What is the point of GM's notes?

[Campbell]

My personal opinion is that any world that is small enough to fit inside the confines of a single person's head is not worthy of its label. That professional actors spend months preparing to take on the role of a single person where their words are provided for them and still often feel like they could have done better. I feel like we can do an adequate of reasoning about the fiction in extremely limited contexts, but the idea that we could ever hold a whole world in our head is fanciful. By the way that does not mean that the pursuit is not valuable, but if we want to do the best we can as GMs in whatever discipline I think we should not delude ourselves as to the enormity of the task and the fact that we will all fall short.

That's all fine because in falling short we still accomplish a lot. We create something that has meaning to us. We get to experience our own world in a different way through the barest glimpses of another world.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Either thoughts are real, or they are not. If they are real, and you've already stated that they are, then so are the the worlds comprised of such thought. They are real while you are imagining them, and are not when nobody is thinking of them. In a group playing roleplaying games, the world is a shared imagined(thought) reality. And yes, unicorns are also just as real while you are thinking of them. They just don't have an independent reality like my car does.

I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.

But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.

It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you, in the name of all that is just and good to stop.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My personal opinion is that any world that is small enough to fit inside the confines of a single person's head is not worthy of its label. That professional actors spend months preparing to take on the role of a single person where their words are provided for them and still often feel like they could have done better. I feel like we can do an adequate of reasoning about the fiction in extremely limited contexts, but the idea that we could ever hold a whole world in our head is fanciful. By the way that does not mean that the pursuit is not valuable, but if we want to do the best we can as GMs in whatever discipline I think we should not delude ourselves as to the enormity of the task and the fact that we will all fall short.

That's all fine because in falling short we still accomplish a lot. We create something that has meaning to us. We get to experience our own world in a different way through the barest glimpses of another world.

Justin Alexander is an actor do I would be curious about his input here since he talks of sandboxes and living worlds (and I have an actor in my group do I would be happy to get his input). But again these are models emulating a combination of life and fiction. And the point of notes is to help expand that model beyond the bounds of your normal capacity to visualize one (and to retain the parameters, details and boundaries you might forget). No one is arguing that something with the details of a real world is being created. But it is world building in the mold of people like Asimov, Herbert, Howard and Clarke. It is essentially, in my view a thought experiment. I do think I do a pretty decent job, and I think one area I am pretty good at is institutions, npcs and what I would call Braudelian structures structures of daily life and forces of history. But it is still a game. It is still meant to be fun. It is still a world largely governed by things like random rolls.
In terms of language. Sone people comprehend through analogy, sone parables, some the kind of language we see on this thread: I find Living world a powerful image to help crystallize the concept. It is a goal, similar to his being a fair arbiter is a goal.

 

[Manbearcat]

My personal opinion is that any world that is small enough to fit inside the confines of a single person's head is not worthy of its label. That professional actors spend months preparing to take on the role of a single person where their words are provided for them and still often feel like they could have done better. I feel like we can do an adequate of reasoning about the fiction in extremely limited contexts, but the idea that we could ever hold a whole world in our head is fanciful. By the way that does not mean that the pursuit is not valuable, but if we want to do the best we can as GMs in whatever discipline I think we should not delude ourselves as to the enormity of the task and the fact that we will all fall short.

That's all fine because in falling short we still accomplish a lot. We create something that has meaning to us. We get to experience our own world in a different way through the barest glimpses of another world.

The implications of this on what I was speaking about above shouldn't be overlooked as well.

How many would-be GMs have passed on trying their hand because of exactly what you're depicting above? When you make something sound like its reserved only for the most profoundly gifted (those who can functionally model an entire world in their head; eg no one) while simultaneously failing to demystify the actual process and limits of GMing, you're ensuring a low % of the user base confidently working toward being functional GMs.

This hasn't exactly helped our hobby. More GMs, better GMs, more and better GMs make for more games and more better games. And I suspect most of us feel that running games and partaking in TTRPGs cognitively enhances people (and absolutely kids in their developmental stages).

