says affect what another person says? What is the actual process of play at that table?

There is something about starting out in a world that seems to operate independent of the character. It increases my own sense of verisimilitude when I play. My play agenda is to make my way in a hostile world using my fantasy powers to overcome challenges and prosper.

A living world is designed by the GM and is designed to change. The events plotted out for the future though are very much able to be impacted by the PCs. I usually plot out the moves of the NPCs for a good distance in the future and I revisit every so often to adjust. For most NPCs the PCs don't affect them that much. For some though it's major changes because the PCs have directly impacted their plans. Most people's lives in a medieval type setting don't change that much over time.

<snip>

So if a PC suddenly said they wanted to achieve something in game that would not be possible in that world, yes they are constrained by what I'd call the world's reality. Just like we are constrained by our reality. The difference is that the fantasy world has magic so many dreams are more possible than in ours of course.

I think these two things are not the same though for clarification
1. Mutate the world in a way that someone living in a world that really existed could mutate it given the rulesset as the guiding principles on the physics.

2. Mutate the world from the viewpoint of a creator (author) so that their character fulfills challenges and achieves goals in a way that is pleasing to the player.

The big debate, I think, is that some say #2 is the only sort of thing that gives true protagonism.

I don't think that is the big debate. Which RPGs feature (2) as you describe it? OGL Conan is one. MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic has hints of it. It's not found in Prince Valiant unless an optional rule is used. It's not found in Apocalypse World or Dungeon World unless a small number of the very many player-side moves are chosen.

But consider the following in your post: the world operates independently of the characters; the events plotted out for the future are able to be impacted by the PCs; the PCs are constrained by the world's reality. None of this is literal, because there are no actual causal processes at work that flow from the imagined world to the participants in the game. The world doesn't literally "operate" or "constrain" the outcomes of players' action declarations for their PCs - someone makes decisions about these things. The players action declarations don't literally impact the unfolding of events in the fiction - someone rewrites that fiction having regard to what has happened at the table.

Surely it is possible to describe these things without using metaphor, by talking about who makes what decisions. And as part of that, it should be possible to talk about the role that the GM's notes play.

EDIT: I'm catching up on 8 pages of this thread. I see that @hawkeyefan has also given a good answer along somewhat similar lines to the above. Which is not to say that hawkeyefan is beholden to everything I say! But on this particular point we seem to agree.

 

[pemerton]

I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could not be about their dramatic needs.

Over the past few years I've GMed two AD&D one-offs: one using X2 Castle Amber, one using random dungeon generation from DMG Appendix A.

In both games the players made choices that drove the action in the sense that (i) those actions moved the PCs on the map and hence (ii) determined who/what the PCs encountered, leading to (iii) player decisions about what to do with those encounters. Neither was a game about the dramatic needs of the PCs. The PCs didn't even have dramatic needs! They had races, classes, names, alignments, a little bit of colour, but otherwise these games were just for fun with a bit of skilled play.

I've played AD&D games in which the GM had pre-authored scenarios, and the players had to choose how their PCs responded to villains, threats, strange situations, etc. In some of those games the PCs had dramatic needs, but the game wasn't about those. They were peripheral to the action of the game as perceived and managed by the GM.

In my Classic Traveller game some of what happens is driven by the dramatic needs of the PCs. But some is not. For instance: when the PCs travelled to the world of Ashar in order to get high-tech medical treatment for one of their number, the motivation was really procedural rather than dramatic. When they took a job from a member of the main Ashar government - determined via the system's random patron mechanic - this spoke to dramatic needs only in the very basic sense that the starship owner needs money to pay for fuel and crew salaries. And in contrast: that job required the PCs to use their orbital laboratory to spy on a neighbouring country, which revealed what seemed to be the spearhead of an Imperial invasion of Ashar, probably motivated by the Imperial policy of suppressing psionics. That spoke to various PC dramatic needs. One of the PCs found herself charged, tried and convicted on Ashar, and subject to banishment as her punishment - she crossed over into the same neighbouring country, when she encountered some fugitives (via the random encounter rules) I connected them into the psionics issue, and she was in due course able to hook up with the other PCs. And the fugitives were then able to tell the PCs where to find a branch of the Psionics Institute.

When I play Burning Wheel, everything is driven by PCs' dramatic needs. That's central to that game. This is a point of contrast with Traveller as my group plays it, and even moreso with the AD&D play that I've described.

Nothing in my knowledge of RPGing makes me think that what I'm describing here, including the posibility of signicant stretches of play in which PCs' dramatic needs are not driving the game, is unique to me.

 

[pemerton]

Part of the issue too is that despite the ability for the players to set goals and pursue agendas, they were always necessarily limited by the reach of their locus of control.

