What is the point of GM's notes?

[hawkeyefan]

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.

So let's separate character and player.

What do you do as a player that makes the fiction ("world") your plaything? How much of that fiction is up to you to establish? Are you limited by what your character can do and accomplish? How are these things resolved?

There probably isn't only one answer. But I would say the more that the answer involves the GM deciding how things go, the more play is in fact shaped by his "notes".

Which sounds to me like what's expected in your play, based on your other comments.

It's not discovery. It's creation.

It can be both, absolutely. I have discovered lots of things through play. I just last night learned that a PC of mine is a bit of a coward in some ways. Wasn't really what I had in mind for him at the start of the campaign, but it's what I happened during play, and it absolutely was a discovery.

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.

So then the only way players can discover is if it's something that the GM has decided, and then they somehow learn of it in play? Is this what you mean?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Playing to interact with, explore discover and shape through your character, a world established and played by the GM; is probably much more accurate and far less insulting than ‘playing to discover the GMs notes”. Or you could use our language of playing in a living world (don’t understand why this is too metaphorical while ‘GM’s notes isn’t despite seeming to be used non literally anyways)

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Obviously I agree with this. But I think the other thing that would be helpful (and I've expressed it many times across many threads and in this one as well) is if we discussed all forms of play (not just "my" play in "this game") in terms of:

• The core play loop
• The features of play that make up the significant bulk of the population distribution of all moments of play

Pretend you're trying to articulate the fundamental machinery of play to someone who has never played it. Read that sentence again. You won't see the word "experience" in there. You will see the phrase "fundamental machinery." If you sub out "fundamental machinery" and sub in "experience", you might answer that sentence differently. But describing the experience of something doesn't help someone build a thing (for many different reasons, up to and including the fact that neurological diversity and endocrine response can be so extreme). And focusing on edge/corner cases (and/or saying that there is no such thing as a core play loop because the entirety of your play is edge/corner cases with nothing making up the bulk of moments of play) is just not helpful...and it cannot be true. It can't be. Even the most Unstructured Free-Form-ey, Rulings Not Rules experience where you're overwhelmingly "GM decides-ing" you're way through play will have some kind of first principles that undergird the play and some kind of core play loop that the bulk of play persists within.

 

[Maxperson]

So let's separate character and player.

What do you do as a player that makes the fiction ("world") your plaything? How much of that fiction is up to you to establish? Are you limited by what your character can do and accomplish? How are these things resolved?

I make it mine by dictating what my character is going to do and making my goals the focus of the game, not the notes. And of course I'm limited by what my character can accomplish. Obviously he's not going to be able to snap his fingers and make mountains vanish, unless I'm playing a god or something. The resolution is via the rules.

How much fiction I can establish doesn't matter. Even if I can establish directly as a player zero fiction, it still doesn't put the focus of play on the DM's notes. The focus of play is still on my and my goals. I've already said that the notes are an important, but secondary part of the game.

It can be both, absolutely. I have discovered lots of things through play. I just last night learned that a PC of mine is a bit of a coward in some ways. Wasn't really what I had in mind for him at the start of the campaign, but it's what I happened during play, and it absolutely was a discovery.

So then the only way players can discover is if it's something that the GM has decided, and then they somehow learn of it in play? Is this what you mean?

Do discover something, it has to be unknown before you discover it. If you're sitting around with the group hashing out which of 8 things the innkeeper is going to have as information, none of those are unknowns. You may not know which of the knowns is going to be picked until the final decision is made, but you do know it will be among those choices.

And no, you don't need the DM. It can be done randomly. The key is that it be unknown before you discover it.

 

[Emerikol]

I guess my core loop is....
1. Here is what your senses are telling you.
2. What do you do?
3. Player takes actions that may or may not affect the world
4. If the world is affected then update status of the world including in some cases reactions of the world.
5. return to 1

 

[hawkeyefan]

Playing to interact with, explore discover and shape through your character, a world established and played by the GM; is probably much more accurate and far less insulting than ‘playing to discover the GMs notes”. Or you could use our language of playing in a living world (don’t understand why this is too metaphorical while ‘GM’s notes isn’t despite seeming to be used non literally anyways)

I'm simply not insulted by it. I can get why others may be, even if it doesn't bother me, but rather then endlessly talk about how it's insulting, I'd rather talk about what it means. I get what pemerton means when he talks about this, and that's the important thing....arguing his choice of words is just semantics, and after pointing it out once or twice, we should all be able to move on.

"Living world" is useful as a general descriptor. But very often that general descriptor is used to explain itself.

Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?

A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!

Q: Um....okay, but....how?