So basically what I'm saying is that with great power comes great responsibility. D&D culture is Spider Man who turned evil. It could have saved the world. We could have world peace and Humanity 3.0. Instead we have genocide and climate change and profound civil strife and wealth inequality and pandemics and the Yankees and people that don't understand that Michael Jordan is the GOAT and space shuttles that don't work.

Thanks D&D.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.

But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.

It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you, in the name of all that is just and good to stop.

D&D <head shake>

 

[Bedrockgames]

How many would-be GMs have passed on trying their hand because of exactly what you're depicting above? When you make something sound like its reserved only for the most profoundly gifted (those who can functionally model an entire world in their head; eg no one) while simultaneously failing to demystify the actual process and limits of GMing, you're ensuring a low % of the user base confidently working toward being functional GMs.

But no one is saying that. I hope you understand that the way you talk about games, comes across as if it is a language "... reserved only for the most profoundly gifted". I am not saying RPG theory and vocabulary doesn't have utility, but I find it deeply, deeply confusing. And that isn't a statement against you. I probably process and understand things differently from you (I am not a science guy, not a jargon guy and not an engineering guy, my background is history, philosophy and music----and I generally don't like to make my gaming language as confusing as philosophy because philosophy literally comes with a dictionary of terms you need to understand in order to navigate it----and philosophy takes a long time when you are reading individual books, essays and articles to understand). And I am really not trying to knock how you approach analyzing and speaking about games. I am just trying to get you to appreciate I really can't approach RPGs that way. I find it makes the whole process that much more difficult for me. And I very often find myself at odds with your conclusions (and the certainty with which you hold your conclusions creates a lot of frustration on my part: not saying this to anger or debate, simply saying it so you can see my point of view)

But we are only talking about the use of living world in sandbox campaigns, which are niche: this is not generally an entry point into the hobby. There are tons of other adventure structures out there that are more mainstream and more likely to be entry points (and I think many of those do get good treatment). Even so, people here have pointed to and praised the description of living world sandboxes by writers like Kevin Crawford (who specifically addresses readers who may feel overwhelmed, intimidated by, or confused by the concept and what it entails). And most descriptions of this sort of thing merely begin with concepts like the living world, they almost always delve deeper into what is going on (I linked a series of step by step posts by Rob Conley for example; and Justin Alexander frequently breaks down many different kinds of adventure structures in ways that are meant to be understood by people who haven't run them (including Sandboxes and Hex Crawls).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I’ve largely been silent for many pages of this thread because I don’t feel I have a lot to add that’s not already being said, and far better than I would say it.

But I want to jump in here and beg you to drop this tangent about thoughts and how real they are. It seems like a desperate grasp at being right in some way, but it’s a way that doesn’t matter.

It’s not adding anything to the discussion. Please, I beg you, in the name of all that is just and good to stop.

I think this is actually a bit of a linguistic chaos overall, but I think maxperson isn't any more responsible than anyone else. He is simply asserting that the thought of something is a real thought. He is, I believe and he can correct me if I am wrong, expression the same thing I am trying to convey when I talk about how one can in fact imagine a model with details and parameters that are set in the way that a real place would be (i.e. my real house has 5 rooms, and the house I am imagining has 5 rooms).

I have to admit Hawkeye, when I see posts like this, they seem a little bullying to me. One of the things I respond to negatively in these threads is the sense that I am sometimes being sneered at or belittled (or thought of as less intelligent) and that is reinforced when I see posters crap on something I say and dismiss it with statements like they could understand the conclusions even as a child (suggesting that those of us who don't agree, are childlike or even less intelligent than children). This is the kind of shaming rhetoric I pointed to earlier.

