What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

The first group and approach offers very, very little to the faculty of everyone who is not a savant. I think this explains why D&D culture has been plagued by such a dearth of GMs (in proportion to its user base) and such a disproportionate amount of crap GMs; because this Master : Padawan relationship was how the craft was passed down historically (and, simply, it didn’t work at scale and created an enormous amount of discontent). So therefore demystifying the process so that people can actually learn it is how we get better (at large) as a culture of craftsfolk.

I don't think this is about savants versus everyone else. I think this is about people having different ways of thinking and learning games. I mean the fundamentals of play for something like D&D are explained it the rules. It isn't the theoretical language you use, but the basic elements of play are broken down. You've found a language (for convenience we'll just say the engineering language of RPGs) which works for you and demystifies for you. My point is it doesn't do that for a lot of people. I don't find your descriptions or language demystifying at all: I find it mystifying. It makes it harder for me to understand (and a lot of the concepts just never click for me).

Just asserting we should all talk about games the way you do: I don't think that is going to be helpful

 

[Manbearcat]

I may need some clarification on what setting solitaire is exactly. But I think if I came into the hobby and encountered Story Now and Setting Solitaire as my 'aha moment' rather than the setting is alive concept I pointed to in Feast of Goblyns (or at least the NPCs are alive), I don't know that either of those could have ever excited or resonated with me in the same way (I am still not even sure I fully understand how story now operates: and I have never really been heavily persuaded to the validity of GNS as a whole)

1) I would guess that (again, at scale) the excitement and resonance of TTRPGing doesn't come from the talking about it or reading about it. It comes from (a) beholding the emotions of people who do talk about the prospects of play, (b) beholding the play itself, and, most importantly, (c) the actual playing of the game.

2) On Setting Solitaire, I posted this upthread when I introduced it into the conversation so I'm just going to copy/paste:

* The GM has all the extra-PC pieces in play and their interactions. Setting.

* They could run “the game” without player input. Solitaire.

Setting Solitaire

When the players do play, it becomes an input into the game’s model run.

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).

2) “Players being secondary” (as you put it) here would be to the right of M (the median point of the alphabet-as-continuum), more toward Railroad. So that leaves a hell of a lot of room left of M (closer to A).

3) A in this arrangement would be fully Protagonistic Play where the Sandbox is constructed entirely around Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

For instance:

The Dungeon World Sandbox in my game with @darkbard and his wife would be an A. 100 % No Myth setting where everything in that setting is a byproduct of Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

My Blades game with @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 is probably around a B or even C with certain elements in the game being driven by a high res (but modified to our requirements and constantly being modified during play to our needs) pregenerated setting and related machinery that is required to address the premise of the game.

That doesn’t make the Dungeon World game better than the Blades game. They’re both awesome. They’re just slightly different.

So this is an interesting question:

"Can a game be considered a Sandbox if it is basically 100 % Setting Solitaire and player input is relegated entirely to color/characterization?"

That would be the Z on my continuum. The volitional force that players expect to erect upon play is entirely smoke and mirrors. In order to ensure play is funneled toward interaction with particular features of the setting, the GM is deploying Force at a 100 % rate when a question of play trajectory arises.

You have the aspect of a Setting having a model run, with a lot of different parameters considered and even authentic interactions with those parameters collide (Faction A collides with Faction B with Situation C also giving expression to the collision). However, all of the interactions are player-proof. They don't have a parameter in the model run. They think they do, but its a complete illusion.

My inclination is to say that the sort of 100 % Setting Solitaire that I've depicted above with 100 % Illusionism GMing (as it pertains to player input onto the trajectory of play) is still a Sandbox. Players can interact with all the constituent parts of the Sandbox and they perceive their influence on the trajectory...its just that their perception is mistaken...its an illusion.

They can build a house, they can do the dungeon (as the dungeon is to be done), they can order pastries from the baker, make friends with the mayor, protect the merchant caravan, slay the invading force. But its all either color/characterization that doesn't impact the trajectory of play or its Railroaded Setting Solitaire.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think this is about savants versus everyone else. I think this is about people having different ways of thinking and learning games. I mean the fundamentals of play for something like D&D are explained it the rules. It isn't the theoretical language you use, but the basic elements of play are broken down. You've found a language (for convenience we'll just say the engineering language of RPGs) which works for you and demystifies for you. My point is it doesn't do that for a lot of people. I don't find your descriptions or language demystifying at all: I find it mystifying. It makes it harder for me to understand (and a lot of the concepts just never click for me).

Just asserting we should all talk about games the way you do: I don't think that is going to be helpful

That isn't what I'm saying.

Of course people learn in a myriad of ways. I've invoked neurological diversity (and how it pertains to learning) more than anyone on this board would be my guess.

