What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

@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.

It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character. The two things seem mutually exclusive to me. Perhaps instead of ridiculing me you might explain your position.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Perhaps what is needed (and maybe it has already been done to death in this thread, I suspect) is to run through 2 examples of play and how differently they would be handled in each system but particularly an example where substantial player-driven fiction is established. Also understanding the limitations that may be placed on the player generated fiction.

What I mean by the last part.
Situation: PC's brother was kidnapped.
Player input, attend town market square and ask around to determine if
(1) someone saw x;
(2) someone saw that my brother was taken by person x; or
(3) someone saw that my brother was taken to location x.

Can the player generate any of the above? Can the DC be raised depending on the fictional content generated i.e will a DM increase the DC for (3) as opposed to (1) - will this be communicated to the PC beforehand to curb his content or is this all done behind a screen...etc
I'm obviously suspecting that the reason for the roll would be to determine if there is a complication and the level thereof.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character. The two things seem mutually exclusive to me. Perhaps instead of ridiculing me you might explain your position.

There are tons of ways, but let me pluck the low hanging fruit. First, in a game with the authorial permission we're talking about a player can, for example, speak in character about new facts related to their background. So a fighter might say the gladiatorial schools in Omnia are brutal, especially the House of Grinnell, they whip their slaves with a barbed lash if that fact is something that the character might know even in cases where the GM had nothing written about those schools or their character. This kind of thing often happens by GM invitation in games where it's common, with phrases like tell me how your character might know this.

Second, and perhaps more important for your understanding of how these games work, is that much of this talk actually happens out of character. RPGs focus in and out of full in-character play and this kind of new fact often gets discussed during what we might broadly call downtime, where the focus zooms out a little and the players (and GM) talk about the game but only partially or even not at all in character.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character. The two things seem mutually exclusive to me. Perhaps instead of ridiculing me you might explain your position.

"Barkeep, a flagon of your best ale," says Bob the Fighter's player.
GM: Sure, the barkeep busies himself with a small tun next to the main keg, and brings you a frothy mug, saying, "that'll be 5 silver."
Player: When he passes me the mug, I'll grab his wrist, drop a 10 gp on the bartop, and say, "and also any information you have on the whereabouts of NotBob the Vile."

This is in character, right? Fiction is generated, right? The difference in games is that in a GM curated game, what happens next is according to what the GM thinks should happen next. This might be in their notes -- they might have a note that says the barkeep knows something, and so they pass that on. Or, they might ad lib it, and say, sure, he's knows something, and pull out their notes about NotBob and pick a juicy tidbit. Or, they might decide this barkeep knows nothing, or lies, or calls for the bouncer... the point being that whatever happens, it does so according to what the GM thinks should happen, up to and include calling for a check and what the stakes for that check are.

In the games you're mistaken about, the above happens exactly the same way, but the GM cannot say no, they can only either say yes or go to the mechanics. On a failure, the GM is required to make the situation worse for the players -- no soft pedaling here. Something goes wrong. On a success, the GM is required to have the barkeep know something about NotBob, and it must be useful. Most of these games have a success with cost outcome as well, where the player gets something they want, but also something they don't want. The point being, the mechanics directly flow from the fiction, and the players can be as in character as they can be in other games.

Here's what this would look like in Blades:

GM: okay, that sounds pretty easy, so I'd consider it a Controlled action. However, that's a lot of coin for this area, and there are seedy types around, so let's bump that to Risky -- things could go sideways. But, since that is a lot of coin, let's say the Effect is Great -- you succeed and that coin will go a long way. What are you rolling?
Player: I'm rolling Sway, I have 2 dice, but this is important, so I'll push for a third. <rolls> A six!
GM: Great! The barkeep makes the coin disappear in a smooth motion, leans in, and says, "NotBob is in the private dining room through that door. He has 2 other guys with him, but they left about 10 minutes ago, don't know where, so he's by himself. You pay for damages." and he goes to the other end of the bar and ignores you.

The mechanical bits here really aren't any more intrusive that in a D&D game, where the GM calls for a CHA(diplomacy) check. The biggest difference is that the stakes are made clear, which I recommend for D&D games as well.

 

[Manbearcat]

"Barkeep, a flagon of your best ale," says Bob the Fighter's player.
GM: Sure, the barkeep busies himself with a small tun next to the main keg, and brings you a frothy mug, saying, "that'll be 5 silver."
Player: When he passes me the mug, I'll grab his wrist, drop a 10 gp on the bartop, and say, "and also any information you have on the whereabouts of NotBob the Vile."

This is so internally inconsistent and dissociated.

(A) NotBob is NOT vile (anyone who’s been around NotBob for even a minute knows he’s a swell dude...this just feels made up...and not in a good way) and (B) grabbing wrists requires an attack roll...so PCs can now just grapple whenever/whatever they want because their player says they do?

