What is the point of GM's notes?

[Cadence]

In Apocalypse World, the constraints are not identical. There is no clear analogue to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits; but the GM is expected to ask questions and have regard to the answers to those in what s/he says. Each individual move also generates constraints, if the roll is successful (eg a successful "search"-type move will require the GM to narrate some new, useful thing); and if a roll fails, the GM is obliged to narrate some new complication that will follow from the established fiction.

How much of this new complication is completed completely ad-hoc on the spot? If none, how are any pre-conceived notions wiped from the GMs mind? If some, are those pre-conceived notion akin to notes in a sense (even if only mental)?

 

[Cadence]

A related thought:

Does the GM, in narrating consequences, extrapolate from what s/he has already prepped or imagined about the gameworld? Or does the GM, in narrating consequences, have regard to the players' evinced desires about the trajectory of their PCs?

(Of course, this also relates back to the discussion upthread of protagonism.)

The first approach is neutral GMing. I think this is pretty typical of classic/trad sandboxing.

The second approach is one I associate first and foremost with Burning Wheel, but I've used it in other RPGs too: 4e D&D, Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark, and to some extent Classic Traveller.

Thinking it over, I think there are a lot of people I've played D&D and the like with who think they are doing the former, but are actually doing a lot of the later.

The difference feels like at what stage they do it (after every die-roll/declaration, between encounters, between sessions) and how much they let on to the players that that is what's happening. I wonder if just as many DMs want to think they are doing the former, many players say they want their DMs to be doing that ... even if they like how the second changes their experience as long as they aren't made to be aware of it.

 

[Maxperson]

But the model of the living world has been explicitly called out as running without the intervention of the PCs, that was the point of the "asleep for 10 years" example called out several pages ago. The PCs can't be both "primary" and "nonessential" by my understanding of what those words mean.

The PCs are the primary focus of the game. Period. Everything else, including the game world, is for their benefit. However, just because the setting is there for their benefit, doesn't mean that it doesn't have working parts that are going on even when they aren't present. Those working parts don't change the focus, the PCs remain primary, but they do add depth to the world in order to raise the play experience for all involved. Turning the setting into a living, breathing world.

I think where the PCs are primary are in determining the resolution of the world (using resolution here as picture or video resolution, not fictional resolution). The areas around the PCs and the NPCs that are meaningful to the play goals will be more fleshed out and detailed, by necessity. Other than acknowledging that there are kingdoms and lands across the ocean, for example, you don't waste "processing" time fleshing out their daily activities.

You can't flesh out the daily activities for entire kingdoms, no. You can know that the King Ron of Burgundy is plotting to steal the Bark of the Covenant from the neighboring kingdom to the east, and what steps he is going to take and what his timeline is, though. The PCs/players may or may not ever find out about that, and they may or may not do something about it if they do, but the existence of moving parts outside of their sight adds a lot of depth to the game world. They WILL find out about a lot of it.

 

[Cadence]

In my Traveller game I use preparation in the form of starmaps. After the first couple of sessions I drew these up, because keeping track of the established worlds in my head seemed too hard:

Those would count as notes you are using?

This reduces the "exploring the GM's world" feel and increases the "protagonistic" feel.

How much of the importance is the "feel" and how much is the actuality?

 

[TwoSix]

How much of this new complication is completed completely ad-hoc on the spot? If none, how are any pre-conceived notions wiped from the GMs mind? If some, are those pre-conceived notion akin to notes in a sense (even if only mental)?

Nothing is forcing the DM to not have any ideas as to how play might proceed, or NPCs that could be introduced, or scenes that could play out in the future. (Having no ideas would certainly make for a worse game.)

The point of this type of play is the DM never says "No" because of an idea they have in their head or notes that hasn't been introduced in the fiction already. You can say "The Duke is on a 3 month pilgrimage and can't be negotiated with" after a failed check to meet with the king, but not just because your notes about the palace say so.

 

[Cadence]

Nothing is forcing the DM to not have any ideas as to how play might proceed, or NPCs that could be introduced, or scenes that could play out in the future. (Having no ideas would certainly make for a worse game.)

The point of this type of play is the DM never says "No" because of an idea they have in their head or notes that hasn't been introduced in the fiction already. You can say "The Duke is on a 3 month pilgrimage and can't be negotiated with" after a failed check to meet with the king, but not just because your notes about the palace say so.

Thank you for the clarification. I have to say such a thing never occurred to me.

Is the effect of the failure or the difficulty of the check based on what's in the DMs head that might not have been addressed in the fiction? Is the DM equally allowed to say the Duke is away for three months or three hours? Is the DM allowed to make the difficulty of the check greater if they'd rather not have them meet the Duke? Are they required to have a roll at all? If the Chamberlain says the Duke is gone for three months can the players think he's lying and make a check about it? If the players had seen the Duke sail off themselves can they say they think he circled around and make a check for it? [e.g. analogy wise is the world Bayesian where no point-mass priors on anything are allowed, or are they allowed in some cases? and are the tightnesses of the priors determined by the DM or the rules or both]

 

[TwoSix]

The PCs are the primary focus of the game. Period. Everything else, including the game world, is for their benefit. However, just because the setting is there for their benefit, doesn't mean that it doesn't have working parts that are going on even when they aren't present. Those working parts don't change the focus, the PCs remain primary, but they do add depth to the world in order to raise the play experience for all involved. Turning the setting into a living, breathing world.