 

[Manbearcat]

But no one is saying that. I hope you understand that the way you talk about games, comes across as if it is a language "... reserved only for the most profoundly gifted". I am not saying RPG theory and vocabulary doesn't have utility, but I find it deeply, deeply confusing. And that isn't a statement against you. I probably process and understand things differently from you (I am not a science guy, not a jargon guy and not an engineering guy, my background is history, philosophy and music----and I generally don't like to make my gaming language as confusing as philosophy because philosophy literally comes with a dictionary of terms you need to understand in order to navigate it----and philosophy takes a long time when you are reading individual books, essays and articles to understand). And I am really not trying to knock how you approach analyzing and speaking about games. I am just trying to get you to appreciate I really can't approach RPGs that way. I find it makes the whole process that much more difficult for me. And I very often find myself at odds with your conclusions (and the certainty with which you hold your conclusions creates a lot of frustration on my part: not saying this to anger or debate, simply saying it so you can see my point of view)

But we are only talking about the use of living world in sandbox campaigns, which are niche: this is not generally an entry point into the hobby. There are tons of other adventure structures out there that are more mainstream and more likely to be entry points (and I think many of those do get good treatment). Even so, people here have pointed to and praised the description of living world sandboxes by writers like Kevin Crawford (who specifically addresses readers who may feel overwhelmed, intimidated by, or confused by the concept and what it entails). And most descriptions of this sort of thing merely begin with concepts like the living world, they almost always delve deeper into what is going on (I linked a series of step by step posts by Rob Conley for example; and Justin Alexander frequently breaks down many different kinds of adventure structures in ways that are meant to be understood by people who haven't run them (including Sandboxes and Hex Crawls).

Good post broadly.

Just a couple things:

1) The way I write and the way I talk when I’m analyzing any subject isn’t remotely the same way I run games. I probably talk and think and write (short-hand) about 3-4 different ways depending upon what I’m doing.

So here I’m just saying that a certain sort of faculty with language (the type you’re talking about here) is no indicator of the ability to run games well.

Theatrical ability (or lack there of) isn’t either.

2)

*Creativity

* Empathy and the ability to read social cues

* Efficiency in language

* Comprehension and information uptake (the ability to be mentally disciplined/organized/coherent)

* The ability to mentally cross-reference and integrate multiple axes of information simultaneously

Those are all key areas of GMing aptitude. My position is that your self-described aptitude make you more “gifted” in these things. The last 2 are skills that need to be honed. By anyone and everyone GMing. There are only a few ways to get better at those:

* Exposure to cognitive frameworks + tricks and training

* Practice, structure, and discipline

Put another way, “practice doesn’t make perfect...perfect practice makes perfect.”

That is why my interest lies in making this area improved for all TTRPG players and would-be GMs especially.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quick addendum to the above post.

My position on these things is surely driven by my martial life (not academic). “Perfect practice makes perfect” is an axiom in sports and martial arts but it absolutely applies to GMing. What it means is:

1) Fundamentally understand what you’re trying to do:

• 1st principles.
• Discrete concepts and holistic concept.

2) Develop your base and be technically sound in doing so.

3) Attack your weaknesses and be technically sound in doing so (make them your strengths).

4) Improve your strengths and be technically sound in doing so.


It defies all logic how GMs are encouraged to just jump right in whole hog without this path above. If you don’t fundamentally understand what you’re doing and don’t work on fundamentals and developing your base, it’s inevitable that you’re going to pick up technical flaws and bad habits (overwhelmingly cognitive habits in the craft of GMing). Those become hardwired because theyre formed in the crucible of a high stress situation of full-on running a game. And then you have to put in a lot of work to undo them and rewire yourself.

Or...more likely...people just quit.

New GMs should practice the constituent parts of their GMing with a friend or friends, for a nice stretch, long before they ever run a full game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Good post broadly.

Just a couple things:

1) The way I write and the way I talk when I’m analyzing any subject isn’t remotely the same way I run games. I probably talk and think and write (short-hand) about 3-4 different ways depending upon what I’m doing.

So here I’m just saying that a certain sort of faculty with language (the type you’re talking about here) is no indicator of the ability to run games well.

Theatrical ability (or lack there of) isn’t either.

To be clear here I wasn't assuming anything about how you game at the table. I was talking purely about communication of game concept s and analysis.

Also I agree about faculty with language and theatrical ability. My style is very non-actor like (I speak dryly, mostly I am concerned about what the characters say, not how they say it). I have a handful of theatrical players and they can add to a game, but I am on the opposite side of that spectrum (I can occasionally jump into 'comedian mode' and exaggerate an NPC persona for effect, but that is more an out of character commentary usually.