What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

If this is your position then I feel like you should maybe take a scroll back through your posts in this thread to figure out why everyone else seems to think something different than this. I'd never suggest that I know better than someone else what's immersive for them, that's silly sauce.

I know what I wrote and on this it is not just my opinion it is a fact. Even in those rare cases I did not explain, and I explained many times, the topic is about immersion which by definition is a subjective concept.

 

[pemerton]

Did you mean to type "president" here?

If not, just because someone's from the same town as you doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about them.

Hell, I've lived in the same town my whole life and there's boatloads of people here I don't know from rocks.

Have you ever lived in a village of 100-odd people? I have. It doesn't take long to know everyone.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't understand this, at two levels.

First, why do you get to have "convenient terms" whereas my language is outrageous and forbidden?

Because you are using language to discredit our playstyle. We are using narrative as an attempt to honestly describe a contrasting style. If you feel it is not accurate give us another label that is and we’re happy to use it. I am not trying to impose narrative elements on your playstyle if they aren’t present or font define it. Like I said, it is a convenient label. I am not attached to it at all and am totally open to it not being accurate to reflect your style or the types of games you play.

 

[pemerton]

No. This isn't the language I would use at all (we've contested over terms like 'the fiction' before). Your terminology, in my view, is loaded and reflects a philosophy about gaming, about analyzing games that we don't share at all

I've asked you to provide your approved terminology. What is it?

I don't believe, for instance, that you really don't think that there are games in which the action declaration I search for a secret door is resolved by the GM consulting his/her notes, noting that they record no secret door as present in the architecture at the place the PC currently is in, and responding No on that basis. In fact I'm 100% sure that you have run games that are adjudicated in exactly this fashion.

The GM helping the players understand something in the world their characters would understand due to intelligence isn't the GM trying to shape vetoing an action at all. It could be if the GM is doing so to encourage certain results or to mislead. But the GM is supposed to not care one way or another whether the players take action A, B, or C. If the PCs do something that leads to disaster, that is an entirely fair outcome and it is the GM respecting their ability to make choices in the setting. But if a player would know something that might lead them to choose a different action, the GM has a responsibility to make sure that is fairly adjudicated

Should that bolded word player actually be character? Otherwise what does it mean to say a player "would" know something if in fact the player doesn't know it. Do you mean would know it if s/he'd been paying attention to the GM's exposition?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't understand this, at two levels.

First, why do you get to have "convenient terms" whereas my language is outrageous and forbidden?

Second, if a player says, as his/her PC, I put on a cloak she has now narrated something into existence - her PC is wearing a cloak. But I assume you don't count that as narrative power. If a player says to the GM can my guy pay for a new lantern and the GM says sure, just knock off the gps, does that count as narrative power?

no those aren’t narrative powers in my view. Putting on a cloak predisposes the PC has one. Out of convenience the player states what they do as if they have one. But the unspoken assumption here is the GM can pause and say you don’t have a cloak. Nothing was narrated into existence. It’s an edge case of convenience. It still depends on GM approval (generally it just is insignificant enough for the GM to probably not care either way). But if the player says “I load my bazooka” and it wasn’t established he has one, the GM is going to intervene because it is a much more significant assumption

 

[Emerikol]

If one thing could be said from all sides, it’s that the terminology is killing us. We’ve wasted a lot of time on it. Not sure the fix.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've asked you to provide your approved terminology. What is it?

I don't believe, for instance, that you really don't think that there are games in which the action declaration I search for a secret door is resolved by the GM consulting his/her notes, noting that they record no secret door as present in the architecture at the place the PC currently is in, and responding No on that basis. In fact I'm 100% sure that you have run games that are adjudicated in exactly this fashion.

we have provided plenty of alternatives. My preference is living world

no one is saying notes aren’t a factor but you have the metaphor upside down: the notes are there to track the world created by the GM and consulting notes is only one way of checking on matters like secret doors (recollection, instinct, improvising, being guided by logic—-would the master of this keep have a secret door here?—-these are all ways the GM manages bringing the world to the table)

 

[pemerton]

If PCs are involved, then the DM is only empowered to determine an outcome that is both based on prior conception of the fiction AND player input(actions/RP).

The player input here is the action declaration, isn't it?

If the player says, "I take some roses from the garden and give them to the princess when I see her tonight," I'm not at liberty to say, "No you don't." I'm not at liberty to say, "Well, instead one of the guards really cut those flowers and gave them to the visiting prince who then gives them to the princess." I am constrained by what the player declares to narrate an outcome that matches what the player did. The player's input is a major factor in how the narration is shaped, so the player did in fact help shape the narration.

You seem to be reiterating here that the players declare actions for their PCs. But I am talking about the process of determining the outcome of that declaration.

There is an approach to RPGing where the GM makes that determination, and does so by reference to his/her prior conception of the fiction. For instance, s/he might have decided that the princess is allergic to roses.

EDIT:

Sometimes it's that for sure. Usually, though, the player is about to have the PC do something that would result in something bad happening to the PC, but which the player might not have thought about. If the PC has a 7 wisdom, I probably won't say anything. The PC is very unwise. If the PC has an 18 wisdom, I probably won't have the check be made. Nobody at my table has anything approaching an 18. If the PC is anywhere from 10-16, I'll give the player a roll and then just inform the player of the likely result.

This is an example of exactly what I mean. How can the GM know, in advance, that the thing the player is having the PC do would result in something bad happening to the PC? The answer must be that the GM is having regard to his/her prior conception of the fiction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Should that bolded word player actually be character? Otherwise what does it mean to say a player "would" know something if in fact the player doesn't know it. Do you mean would know it if s/he'd been paying attention to the GM's exposition?

Was speaking pretty casually. I am not too precious about the distinction here as the player is the one making the decision and the GM is informing the player, not the character, what they know. And no I don’t mean they would know if they had been paying attention. Possibly that could be the case or possibly the player simply doesn’t know enough about the setting that the character would know.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't understand how the GM's response is not a decision. I mean, it's not a reflex or automatic response is it?

My point was it wasn’t necessarily deliberative and it wasn’t solely just about the GM: the GM can actually by instinct and intuition (by having a feel for the world) and the need to decide will often be a response to what players are trying to do and what they are asking or saying.