What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

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.

my only quibble here is it isn’t just GM notes and random tables. It can be but I rarely encounter sandbox GMs who are strictly limited to those things. The GMs logic and creativity are expected to play a role as well in answering a question like “is there a cultivation sect or sects in the city” or respond to actions like the players trying to negotiate with the prince for control of recently discovered salt deposits in the desert that they stumbled upon in a recent venture south. and even something like the salt deposits might not have bee. In notes or a map before hand. I usually do like to put down firm geography like that but often on a large scale. I may still have to answer a question specific to a smaller area like ‘are there any natural resources in this hill’ on the fly

 

[Maxperson]

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!

I very specifically didn't say "DM decides." I said what he was describing was still "DM's notes." So yes, there is a marked difference and his way as he described it was still DM's notes. The DM is just bound by different rules for when and how he makes his notes in his game.

Also, he later described the players just sitting around talking discussing what they would "discover"(In quotes, because it's not discovery if you are deciding it) from the barkeep. THAT is what I described as ruining the game.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

That is exactly how you build verisimilitude.

 

[Emerikol]

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).

The reason a sandbox exists at all though is that it's too much work to put in the detail effort for an entire world. I agree that at some point the DM has to make some creative/improv decisions. I probably detail more than most DMs though so if it's in the sandbox I probably know everything major that is in that hex. If they ask if there is a particular tree of some type in a hex then of course I'd probably just say yes if it's common and just roll for how long it will take to find it. If it's uncommon then I roll for whether it is found etc.. I also agree that roleplaying NPCs and setting reaction DCs is based upon the knowledge of the NPC. I try to develop my NPCs well especially the significant ones. A minor NPC though may not get much more than some personality quirks and brief daily life descriptions. So if the PCs press that NPC with questions, at some point I have to estimate how he'd answer given his persona and personality.

 

[Emerikol]

"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.

Most of the time even with careful planning it is a near thing. So there is plenty of glory to go around. I think if you never plan you would not like my game unless you like constant death and tpks.

 

[TwoSix]

Most of the time even with careful planning it is a near thing. So there is plenty of glory to go around. I think if you never plan you would not like my game unless you like constant death and tpks.

Well, actually....

 

[Fenris-77]

my only quibble here is it isn’t just GM notes and random tables. It can be but I rarely encounter sandbox GMs who are strictly limited to those things. The GMs logic and creativity are expected to play a role as well in answering a question like “is there a cultivation sect or sects in the city” or respond to actions like the players trying to negotiate with the prince for control of recently discovered salt deposits in the desert that they stumbled upon in a recent venture south. and even something like the salt deposits might not have bee. In notes or a map before hand. I usually do like to put down firm geography like that but often on a large scale. I may still have to answer a question specific to a smaller area like ‘are there any natural resources in this hill’ on the fly

For sure, there's no game without logic and creativity. I was just specifically excluding authorial player additions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also, he later described the players just sitting around talking discussing what they would "discover"(In quotes, because it's not discovery if you are deciding it) from the barkeep.

So think about this bit here that I've quoted. It sounds like you're saying that discovery can only happen if the GM is the one that has decided. Do you not see how that veers into "playing to find out (discover) what's in the GM's notes"?

I get that you don't like the phrase.....it has a negative connotation that you're not fond of. But I don't think the things you're saying are really arguing against the idea, just the semantics of the words chosen.

If we were instead to say that you're "playing to discover and explore the fictional world" and also "the fictional world is crafted by the GM" then what is the meaningful difference?

Again, are you actually disagreeing with the idea of what is being said, or just the words being used to say it? It seems to me more like the latter.

As for discovery, I would disagree that something is not discovery even if you're involved in its creation. It was unknown and then it is known...that's discovery. Would you say that you cannot discover anything about your PC through play just because you decide what's true about your PC?

I have been involved in plenty of examples of this where it was surprising and dynamic, and set up some engaging play going forward.

 

[Maxperson]

So think about this bit here that I've quoted. It sounds like you're saying that discovery can only happen if the GM is the one that has decided. Do you not see how that veers into "playing to find out (discover) what's in the GM's notes"?

No. "Play to" is the purpose/focus of the play. If you aren't playing in order to find out the notes or the focus of play isn't the notes, then it's not a "Play to find out what's in the DM's notes." game.

That doesn't mean that the DM's notes aren't important and don't alter game play. It's just not what the focus of the game is.

If we were instead to say that you're "playing to discover and explore the fictional world" and also "the fictional world is crafted by the GM" then what is the meaningful difference?

I play to make the world my own. That doesn't mean conquer it(but it can). It means that the world is my play thing to support MY goals and MY focus of play. The notes are secondary to that.

Again, are you actually disagreeing with the idea of what is being said, or just the words being used to say it? It seems to me more like the latter.

Both. I disagree with the idea for the reason above and with the terminology, because it's pejorative.

As for discovery, I would disagree that something is not discovery even if you're involved in its creation. It was unknown and then it is known...that's discovery. Would you say that you cannot discover anything about your PC through play just because you decide what's true about your PC?

It's not discovery. It's creation.

I have been involved in plenty of examples of this where it was surprising and dynamic, and set up some engaging play going forward.

The way he described it was the players sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover." By the time they settle on something, any surprise and discovery is over with. They know the options and voted for the one they prefer most.

 

[Campbell]

So I think that any meaningful analysis of play is going to include a healthy understanding of what behaviors are socially rewarded at the table. I think it's fair to say that at a fair number of D&D tables players are either socially rewarded for displaying curiosity about the game's setting or hunting for story content the GM has included. The D&D game I am a player in pretty much works this way.