<snip>

With only basic, traditional, task-resolution mechanics (like Pathfinder or Savage Worlds, which is what I know best), they either have to do it through direct combat prowess---because that's what 90% of the mechanics are focused on---or the GM has to specifically frame some other way to resolve those challenges that isn't just about the party killing whoever/whatever is in front of them.

And then suddenly we're right back where we started---the GM's notes on how these challenges can be resolved are now the controlling factor as to whether a PC can or can't succeed at their stated goal.

This speaks exactly to some of what I have experienced in RPGing.

 

[TwoSix]

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!

Which is exactly why we need various types of games to suit various play styles. The only game I've ever quit was a game where the other players loved to spend entire sessions just planning and researching their next idea, and it took forever to just actually DO it.

The best part of narrative type games, for me, is the constant improv-like "Yes, and..." approach, where you just keep doing stuff and don't PLAN so much.

 

[pemerton]

Where the dramatic needs can (and IME do) come to the fore is during downtime between adventures, where focus moves from what the party is doing to what individual PCs are doing.

This seems to be an account of play in which PCs are not protagonists. Because it is only in "downtime" that their dramatic needs matter!

This reminds me of many 1950s/60s Superman stories.

Part of the Marvel revolution in superhero comics was to try and bring dramatic needs into the superheroic action rather then having it be peripheral. Chris Claremont perfected this over the course of his run on the X-Men.

 

[Emerikol]

But consider the following in your post: the world operates independently of the characters; the events plotted out for the future are able to be impacted by the PCs; the PCs are constrained by the world's reality. None of this is literal, because there are no actual causal processes at work that flow from the imagined world to the participants in the game. The world doesn't literally "operate" or "constrain" the outcomes of players' action declarations for their PCs - someone makes decisions about these things. The players action declarations don't literally impact the unfolding of events in the fiction - someone rewrites that fiction having regard to what has happened at the table.

The GM or DM, of course is responsible for creating and maintaining world events. No disputing that. A good DM is fair and has a good toolset to help him achieve the effect. The effect being that the players feel like they are in a living breathing world. It's just like when you are reading a book and really get invested in the characters and the world seems like a real place. The difference though in roleplaying games is that you can make the decisions for the characters. You can be the character. That is the appeal I think for people like myself.

I want a human being, mainly because there are no sufficiently advanced computers to do it yet, to manage the world because pure randomness ends up feeling fake as well. Random rolls are a tool and the DM will use them. Typically, I have a variety of methods to determine the course of action resulting from PC intervention. First what is the character of the NPC impacted? Is he a coward? Is he a fool? Is he a genius? From that character I surmise possible courses of action. If I feel several are likely then I assign them weights and roll for it.

Your assertion that events are not really impacted is true only to the degree that nothing is impacted ever. If you've made the leap to invest in the world and live in it as a character then you very much can accept that what you are doing impacts the world. Books aren't real either and don't impact the world in any way but you can still be moved by them. Being a good DM is an art as well as a science. Done well though I think a good roleplaying game can be as moving and satisfying as any book. That is enough for me.

One big problem is there are a LOT of bad practitioners of my playing style. I'd even go so far as to say they aren't even doing my style but they would at least give lip service to the notion. Such people have definitely jaded a lot of people on my approach. For me, done right, my way is a very immersive and rich experience. I will admit though that I choose to DM more than play because I often feel other DMs are not up to the job. I won't say none but the good ones are few. That could be a criticism of my approach but I've overcome that hurdle for myself and I have players who agree.

 

[Emerikol]

Which is exactly why we need various types of games to suit various play styles. The only game I've ever quit was a game where the other players loved to spend entire sessions just planning and researching their next idea, and it took forever to just actually DO it.

The best part of narrative type games, for me, is the constant improv-like "Yes, and..." approach, where you just keep doing stuff and don't PLAN so much.

I find in my games there is a good bit of planning and most of the time that part of the game is fun for everyone. If the group just got their butts kicked and have fallen back to regroup, they will then plan for their next attack with great care. It very much does fall into the skilled play part of player preferences.

Now anything can become too much and on occasion the planning has gotten circular but to be honest that is reality. If your character's life is hanging in the balance, you are going to try to develop a plan.

 

[Emerikol]

Quick Note:
What I am seeing here are several different things that don't necessarily have to go together.

1. Skilled play
2. Detailed World
3. Sandbox Adventure Approach
4. Let the dice fall where they fall. Bad things can happen to PCs.

All are not required to be together. Perhaps together they represent one style. Perhaps I'd need a few more items I haven't fully considered to completely represent my style.

 

[Fenris-77]

If the players have dramtic needs for the characters, and engage those in play, a player focused game will reflect those needs in the way it unfolds. Regardless of specific system, although greatly aided by systems that support the idea (like Burning Wheel). That's really all I'm saying.