What is the point of GM's notes?

[TwoSix]

If your character's life is hanging in the balance, you are going to try to develop a plan.

Obviously you've never played with me.

 

[pemerton]

You can have characters built with drives and motivations in a 'pure sandbox' that will emerge in and effect play and framing and whatever. Let's use the pitfighter example, just to keep things streamlined. In our sandbox game you say to me I want to play a fighter who wants to be the best pit fighter in the realm. One of two things happen, I either have pitfighters written in somewhere and I can suggest that as a where you're from, or I don't and I can say hmm, well, these places all work, whaddya think? There's a third option of course, being this world doesn't have pitfighters, which is appropriate, but how often is that actually the case in a fantasy world? All of this is possible in a Gm notes/pure sandbox setting. The dramatic goal of becoming a renowned pitfighter will naturally emerge in play to the extent you as a player use it inform decisions and roleplay and I as a GM use that input to decide on consequences and frame future action. This is true no matter the setting.

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.

A couple of thoughts:

On your first post, how is the "pure sandbox" you're describing there actually different from PbtA-ish ask questions and build on the answers? The GM is now reworking the sandbox in response to player input. That's not objectionable, of course - this is exactly how I use settings like Greyhawk in my RPGing - but I'm not sure it's pure sandbox.

On your second post, isn't some of this about pacing? I've run games that worked very much as you describe, using Rolemaster as the system. Over time, as the game unfolded, the sandbox bent in the direction of PC dramatic needs. Then I read a bit of stuff on the Forge, and realised that I could get to where I was going without the detours via pure sandbox.

 

[pemerton]

even if they players declare this action, the framing for the "steal the ship" scene is still largely going to be of my devising---unless I wholesale grant the players the ability to do some of the framing themselves.

<snip>

What kind of ship are they trying to steal? Who owns it? What's the owner's relationship to other people in power inside the city? Who's guarding it? How well is it guarded? What's on the ship when they steal it? How easy is it to access the dock? Is the party likely to be pursued afterwards? Who will the pursuers be and how will they be engaging in the pursuit? What happens if they're recognized at another port of call? Who recognizes them?

<snip>

And so many of the answers to those questions ultimately become "stuff in my (the GM's) notes"---stuff that the players are going to want to have knowledge of.

<snip>

Someone at the game table has to ultimately generate these kinds of details for the fiction / framing around the proposed scene.

If it's all the GM's call to determine these details, then a significant portion of the players' actions are then going to be just what @pemerton described, which is, they're now playing to find out what's in those notes so they know how and when to actually initiate their "steal a ship from the harbor" action declaration.

<snip>

All of this stuff around framing the scene for stealing the boat is stuff that I basically have to generate---and if I-as-GM am the only one creating those notes, then I either have to outright tell those players what I've noted, or the focus of play now becomes figuring out what I put into those notes.

Even with the best of intentions, the ability of the players to successfully carry out their course of action is all based on a GM judgement call of what did I put into my notes?

<snip>

no matter how detailed your initial "prefabrication" is, these types of details around individual scene frames (like "We steal a boat") are not pre-existent when the action declaration is presented, or even if they are, they're still "notes" that the players have to now retrieve from the GM before they can realistically make the "I steal a boat" action declaration.

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.

This illustrates very well why I think playing to find out what is in the GM's notes is a description of RPGing that has a broader application than might at first seem to be the case.

It also resonates with my post just upthread replying to @Fenris-77: about changing the pacing by avoiding what I called the "detour" and what you call the "tug-of-war".

if coming up with information on the fly, such as the name of the boat, who owns it, what's on it, etc.(ie improv) is now note generation, then both playstyles have to fall under, "Playing to find out what's in the DM's notes." Unless you don't have a DM that puts in any input whatsoever.

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." 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.

The alternative is the players provide the notes. Or the group holds an open discussion about it.

Or does all of the above, while also utilizing a random table / "oracle" content generator.

Or does one or more of the above and takes the resulting content and runs it through an action resolution system designed to handle player-facing input, and see what follows.

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.

In these posts @innerdude really clearly sets out some alternatives to the GM deciding all the parameters of the situation which will then determine what is possible and how action declarations will resolve.

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.

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 can't be true both that what innerdude is describing is no different from "GM's notes" or "GM decides" and that it's different enough that you wouldn't want to play like that!

In addition, I will assert: there is a big difference between the player making a Gather Information check to oblige the GM to tell the player stuff the GM has already decided or is now making up, without any constraint on what it is the GM tells the player, and one in which the GM is obliged, as a result of the check, to tell the player useful stuff that is established here and now having regard to the current trajectory of play and the player's goals for his/her PC.

 

[Emerikol]

Obviously you've never played with me.

There are those rare suicidal types even in a fantasy world.