What I'm saying is, at scale, the approach of D&D Jedi : Padawan and treating it as more mystic art than craft has served to deplete the theoretical ranks of GMs (in both breadth and effectiveness) over the course of 40 years.

And the way I speak and the technical language I use for discussing TTRPGs is of course not for everyone. I'm sorry that it mystifies you. Certain people on here have long bitched at me for the way I write/the language I use. With respect to those people, the number of people who I have actually helped understand TTRPGing is a not-insignificant amount....WAAAAY more than you are aware of (because most of the exchanges are private PMs with people thanking me for a particular deconstruction of a TTRPGing thing that was helpful to them).

So, with absolute humility, I'm 100 % certain that I'm a more effective communicator on these subjects than you (and a few others) probably think I am. And the language that I use is a medium for that assist that I've given to a great many people. I'm sorry it doesn't work for you (truly), but it works for a lot of people.

But, again, it doesn't have to be my language or me. But the Jedi : Padawan relationship and mystification of Gamesmastering needs to end (if we want more and better GMs) because it doesn't work at scale. If it did, we would have a hell of a lot more GMs and a hell of a lot better ratio of extremely capable GMs with those we do have.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is an example of D&D's metaphorical approach to language (the "natural language" focus of D&D 5e would be another example) causing harm to the player-base.

Its an example from a game I love:

"Skip the gate guards and get to the fun!"

Remember that one from D&D 4e?

Well, that one caused a hell of a stir...and it didn't actually technically help a great deal of people. I mean, a lot of people were all "BUT I LIKE GATE GUARD CONFLICTS, SCREW YOU!"

But they weren't saying that gate guards aren't fun. What they were saying was, for this game, "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" or "cut to the action." The first of those axioms is from Vincent Baker in Dogs in the Vineyard. The second of those axioms is from a myriad of games including John Harper in Blades in the Dark.

THAT is what they were trying to say. But they said something that was crappy instead because (a) it unnecessarily incited people while (b) simultaneously not explaining exactly what the hell they were saying in a concise, technical manner.

Gate guards can be conflict. Gate guards can be action. But a lot of time in D&D, they're just color and characteriation. For this game (D&D 4e), everything on screen, every moment of play should be conflict/action...so if you have gate guards...make sure they're bite and note all bark (yes, the metaphorical language here is meant to be ironic)!

 

[Fenris-77]

The only thing I'm aware of that (capitalized) Living World refers to is the approach for a shared setting across many tables, with many GMs running semi-concurrent games, where game reports are shared and so update everyone's conception of the setting fiction at the same time.

I do not think that this is how this term is being used in this thread at all.

No, I'm aware of that definition and, as far as I know, that's where the term comes from. However, common usage, currently, has broadend to mean more whatbit does in this thread. Here I've taken it mean a sandbox game where the gears in the background turn and change both with and without player input. The current usage tends to be very much the above but as a GM activity, based on notes, which is different than, say, Blades.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I'm aware of that definition and, as far as I know, that's where the term comes from. However, common usage, currently, has broadend to mean more whatbit does in this thread. Here I've taken it mean a sandbox game where the gears in the background turn and change both with and without player input. The current usage tends to be very much the above but as a GM activity, based on notes, which is different than, say, Blades.

I don't see this term as helpful at all. It actually appears to function in a harmful manner, because while you've assumed it means these things, it might not to someone else, even someone claiming it as their approach. It's a romanticized term that doesn't speak to the actual methods of play, and, as such, harms understanding more than helps it.

 

[pemerton]

To someone that's familiar with Arthurian Romance tropes, @pemerton's scene is a classic example and plays straight down the verisimilitude lane for that genre.

I really like this scene in your example. Having the play squarely focussed on the squire, whose story this is, feels very Arthurian. Actually, it's just good drama, period, centering on character motivations and needs.

Thanks both for these posts.

To try and add something about the relationship between in-fiction situation (including character, both PC and NPC) and technique: the player has made a move - trying to proceed past Sir Lionheart after the latter refuses to joust with a mere squire - that demands some sort of response. The response has to come from me as GM - in AW terms, this is one of those moments where everyone looks at the GM to see what comes next. And given the set-up in the scene, the response in the fiction has to come from Sir Lionheart.

One obvious possibility, and I assume the one @Emerikol has in mind, is for Sir Lionheart to just yell at the squire, or perhaps punch him or cut him down. But there are complexities: Sir Lionheart has already refused to joust him, so does drawing swords go against that? Or if rather than a duel Sir Lionheart just cuts him down, I know from the scenario description that he will regret this afterwards, because it is dishonourable. The player hasn't read that description, but has a sense of Sir Lionheart's personality - it's a fairly clear genre trope - and is playing into that.

A different possible circuit breaker is that Sir Lionheart knights the squire so he is eligible to be fought as an equal.

