What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

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).

It's not surprising at all as lots of people play lots of games in different ways. No one is limited to a single style. I've even said I would try anything for a one shot with friends. I just don't want to invest a long term campaign in an approach that I don't like nearly as well as I do the one I've defended here.

I actually downloaded ironsworn and looked it over in the last day. I enjoy studying rules. I like some of the dice tricks these games use even if I don't like their approach overall. I love a lot of things about Fate but I can't get past the dissociative mechanics. I haven't bought cortex plus but again I know the 1's being special things players use later would bug me. I'm just really a strong advocate of character stance as one of my play priorities.

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

Except it's happening in a game where exactly this sort of thing is not only allowed but expected. And yes, the character very much do exactly that, I play in lots of games where not only does that happen but it works beautifully.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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 Bob didn't ask for a mug of ale, and didn't ask for info on NotBob? This doesn't happen at all until the GM determines the results of the ask that didn't happen?

My answers to my rhetorical questions: Of course that happened, and it's in the fiction now, else the GM wouldn't have anything to adjudicate.

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.

Yes, this is understood. This is how it works when I run 5e.

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.

The complaint was about being in character. How things come to be doesn't affect being in character. The play, in both games, is the same -- the player makes the action declaration, the GM adjudicates the action, the results are presented, and the player can make more action declarations. The difference is in the adjudication. You've moved your complaint for "in character" to "how things are determined."

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.

Yes, in a game where the GM has fully established all of the fiction, this is the case. It's also the case in these other games, if such fiction has been established at the table. There's nothing that says I can't put a map out and say, "this is where the game takes place." If, at that time, there isn't a discussion about adding a major landmark like a new city to the map, and the table agrees this is the map, then a player cannot later claim a new landmark because that fiction has been established. If, however, there's lots of empty spots on the map, or the claimed city is from far away (and doesn't contradict established fiction), then, sure, why not? I think you're misunderstanding that there are constraints on the player introduction of material just as there are on the GM's introduction of material -- they must be consistent with established fiction and genre appropriate (no laser pistols in a medieval romance, for instance).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The point is that notes are being created and used in both playstyles. Your method just substitutes how you go about "Playing to discover what is in the notes." The "notes" are a big so what. And still pejorative the way you use it. And still wrong. We do not "Play to discover the DM's notes." no matter how many times you want to repeat it or how badly you want it to be true.

"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.

No. It isn't that I'm not taking it seriously. I'm saying that it still involves finding out and building off of notes, just like my playstyle does.

 

[Maxperson]

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"

I don't think we need an overly narrow definition of roleplaying. If you are playing a role, then you are still roleplaying and it is a roleplaying game, even if you have other hats on. As the DM, I guarantee you that even though I have many different hats on, I'm still roleplaying in a roleplaying game, because I take on the roles of various NPCs and monsters.

 

[innerdude]

So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.

There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.

However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.

There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.

However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.

I agree, this is a different play agenda from sandbox -- one doesn't require the other. I think, though, the reason you see them together is that "playing through your character's viewpoint" has an element of the GM adjudicating what's allowable for a character to now. This goes to being able to have elements of the game be a "mystery" to the PCs, when it isn't really a mystery to the players and also to controlling the flow of information so that planned challenges remain challenging and don't get trivialized by having too much info too soon. These seem to align to the notions of heavy prep.

Now, this isn't a dig at this approach -- I use info portioning when I run 5e, although I'm can be very loose with it. I've adopted a stance of overproviding info and just making my design not be sensitive in challenge to having knowledge of it. To give an example from last weekend's session, the tiefling ranger was confronted by a horned devil, which I gave a visual description of. However, I didn't know, given this PCs background of wanting to end their family's devilish origin curse, what the PC actually knew about devils -- it makes sense to me that they may know things, so, I asked the player, "Does Orianna know anything about devils?" The player thought about this, and said, "you know, I don't think she knows much at all, just that one cursed her family." Okey-dokey, play proceeded without any additional info on the horned devil. Had the player answered otherwise, then she could tell me what she knows and add it to her backstory, and I'd have provided some details based on that. I don't see any need to hide such things behind dice -- I'm excited to talk about the horrible monsters that the PCs face!

 

[Bedrockgames]

So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.

There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.

However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.

This is definitely a key aspect of sandbox. It isn't universal but it is pretty fundamental to how many approach it. But I think they would definitely eschew the actor stance label (it doesn't quite fit because there is room within this style of sandbox for essentially playing yourself and using knowledge your character doesn't have : I think the hard line is about only being able to impact the setting through your character's actions and words.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. It isn't that I'm not taking it seriously. I'm saying that it still involves finding out and building off of notes, just like my playstyle does.

There does seem to be a flaw in the logic of it is GMs notes when the GM in all these instances. I mean why is it GMs notes when the GM improvises and ads something new, but if players are allowed to do that, it becomes something other than notes

 

[Emerikol]

I agree, this is a different play agenda from sandbox -- one doesn't require the other. I think, though, the reason you see them together is that "playing through your character's viewpoint" has an element of the GM adjudicating what's allowable for a character to now. This goes to being able to have elements of the game be a "mystery" to the PCs, when it isn't really a mystery to the players and also to controlling the flow of information so that planned challenges remain challenging and don't get trivialized by having too much info too soon. These seem to align to the notions of heavy prep.

Now, this isn't a dig at this approach -- I use info portioning when I run 5e, although I'm can be very loose with it. I've adopted a stance of overproviding info and just making my design not be sensitive in challenge to having knowledge of it. To give an example from last weekend's session, the tiefling ranger was confronted by a horned devil, which I gave a visual description of. However, I didn't know, given this PCs background of wanting to end their family's devilish origin curse, what the PC actually knew about devils -- it makes sense to me that they may know things, so, I asked the player, "Does Orianna know anything about devils?" The player thought about this, and said, "you know, I don't think she knows much at all, just that one cursed her family." Okey-dokey, play proceeded without any additional info on the horned devil. Had the player answered otherwise, then she could tell me what she knows and add it to her backstory, and I'd have provided some details based on that. I don't see any need to hide such things behind dice -- I'm excited to talk about the horrible monsters that the PCs face!

Even sandbox gaming does not own the idea of GM created in game reality. People doing APs for example so sure there are a group if concepts I hold dear to my gaming. I listed them off. They aren't interconnected necessarily. I do though think when you allow players to introduce new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character that at least temporarily you are stepping out of the character viewpoint.

I've listed these before but I will again for reference.
1. Sandbox world. GM provides a lot of detailed areas and the PCs do as they will inside the sandbox.

2. Skilled Play. Meaning prep, strategy, and tactics matter. My players have often spent time discussing the equipment they will take on a particular journey. They also plot strategy against certain really tough monsters especially if defeated on their first encounter. If you don't search for a secret door, you may not get what's behind the door and if your search skill is not good enough you may not get it.

3. Character Viewpoint - Some might call this Actor stance and they may be right but I don't want to defend every aspect of it if I've misjudged it's usage. I'm leery of loaded terms with you guys. Basically you can only do what your character could do. You perceive the world via description from the GM.

4. DM neutrality and fairness in adjudication. Let the dice fall where they fall.

All of the above are things I consider pretty important.

I do think though that those wanting a character viewpoint will of necessity want a GM based reality world. The reverse is not necessarily true.