What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

@pemerton Given that what I was trying to illustrate is the very possibility of protagonist play in a solely GM-built world I don't find your reading odd. My point about the world is that it doesn't need to be built with the players dramatic needs in mind, or at least that dramatic needs can be present and lead to protagonist play even when that isn't the case. Sure, some of that, depending on prep, is very much asking questions and building on answers. However, that pit fighter player doesn't have to have any authorial control over where pit fighting happens, or anything pitfighter-related in terms of world building, in order to take on that dramatic need and have it resolved in play.

So, this is a well made statement that goes to one of the points that seems to be being missed: protagonism isn't the meeting of a PC's dramatic needs, it's the focus upon them. The point you're making here is that a PC might have some dramatic need(s), and that in a GM curated world that PC might still be able to, either with or without GM assistance, fulfill those needs. This is absolutely true. However, the point of protagonism isn't that a dramatic need is fulfilled, else that would just be talked about as fulfilling dramatic needs. Instead, the point has been that protagonism is where the game's point, it's focus, what it does in almost every moment, is about the dramatic needs of the PCs. It's not "did you fulfill your character's personal quest," but rather, "was play focused entirely on your character's personal quest?"

This is really why it's been strange, to me, to see people claiming that they have protagonism in their games, because PCs can pursue personal goals or dramatic needs, because this isn't really what defines protagonism -- it is necessary, but not sufficient. Instead, the kind of play that protagonism engenders is specifically the kind of play that many of these posters have clearly said they dislike or do not want to try. So, thanks for this clear statement, because it really goes to the heart, I think, of this confusion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This in large part how my 5E games run (though working out the properties of the sword in your example might need some out-of-band time) which I believe is ... not how you'd expect either from how you've tended to describe 5E or how you've tended to describe your understanding of my preferred playstyle. More broadly, there's no irreconcilable difference between the GM working things out beforehand and the table (as a whole) improvising things in actual play.

I think there's some pretty big differences. Again, if you're talking about trying to tell those differences from the fiction that is generated only, then, sure, it's very hard to discern any difference. However, in action, at the table, there's pretty large differences in how it actually happens. And these lend very different feels to the game. I try to be very open to player input when I run, largely due to influences from other games, and I can say, as a GM, these feel very different in practice.

 

[prabe]

I think there's some pretty big differences. Again, if you're talking about trying to tell those differences from the fiction that is generated only, then, sure, it's very hard to discern any difference. However, in action, at the table, there's pretty large differences in how it actually happens. And these lend very different feels to the game. I try to be very open to player input when I run, largely due to influences from other games, and I can say, as a GM, these feel very different in practice.

One of the reasons I strongly prefer gaming as close to around-a-table as possible is that I listen to what the players are saying, and I react to it. Sometimes they have good ideas that surprise me, and they happen; sometimes they have ideas that inspire me to have good ideas, and those happen. It's not formalized or mechanical, but I think it leads to a similar place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One of the reasons I strongly prefer gaming as close to around-a-table as possible is that I listen to what the players are saying, and I react to it. Sometimes they have good ideas that surprise me, and they happen; sometimes they have ideas that inspire me to have good ideas, and those happen. It's not formalized or mechanical, but I think it leads to a similar place.

Right, 110% with you on this. But, there's a pretty big difference between you as the GM taking something player puts out there and running with it how you want to and being constrained by it via the procedures of play. I think there's quite a bit of daylight between using players as an input to what I, the GM, thinks is happening and being required to.

 

[Fenris-77]

So, this is a well made statement that goes to one of the points that seems to be being missed: protagonism isn't the meeting of a PC's dramatic needs, it's the focus upon them. The point you're making here is that a PC might have some dramatic need(s), and that in a GM curated world that PC might still be able to, either with or without GM assistance, fulfill those needs. This is absolutely true. However, the point of protagonism isn't that a dramatic need is fulfilled, else that would just be talked about as fulfilling dramatic needs. Instead, the point has been that protagonism is where the game's point, it's focus, what it does in almost every moment, is about the dramatic needs of the PCs. It's not "did you fulfill your character's personal quest," but rather, "was play focused entirely on your character's personal quest?"

This is really why it's been strange, to me, to see people claiming that they have protagonism in their games, because PCs can pursue personal goals or dramatic needs, because this isn't really what defines protagonism -- it is necessary, but not sufficient. Instead, the kind of play that protagonism engenders is specifically the kind of play that many of these posters have clearly said they dislike or do not want to try. So, thanks for this clear statement, because it really goes to the heart, I think, of this confusion.