This is why I think literal descriptions can come in handy. "I give my NPCs motivations" is much more meaningful to me than "I breathe life into my NPCs".

What we actually do as players and GMs is what I think is needed when we get into this level of discussion or analysis. When it's more beginning stages or general ideas, like "What kinds of campaigns do you enjoy?" a response like "When I feel like I'm exploring a living world" is perfectly fine. I think we're past that point in this specific conversation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm simply not insulted by it. I can get why others may be, even if it doesn't bother me, but rather then endlessly talk about how it's insulting, I'd rather talk about what it means. I get what pemerton means when he talks about this, and that's the important thing....arguing his choice of words is just semantics, and after pointing it out once or twice, we should all be able to move on.

"Living world" is useful as a general descriptor. But very often that general descriptor is used to explain itself.

Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?

A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!

Q: Um....okay, but....how?


This is why I think literal descriptions can come in handy. "I give my NPCs motivations" is much more meaningful to me than "I breathe life into my NPCs".

What we actually do as players and GMs is what I think is needed when we get into this level of discussion or analysis. When it's more beginning stages or general ideas, like "What kinds of campaigns do you enjoy?" a response like "When I feel like I'm exploring a living world" is perfectly fine. I think we're past that point in this specific conversation.

The problem is it is going to be very hard to talk about what it means if half the people here feel it was coined as an insult to our style or as a way of dismissing it. I am not saying there aren't important distinctions to be explored but this is a case where you really need to figure out the language that is going to be able to carry the discussions. I think my mind, and the minds of many others, really have a hard time with this particular term because it feels so loaded, and it feels like it shifts slightly in a direction that is not accurate enough (it keeps moving us towards the GM's notebook and that isn't the point of play here at all)

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess my core loop is....
1. Here is what your senses are telling you.
2. What do you do?
3. Player takes actions that may or may not affect the world
4. If the world is affected then update status of the world including in some cases reactions of the world.
5. return to 1

Awesome. That is helpful.

Now zoom that out to the conflict level.

What does that loop look like?

Now zoom that out to the session level (I know all sessions are different...but the orthodox through line of a session).

What does that loop look like?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

I think this is an important distinction for sure. Whether the players themselves have authorial control or can contribute in that way, versus whether they are limited to doing so through their character, I think is certainly a dividing line between a pure sandbox and something else. That said, as I have said in other threads elsewhere, I think sandbox can contain what you are talking about. It is just a different style of sandbox (and how much players having authorial control could vary a lot). I don't know the best term (story sandbox, narrative sandbox, new school sandbox, player controlled sandbox). But whatever term works, I think the idea of it is sound and should be welcomed into the umbrella of sandbox (I do think distinctions are helpful though---like noting the difference between a wilder lands sandbox and one where players have control). This is why I often call mine a Drama sandbox or Sandbox+Drama. I realize that term can also be misleading because it isn't drama in the sense of say drama system where players have authorial control through their dialogue and scene framing. But it denotes that the GM often makes choices using drama as a guide

 

[Bedrockgames]

Obviously I agree with this. But I think the other thing that would be helpful (and I've expressed it many times across many threads and in this one as well) is if we discussed all forms of play (not just "my" play in "this game") in terms of:

• The core play loop
• The features of play that make up the significant bulk of the population distribution of all moments of play

Pretend you're trying to articulate the fundamental machinery of play to someone who has never played it. Read that sentence again. You won't see the word "experience" in there. You will see the phrase "fundamental machinery." If you sub out "fundamental machinery" and sub in "experience", you might answer that sentence differently. But describing the experience of something doesn't help someone build a thing (for many different reasons, up to and including the fact that neurological diversity and endocrine response can be so extreme). And focusing on edge/corner cases (and/or saying that there is no such thing as a core play loop because the entirety of your play is edge/corner cases with nothing making up the bulk of moments of play) is just not helpful...and it cannot be true. It can't be. Even the most Unstructured Free-Form-ey, Rulings Not Rules experience where you're overwhelmingly "GM decides-ing" you're way through play will have some kind of first principles that undergird the play and some kind of core play loop that the bulk of play persists within.

The problem a lot of sandbox, living worlds people have with settling on a core play loop is it seems to be overly reductive and potentially could lead to more constrained play. But I think most sandbox GMs agree the fundamental exchange in play is: player declares what they want to do, know, see, etc; and the GM determines what the result is (often by invoking rules, formulating rulings, or declaring based on what seems most reasonable/exciting/etc). But the exchange is a lot more varied and organic than that breakdown suggests. I think players wandering into a such a session with that set of steps loaded into brain, will actually have more trouble navigating what is going on, because the exchange isn't that A to B all the time. Also a lot is unspoken social dynamic. That is very hard to pin down