In the context of adjudicating the action in the course of the session, these possibilities are implicit. I think they're implicit for the player. They go through my mind fairly quickly. And then the question becomes, how to decide what happens? Which of the conceived-of possibilities is the "real" one?

My understanding of sandbox play in the classic sense, as being articulated in this thread, is that the GM is entitled and even expected to extrapolate from the notes about Sir Lionheart, the broader understanding of the setting (in this case, faux-historical mediaeval) and a feeling about "what makes sense". A reaction roll or CHA check or similar mechanic might be called for if the GM is not sure, but if the GM can make a decision without calling for a check that is permitted and even desirable.

In the sort of play Prince Valiant is designed for, and especially in my case drawing also on the influence of more recent RPGs that have been inspired (in part) by Prince Valiant but state some of the relevant GMing principles more clearly, the GM is not expected to decide. The GM is expected to call for a check. There are various ways for setting difficulty. But on option is an opposed check - in this case Presence vs Presence. (Note how in the passage I quoted upthread replying to @Cadence, for a different but related possibility the scenario does not use an opposed check but sets a Difficulty of 2. I can't now recall if I was remembering that passage when I set out adjudication for this action. But given the PC in question an opposed Presence check - the PCs 4 dice vs Sir Lionheart's 3 dice - was harder than a Fellowship check (7 dice for this PC, maybe only 6 at that point) vs a difficulty of 2 and perhaps also harder than Courtesie (I think at that time probably 5 dice) vs that difficulty. I could of course have called for a higher difficulty. But in the heat of play I went for an opposed check, which is well within the "permissibility" limits for the system.

And the job of the check is not just to determine what happens next, but to do so in a way that will answer that question from the point of view of the dramatic needs of the PC. Does s/he get what s/he wants? On this occasion the player rolled well, and so the answer was yes!

(And @Arilyn, I've got nothing to add to the rest of your post which I fully agree with.)

 

[pemerton]

Creating a secret door on the fly makes me wince just for the record. Fidelity to the reality of the world is paramount to me.

I'm not romanticizing it. Something isn't real until it exists. So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment. The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to. Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.

When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase. Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.

It's not about words being "loaded". It's about not making assumptions, in one's analysis, that aren't true for other RPGers.

I think we've established in this thread that fidelity to the "reality" of the world is pretty important for most of us as posters. (When I played an AD&D one-shot generating a dungeon using Appendix A, I didn't care about fidelity to the reality of any world. And when I played a Dying Earth one-shot it was close to "anything goes" as that's the nature of the setting. Those are the only exceptions I can think of at the moment.)

I've put "reality" in inverted commas because of course it's a metaphor. Literally, as you say, reality entails existence. And these imagined worlds of RPGing don't exist and hence aren't real. What is real are moments of imagination, and the records ("notes") we make of those. As you explain, in advance of play you imagine things about the gameworld and write those down - this is the campaign construction phase that occurs outside the session, prior to the players learning about the world. You then use the record of your imaginings to decide the outcomes of some action declarations, like "I search for secret doors."

That's one possible resolution technique, that also shows us a distinctive use for GM's notes. It's not the only way of resolving such action declarations, and it's not the only way that enables maintenance of fidelity to the "reality" of the gameworld. That's also not the only use that GM's notes might have.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not about words being "loaded". It's about not making assumptions, in one's analysis, that aren't true for other RPGers.

I think we've established in this thread that fidelity to the "reality" of the world is pretty important for most of us as posters. (When I played an AD&D one-shot generating a dungeon using Appendix A, I didn't care about fidelity to the reality of any world. And when I played a Dying Earth one-shot it was close to "anything goes" as that's the nature of the setting. Those are the only exceptions I can think of at the moment.)

I've put "reality" in inverted commas because of causes it's a metaphor. Literally, as you say, reality entails existence. And these imagined worlds of RPGing don't exist and hence aren't real. What is real are moments of imagination, and the records ("notes") we make of those. As you explain, in advance of play you imagine things about the gameworld and write those down - this is the campaign construction phase that occurs outside the session, prior to the players learning about the world. You then use the record of your imaginings to decide the outcomes of some action declarations, like "I search for secret doors."

That's one possible resolution technique, that also shows us a distinctive use for GM's notes. It's not the only way of resolving such action declarations, and it's not the only way that enables maintenance of fidelity to the "reality" of the gameworld. That's also not the only use that GM's notes might have.

Does thought exist?

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't see this term as helpful at all. It actually appears to function in a harmful manner, because while you've assumed it means these things, it might not to someone else, even someone claiming it as their approach. It's a romanticized term that doesn't speak to the actual methods of play, and, as such, harms understanding more than helps it.

I'd disagree. Romantic notions aside I know what the term means and its a specific and useful term. That said, the way some people use the term isnt useful, so there's that.