Joking aside. I did have one player who could tolerate planning only so long. As soon as it got laborious, he'd just start the action. It often got him in trouble with the group but they learned to plan a little quicker.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A couple of thoughts:

On your first post, how is the "pure sandbox" you're describing there actually different from PbtA-ish ask questions and build on the answers? The GM is now reworking the sandbox in response to player input. That's not objectionable, of course - this is exactly how I use settings like Greyhawk in my RPGing - but I'm not sure it's pure sandbox.

unless I misunderstand him, Fenris is not saying anything that is counter to Sandbox. It is hard to pin down ‘pure sandbox’ because different GM’s put down different lines but even the most old school sandbox builds on players actions. What you will tend to see in sandboxes is GMs answering questions based on fidelity to the world. But that IS NOT fidelity to the notes. If the players want to be ptfighters and I have no notes about pit fighters in my GM notes, I need to answer the question still. The pure sandbox approach most likely to answer that question based on whether they reasonably ought to exist. Bbut as Fenris points out how many fantasy worlds wouldn’t have that? It’s possible. The GM can decide sone things simply don’t exist (and these decisions can be important for maintaining the setting integrity). Most often stuff like that will be present and the GM then needs to generate that content on the fly (possibly informed by established setting material, possibly not). And this is just the most hard core old school sandbox. A GM like myself might well answer that question based on genre expectations+established setting stuff

also I think one key here is generally sandbox gamers don’t care as much about process. We care about tools, rulings, etc. but it is very important for player GM interactions to be as open and organic as possible. Having a strict process, would hinder the natural exploration of the world and flow of play (a lot of players talking amongst themselves, asking the GM what they know about the world, bringing their existing knowledge to bear on the situations, declaring what they attempt to do). Everything is extremely case by case

 

[TwoSix]

There are those rare suicidal types even in a fantasy world.

Joking aside. I did have one player who could tolerate planning only so long. As soon as it got laborious, he'd just start the action. It often got him in trouble with the group but they learned to plan a little quicker.

"Better to ask forgiveness than permission" is one of my play mantras. For me, generating conflict and drama (in the game, not between players) is the core of playing. Better to "lose" gloriously than to win easily.

 

[Emerikol]

unless I misunderstand him, Fenris is not saying anything that is counter to Sandbox. It is hard to pin down ‘pure sandbox’ because different GM’s put down different lines but even the most old school sandbox builds on players actions. What you will tend to see in sandboxes is GMs answering questions based on fidelity to the world. But that IS NOT fidelity to the notes. If the players want to be ptfighters and I have no notes about pit fighters in my GM notes, I need to answer the question still.

I think up front the players know a bit about the sandbox they are going into. It might even be designed based on desires and wishes expressed in previous campaigns. So they are buying into the sandbox ground rules. So I do maintain fidelity to what is in the world but I agree that there is more. The DM will answer based upon the knowledge of his world even when the answer is not written down. Some questions are random rolls. If a player asks a pretty bartender if she likes rabbit stew, I will likely just roll for it as I don't have every tastebud defined. I will like weight it based on my knowledge of the region. If people are poor and food is scarce the likelihood of a yes answer is much higher than a no answer. So decisions are informed by what is known. A lot is known though in my world and even more inside the sandbox.

 

[Fenris-77]

A couple of thoughts:

On your first post, how is the "pure sandbox" you're describing there actually different from PbtA-ish ask questions and build on the answers? The GM is now reworking the sandbox in response to player input. That's not objectionable, of course - this is exactly how I use settings like Greyhawk in my RPGing - but I'm not sure it's pure sandbox.

On your second post, isn't some of this about pacing? I've run games that worked very much as you describe, using Rolemaster as the system. Over time, as the game unfolded, the sandbox bent in the direction of PC dramatic needs. Then I read a bit of stuff on the Forge, and realised that I could get to where I was going without the detours via pure sandbox.

Well, the pure OSR sandbox guys I know don't ask questions in the way you mean, not about the setting anyway, nor are players interested in answering them. In those games the sandbox setting is GM notes and random tables with zero player input or reworking based on said input (and that is the way they want it). It's not the way I run sandbox play but it's common in the OSR. To be clear, we are talking about a world in motion where character actions have effects and change things, but the players aren't being asked questions about the setting and adding authorial type content as they are in many PbtA style games.

Yeah, the second part evolved out of some comments upstream about the need for specific things in order to have protagonist play, things about the setting specifically. I don't think that's the case, an opinion to which, upon consideration, I added most specific mechanical support. There are lots of supports that can greatly enhance that kind of play, but it's not necessary.

 

[cmad1977]

Mostly the point of my notes is to remind me of the “images or moments of consequence”. I like to have descriptions of things in the world around the PCs that shows their effect on the world.

Saved the orphanage a couple sessions ago? Happy kids on the streets.
Rescue the triefling girl and interact with her a bit on the trip home? There she is in town joining the guards.

Stuff like that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think up front the players know a bit about the sandbox they are going into. It might even be designed based on desires and wishes expressed in previous campaigns. So they are buying into the sandbox ground rules. So I do maintain fidelity to what is in the world but I agree that there is more. The DM will answer based upon the knowledge of his world even when the answer is not written down. Some questions are random rolls. If a player asks a pretty bartender if she likes rabbit stew, I will likely just roll for it as I don't have every tastebud defined. I will like weight it based on my knowledge of the region. If people are poor and food is scarce the likelihood of a yes answer is much higher than a no answer. So decisions are informed by what is known. A lot is known though in my world and even more inside the sandbox.

but even then there are always limits to a GMs knowledge of the world, he or she needs to at sone point make a creative decision about what exists exactly in this space that had just opened up due to player actions, questions, etc. in pure sandbox that is usually going to be informed by existing knowledge of the setting (not necessarily notes), may be shaped by random rolls, or simply decided based on what is interesting. Random rolls are just tools, they are not the required mechanism for filling in blank spaces (as are random encounter tables: the GM is always free to side step those if there is a reason for a specific encounter: like a group of NPC bandits have been following them since they left town).