I think we agree, and are just arguing about the word "primary". Let's say this:

1) The world exists for the benefit of the players to explore/interact with via their characters.
2) The DM can extrapolate a new setting state from the old setting state outside of the perceptions of the characters, and thus this is not communicated to the players until they interact with an element of the new setting state.

You can't flesh out the daily activities for entire kingdoms, no. You can know that the King Ron of Burgundy is plotting to steal the Bark of the Covenant from the neighboring kingdom to the east, and what steps he is going to take and what his timeline is, though. The PCs/players may or may not ever find out about that, and they may or may not do something about it if they do, but the existence of moving parts outside of their sight adds a lot of depth to the game world. They WILL find out about a lot of it.

Saying "adds a lot of depth to the world" is a meaningless value judgment. I'd rather say "Introducing fictional elements into the game derived from the DM's understanding of the changing state of the unseen narrative helps to give the players a sense that the "world" is changing outside their purview and is thus more realistic."

 

[TwoSix]

Thank you for the clarification. I have to say such a thing never occurred to me.

Is the effect of the failure or the difficulty of the check based on what's in the DMs head that might not have been addressed in the fiction? Is the DM equally allowed to say the Duke is away for three months or three hours? Is the DM allowed to make the difficulty of the check greater if they'd rather not have them meet the Duke? Are they required to have a roll at all? If the Chamberlain says the Duke is gone for three months can the players think he's lying and make a check about it? If the players had seen the Duke sail off themselves can they say they think he circled around and make a check for it? [e.g. analogy wise is the world Bayesian where no point-mass priors on anything are allowed, or are they allowed in some cases? and are the tightnesses of the priors determined by the DM or the rules or both]

Do you have a particular system in mind? Different systems would have different constraints on what would be allowed.

 

[Cadence]

Do you have a particular system in mind? Different systems would have different constraints on what would be allowed.

I was unaware there were systems where the DM couldn't simply say the Duke was gone on a trip because that's what their preconceptions/notes said. Any two systems that would allow that but give different answers would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Aldarc]

This is at least a metaphor many sandbox GMs use. Where the Gm is like the program, but has greater adaptability because the GM is human. For most of us, at least for the time being, that is the thing that really separates the two mediums (a video game RPG is more locked in, has more preset material with interactions defined before hand----I am sure there are things like algorithms as well, but at the moment it still seems to lack the human GMs adaptability (though it certainly might beat the human GM in terms of being able to map out and track a world and its physics. A lot of the sandbox GMs I talk to, believe eventually programs will reach a point where they can function the same or better than a human GM. But I do think this is a lot closer to describing what is going on than discovering the GMs notes (still though, I think the obvious aim of an RPG sandbox is to create a believable world for the players to explore-----if you remove that from the equation with sandbox I think you are missing something key

I'll consider this progress. But if we can pull back the veil behind this metaphor, I think that we can work towards a better understanding of what's actually going on as part of this process. Again, I think that it's acceptable that your aspirational aim is the generation of a believable/living world, but the underlying crude and dirty process by which GM and players achieve this is what is driving the conversation.

To supply a metaphor of my own: Your aim may be to give life to a beautiful garden; however, to create that garden, you know that you will be buying seeds, dirt, decorations, and tools and getting your hands dirty by hauling dirt/mulch, pulling out weeds, arranging plants, planting seeds, watering plants, trimming bushes, etc. How does one create a "living world" and what is the feedback loop interaction between player and GM, which can make facilitating such a world possible in a way that is distinct from games that operate with different feedback loops and play processes?

Now players may want to interact with a believable "living world" and the GM may want to provide said living world, but in order for players to do that in typical sandbox play, their actions have to be processed via the GM who often may set the difficulty, call or deny a check, or determine the potential range of outcomes for their actions. In order to engage the world, the players will be looking to the GM (and their rulings) as the GM exists as the intermediary between players and the presented fiction, because it's the GM's responsibility to procedurally generate the world. In order to engage the fiction that the GM presents, they have to engage the GM so that the GM can adjudicate their actions and hopefully generate additional fiction for the players to interact with.

I think that this is why it feels like "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" for some, but it feels like it gets things wrong for others.

Party 1 sees "Player -> Living World (GM)"

Party 2 sees above as "Player -> GM -> World"

In other words, for players to interact with that living world, their actions have to get filtered through the GM's rulings/adjudications first. Full stop. In other styles/games of play, the GM is less of an "obstacle" per the rules. I do think that typical sandbox play implicitly recognizes this. IMHO, typical sandbox play, however, often tries to alleviate this through a number of ways: e.g., "neutral GMing," pre-built sandbox tools/subsystems, flexible generic system, play to find out what happens/let the dice fall as they may, etc.