Ok, “I GRAB THE MOON MR GM...WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?!”

 

[Emerikol]

"Barkeep, a flagon of your best ale," says Bob the Fighter's player.
GM: Sure, the barkeep busies himself with a small tun next to the main keg, and brings you a frothy mug, saying, "that'll be 5 silver."
Player: When he passes me the mug, I'll grab his wrist, drop a 10 gp on the bartop, and say, "and also any information you have on the whereabouts of NotBob the Vile."

This is in character, right? Fiction is generated, right? The difference in games is that in a GM curated game, what happens next is according to what the GM thinks should happen next. This might be in their notes -- they might have a note that says the barkeep knows something, and so they pass that on. Or, they might ad lib it, and say, sure, he's knows something, and pull out their notes about NotBob and pick a juicy tidbit. Or, they might decide this barkeep knows nothing, or lies, or calls for the bouncer... the point being that whatever happens, it does so according to what the GM thinks should happen, up to and include calling for a check and what the stakes for that check are.

I don't see the fiction generated in your example at that point. The fiction is generated when the GM rolls and determines a result.

So in a game with a predefined reality,
1. The GM would first no if the barkeep knows NotBob the Vile. So a roll very much could be made depending on the value of the coin in hand and the barkeeps fear of NotBob and fear of the PC.
2. if the roll is successful, the information known to the barkeep would be given and if not successful the barkeep would likely lie.

The difference would be whether there exists a relationship between the barkeep and NotBob the Vile. In your games, you are establishing a relationship by die roll. If the die is successful, then the knowledge that the barkeep knows something becomes game knowledge. In theory it would matter who I talked to in the bar or which barkeep I talked to because the reality will be established by die roll. That would not be the case in my games. One barkeep might know a lot more than another. Now if the DM is out of his element and has to dice for knowledge of the barkeep then the situation would be more similar. I'd try in most cases in my game to avoid getting in such a situation but I'm sure plenty in my style of gaming do that do to limits on their prep.

I'm primarily focused though on the situation where the PC establishes fiction. For example, the PC says I am from the great city of Arbigal. The DM would immediately know that such a city does not exist. Now, prior to campaign start, the player might say to the DM that he wants to be from the greatest city in the world so the DM gives him the name. I tend to establish background prior to starting the campaign.

 

[Emerikol]

This is so internally inconsistent and dissociated.

(A) NotBob is NOT vile (anyone who’s been around NotBob for even a minute knows he’s a swell dude...this just feels made up...and not in a good way) and (B) grabbing wrists requires an attack roll...so PCs can now just grapple whenever/whatever they want because their player says they do?

Ok, “I GRAB THE MOON MR GM...WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?!”

To the degree I felt grabbing the barkeep was something that would be doubt when it comes to success, I'd require a roll. In some instances when dealing with a zero level type, a PC might very easily pull this off and it's handwaved. As DM, I might secretly roll behind the screen and only on a 1 in 20 might I worry about it.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Thanks for the follow up.

I’ll respond with more later. Just wanted to address the bottom part.

I don’t have a singular play style.

It’s true, I run a lot of Story Now games, but the bulk of my play since ‘84 has either been Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawling (Moldvay) or Classic D&D hexcrawling via BECMI/RC or my hacked AD&D.

It’s probably a 30/30/40 split with the largest % being in your style (though subtly different than the way you do it...certainly more stance pivoting than you).

 

[Manbearcat]

To the degree I felt grabbing the barkeep was something that would be doubt when it comes to success, I'd require a roll. In some instances when dealing with a zero level type, a PC might very easily pull this off and it's handwaved. As DM, I might secretly roll behind the screen and only on a 1 in 20 might I worry about it.

I was just being silly

 

[Emerikol]

There are tons of ways, but let me pluck the low hanging fruit. First, in a game with the authorial permission we're talking about a player can, for example, speak in character about new facts related to their background. So a fighter might say the gladiatorial schools in Omnia are brutal, especially the House of Grinnell, they whip their slaves with a barbed lash if that fact is something that the character might know even in cases where the GM had nothing written about those schools or their character. This kind of thing often happens by GM invitation in games where it's common, with phrases like tell me how your character might know this.

Well when developing a character prior to campaign start, I work with players to come up with a backstory. A backstory that fits the world. The conflict would be if there were no gladiatorial schools. Maybe it's a frontier campaign without even cities. So developing a backstory is collaborative. Typically on names and such it's from the GM but on other details the GM will work those in if at all possible.

Now if this happens in game and comes completely out of nowhere, I don't believe your player is acting in character at that moment unless what he is telling the group is some delusion the character has developed that is not true. The DM may allow it of course but such a declaration is leaving character mode and entering authorial mode. So it's not in-character. A character cannot invent a real backstory for himself.