I agree. My point was more about how the focus on dramatic needs isn't necessarily dependent on system or setting, as much as those can both scaffold it. It can be accomplished strictly through the focus of play, as you describe. I would be the first person to say that in some of the examples I've given protagonist play might not be the natural or even likely game state, but could be if that's what the table wanted.

 

[pemerton]

The only difference between that and me as DM remembering his cousin fighting in the shadow wars and having him pull the sword in the oil cloth in response to their investigation(or whatever) roll, is that I did it instead of it being collaborative.

Yes. Who is disagreeing with this? But that difference is pretty fundamental, given that (i) it is a difference in who creates the shared fiction, and (ii) most RPGing has creation of and participation in a shared fiction as a core component.

It is different. All of you created the notes instead of the DM. That's pretty much it. Otherwise what you describe also happens outside of that style of play.

"That style of play" - ie what @innerdude is describing, which is a contribution to the discussion about protagonism and the role of the GM's notes - is entirely about everyone rather than just the GM establishing the fiction. There are all sorts of ways of doing this, and I just described one in my post - trying to elaborate on what @innerdude had described in his posts. Other ways include questions from GM to player (eg "He seems angry at you. What did you do last time you were here that p*ssed him off?"); or player contributions in PC building (eg "My bond is to my mother who still lives on our ancestral estate"); or, etc.

Saying "that's pretty much it" seems not to be taking seriously what is a fundamental point of difference in approaches to RPGing.

 

[Emerikol]

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?

Well, when designing the world, and especially the sandbox which as you know is a small far more detailed chunk of the overall world, I create a place with a lot of problems. Evil sorts of all kinds are about doing their wicked things. There are also long buried lost dungeons and tombs on occasion as well. I also have types who are not perhaps outright evil in the big E sense but are shady or self serving. I like ACKS definition for Law, Chaos, or Neutral. Law if fighting for what you view as civilization. Chaos are those trying to tear it down. Neutrals are those who serve themselves and give lip service to Law while gladly living under its protection.

I have a calendar of their activities usually planned out for some time in the future. It's not as complicated as you might think but it's there.

The players then start interacting with the world and choose who or what they will interfere with as they go about their lives. There really is no session concept. We stop, at a good spot when we can but not always, and we start again later. It's continuous.

Conflict occurs when the PCs start interfering with bad guys plans or start making plans that naturally run afoul of the bad guys. So PCs may check around looking for adventure and there may be some legends the local populace knows. There may be rumors in the tavern. On occasion they may encounter the outcome of some evil guy's work and decide to oppose him. The players just do whatever they want and we see what happens.

I think a lot of the way you frame games is an outcome of your playstyle but it's not natural to me.

 

[Emerikol]

As some posters have said (eg @Maxperson, @Emerikol) they prefer to engage with fiction in this fashion. Rather than contributing directly to it themselves. And as @hawkeyefan has said, this seems to be an example of the players learning either (i) what is already in the GM's notes, or (ii) what the GM is extrapolating to and (literally or figuratively) adding to his/her notes.

I know what you mean but in both games the PCs are contributing to the fiction in the sense they are changing the world.

So here is an observation. One big facet of my style is character viewpoint and decision making. Roleplaying to me to becoming your character. You make decisions like you are that character. You seek knowledge from the world the same way I would seek knowledge in this world. We just want to play another role in a make believe world. But we want to play a role.

We don't want to cooperatively write a story with someone else which is more what your style of play seems to be to me. I mean in both cases a story emerges and as memories go that can be enjoyable regardless. But the joy of the story for me was that I was that character and I overcome those challenges which were real challenges and triumphed. That means that sometimes when I play the game I die or don't triumph. It's necessary for there to be triumph on occasion as well.

 

[Emerikol]

I think one big disconnect here is the very concept of a roleplaying game. I feel like the ironsworn crowd are playing a game but are they playing a roleplaying game? It's how far apart the two ideas are in terms of how the game is approached.

I've always thought roleplaying was playing a role which of necessity means you aren't doing anything else because being in character means you aren't making out of character decisions. So your character is not a piece in a game. Your character is you. The GM's job is to convey what your senses are perceiving, and adjudicate your actions as a result. So the GM is neutral in that sense. The GM is stepping into and out of NPCs because he is not roleplaying in the same sense the others are roleplaying. He is assisting them to roleplay.

I've very much in the "you are the character" viewpoint mode. It is also why I don't like dissociative mechanics. Making metagame decisions is not being "in character"

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Emerikol

Your last two posts show a deep ignorance of the games you're describing. Like, fundamentally deep. It's verging on not even wrong.

You can dislike these games all you want -- no issues, no problems. But, your description of them in these last two posts is laughably incorrect.