What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

The point of the syllogism was that I was being dishonest with myself about how I was prioritizing the prefabricated "living world" elements. If everything is a construct---even the "living world"---then what matters is what is considered true within the shared fiction. And why were my prefabricated "living world" elements receiving privileged status as in-fiction "truth"? Only because the natural asssumption is that it's the GM's call to say so in the first place.

And if I was truly interested in the enjoyment of my players, that I had to be willing to let go of that conceit.

If you find the syllogism persuasive, that is fine. Some people find arguments for the existence of god persuasive, some find arguments against persuasive. That is the nature of arguments and syllogisms. I pointed to where in the syllogism I have a problem accepting the conclusions. But can you at least accept the two following possibilities:

1) My experience of this isn't the same as yours: for me the living world is an attainable experience (not as a perfect thing mind you, but it is real enough for my purposes)

2) That there may be a flaw in your present logic (where you reject living worlds) just as their was a law in your prior logic (when you embraced living worlds)

Number 2 is one of the reasons why I come across as so stubborn in these threads. I have what I think is a pretty good grasp on the limits of persuasion and on my own limits. I would never suggest I am the smartest person in the room, or even all that smart. And it is largely because of that, I am always wary of accepting arguments that sound convincing, because in my experience it takes some time, but eventually you can find the flaws in the premises, you can find the unspoken assumptions that weren't visible and might disrupt a valid conclusion. For me to be persuaded of something, I need a good argument, I need time to digest that argument and not start to reject its points, and I need to see it first hand for myself. I have seen a lot of persuasive rhetoric and arguments here. I haven't encountered anything that actually changes my experience of play at the table

 

[Bedrockgames]

Player stuff = "the fiction at the table,"; source code = "The GM's conception of the living world". And on a certain level, I can kind-of, sort-of see the the connection.

But isn't it also fascinating that Skyrim is hands-down the game that has been modded more than any other game in the history of video gaming. And why is that?

Because the players want to experience things that its original designers never thought of in the first place.

We agree but disagree on this. The italicized bit is what makes a human GM so important and the RPG as a medium different from video games. In a video game your prep lays down the code but, unlike a video game, the GM can adapt, expand setting, extrapolate, invent and respond when the players want to go beyond. That is why is said it isn’t all a foundation of stone. You want sone foundation for there to be a sense of a consistent believable world but it is the ability of the players to try anything they want in that world, even to force the GM to stretch it when they exceed the programming, that makes it immersive for me. Things like living NPCs are tools that make this kind of extrapolation and invention plausible but also connected to the idea of a world that is consistent and external

 

[Bedrockgames]

And I know you've said that you don't really feel your world is all that "precious" to you; that you try to downplay and curb that instinct.

But isn't it still there? Just a little?

no, not since I realized running the game is far easier when you aren’t precious about it. I think it is easy to have this tendency when you are younger, but the older I get, the less this sort of thing really has any weight. I like to speak evocatively about settings, I like to handle NPCs similar to how players handle NpCs, but I genuinely don’t care if the players decapitate one of those npcs. And I am much more interested in what the players find interesting in the world to explore. I also don’t mind one bit pulling the curtain back and showing players notes, tools, telling them what a particular box was planning to do etc

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

The way I would describe it is as neither. You are basing it on extrapolation of what you know about your setting but also with regard to what the players have done and where that night naturally lead. Of course this is all in a vacuum. If someone provided a clear situation (an unloaded one, not a trap) that might help

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

If you're this far in this thread, then I assume you may have encountered some of my excerpts from one of the two Dungeon World games I'm presently running?

I'll stay with the one that I'm running with @darkbard , because that is the one I've excerpted in this thread.

Two features of this system (that yield the sort of "optimal Protagonistic Play" that I've spoken about upthread) address the above:

1) The setting is entirely rendered around either/or Player Input and/or PC Dramatic Need. Consequently, there is no such thing as "GM preconception/notes" that doesn't have regard to that Player Input and/or PC Dramatic Need.

2) If "the Duke was gone on a trip" emerged as a facet of a social conflict, it would be because either (a) this framing was necessary to honor a prior, table-facing piece of fiction (this would be fallout table facing action resolution or an instance of “ask questions and use answers” prior) or (b) I used this as a GM move (Reveal an Unwelcome Truth) when a player move yielded a complication.

However, both (a) and (b) would be downstream of the aggregate of the game's agenda + principles (fill their lives with danger/adventure, play to find out what happens, follow the rules, be a fan of the characters and follow their lead, ask questions and use the answers, make moves that follow from the fiction, etc) and action resolution procedures (6 or less on a move = hard move/failure and earn xp, 7-9 = success with complication/cost/hard decision, 10 + = you get what you want).

If you need clarification, have questions, or if it would be easier with a play excerpt, let me know.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say three things about this:

1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).

I think player input and DM responsiveness to that input is on that continuum for sure. A Sandbox, though, probably wouldn't even make it to M. The whole point of a Sandbox game is player freedom to choose where they go and what they do. It some point as you head down the alphabet, you've taken too much of that freedom away and it's no longer a Sandbox.

 

[Maxperson]

I now want to rank systems and play styles on this A..Z scale.

That would be tough. I have played some Zzzzzzzzzz, games, though.

 

[Lanefan]

I grew up in a town of approximately 400. Even there everyone knew everyone else. THE cop once pulled my father over when my dad got a new car. The cop was like, "Oops, Marc. I didn't know it was you." and let him go. When I had a library book that was due, I just walked to the librarian's house which was closer than the library and left it with her.

You define "town" as something different than I do.

To me a town (in real life) is something much bigger - 5000+ at least.

 

[TwoSix]

You define "town" as something different than I do.

To me a town (in real life) is something much bigger - 5000+ at least.

Aren't you in Canada? I thought you defined places over 5,000 people as "provinces".

 

[Lanefan]

If anyone in this thread has run more hours of Trad Sandbox play than me, I would be utterly shocked. From 84 - 04, it was exclusively either Moldvay Dungeon Delving, BECMI/RC or AD&D Sandbox or Hexcrawl.

As DM: 84 - present day, with two year-long gaps in there somewhere. Some of that time, two sessions a week. Probably over 2300 sessions total.

Also played a fair bit during that time, and still am.

And even with that I'll freely admit you probably know more about Sandbox theory than I do, in that you seem to spend more effort thinking about this stuff than I can be bothered to do.

20 years (and I’ve run plenty more in the last 17). Only GMing. No playing. Probably averaging 6 hours per week. Folks can do the math.

If I’m coming at this from a position of ignorance then the whole of D&D culture has a pretty stark purity test!