What is the point of GM's notes?

[AnotherGuy]

A couple things on this:

1) In the course of human history, monetizing a martial art, a craft, the product of artisanship is an extremely recent occurrence. Its a minor blip in the overall arc of millions of years and even when you index it to the Homo sapien record f the last 100 k years. Overwhelmingly, martial artists, craftsfolk, artisans plied their trade as a specialist among a small collective; an individual answer to a selection pressure....an answer that they handed down generationally among their clan.

2) Even in the last 10 to 12 k years where trade actually became a functional part of human history, martial artists, craftsfolk, artisans who actually monetized their trade is extremely small % of the total collective of those who are functional.

I'm not special, but I'm functional or better at probably 2 dozen things that I could effectively monetize. The world is made up of people who have broad aptitude at a number of things (sufficient to be "functional") but could never enter the tail of the human distribution in any one thing (like myself...I'll never be a world class anything, but I'm functional to good at a lot). These things would be "hobbies" to me (just like TTRPGing).

Do you believe the percentage of sports players, artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills over the entire population are likely to exceed the number of functional GMs over the entire roleplayer community?

Furthermore
Sport is introduced as school level. It is prominent at college and university level. Furthermore club level exists. Participating in a sport could be beneficial for one's health.
Exposure to martial arts is prolific in movies and pop culture. It is valuable skill for self discipline and self-defense. Participating in a martial art could be beneficial for one's health.
Crafts and the product of artisanship are generally valuable skills to have.

Roleplaying is a useful tool for a handful of things many of which could just as easily be gained through any of the above activities.

 

[Aldarc]

I can't really argue with that.
I was more suggesting that the very existence of tutorial videos for running games means that the process is being more and more demystified all the time and thus GM's are better on average than they've ever been.

Do you have any examples of videos showing the 'DM as mystic' approach? I'm kinda curious as I'm not really sure what that would involve.

YouTube videos run the whole range from useful to utter drek, so I'm sure videos on GMing are no different. Any monkey can post a video.

It's much as Fenris says. I do agree with your sentiment that GMing is being demystified, though there is also some degree of backlash against that process. Plus, I don't think that anyone makes a video with the idea that they are advocating for "GM as a mystic." However, there are a number of GM advice videos that typically raise some red flags of this approach regarding how they envision the GM's role, their (power) relationship with players, fudging the dice, their "responsibility" as the GM to author a good story/world, and framing GM advice as "secrets," which treats GMing as a hidden gnosis.

Incidentally, in regards to this wider topic, Runehammer posted a video recently (Apr. 3) on "Demythifying Prep." Wherein he talks about using notes, planning scenarios not plots, avoiding pre-written outcomes, etc. (It's from a stream, so he does jump around, and by the second-half he focuses on showing how does hand-drawn character sheets.)

 

[Emerikol]

That is fair, but that also seems very broad. For example, I would argue humans have advanced technologically in terms of warfare and tactics, but that, I think is largely also a product of going to war (was is defiantly a pressure cooker). The same with a lot of sports, there is an evolution that occurs in that pressure cooker of competition that is generating massive revenue. But have we really gotten better at acrobatics? Have we gotten physically better at fighting? (maybe in some instances, but if you asked me would I rather be put in a death match cage unarmed against a random person from today, and a random person from 100,000 years ago, I think I might go with the person from today (because my intuition tells me we've evolved away from the needs of being as physically strong and enduring as we've become more civilized: and that the person from 100,000 years ago is more likely to have killed with their bare hands).

In terms of RPGs and teaching GMs, 90s storytelling, etc I have more thoughts on that but will have to post on them when I have more time

Both can be true. The very best of today easily beat the very best of yesteryear while the average of today loses rather easily to the average of yesteryear. The NFL is a good example. Most of the teams in the 60's would be crushed by even an average team today. Now, there is a limit on how far that can go and maybe the NFL is pushing it but technology matters.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't do a lot of dungeon with pre-specified difficulties play. But I think if I had signed up for that, and then learned that in fact the GM was making it up as s/he goes along, I would feel a bit ripped off. I have had somewhat parallel experiences where, a certain way (eg a few sessions) into a game it becomes clear that nothing we do as players is having a substantial effect on the situations the GM is presenting to us. Generally those games have not been good ones.

This is a good point. When we desire a specific type of experience, faking it does not usually work. That is my experience at any rate.

I think if you stepped back and thought of a playstyle as a game in and of itself. There are rules and there are expectations. Meeting those rules and expectations is part of getting to success and hopefully fun. We've spent a bit of time talking past each other because we really are talking about entirely different "games". Different expectations coming in for each playstyle. The terms are killing us too. We spend five posts finally figuring out that we were talking about different things.

Now having said that, and given these different games exist, it is true that just like all the games in the world there are people that like both, like one, or like neither. It's not some failing in their character regardless of their choices. It's a matter of taste.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a good point. When we desire a specific type of experience, faking it does not usually work. That is my experience at any rate.

I think if you stepped back and thought of a playstyle as a game in and of itself. There are rules and there are expectations. Meeting those rules and expectations is part of getting to success and hopefully fun. We've spent a bit of time talking past each other because we really are talking about entirely different "games". Different expectations coming in for each playstyle. The terms are killing us too. We spend five posts finally figuring out that we were talking about different things.

Now having said that, and given these different games exist, it is true that just like all the games in the world there are people that like both, like one, or like neither. It's not some failing in their character regardless of their choices. It's a matter of taste.

I don't think @pemerton needs to step back to realize this -- it's a fundamental underpinning of many of his arguments. I might be wrong, he's free to correct me, but I can absolutely say for myself that this is not a new concept for me at all.

As for terms, the confusion about what they mean is limited only to those terms that have been used and not defined by the user. I don't think, though, this is your argument, because this argument says that my use of "protagonism," for instance, wasn't confusing because I spent many posts clearly, and without jargon, explaining what was meant by this. No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over. Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented. No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process. The rest of it is arguing over who gets to define a term. I even offered to change my term, but this offer was ignored because the point wasn't to engage the concepts, but to argue over words and prevent engaged discussion of the concepts behind them. This is borne out by the continued refusal to accept any -- ANY -- combination of terms to define how play proceeds when the GM is the primary (usually only) source of information about the fictional world, instead resorting to euphemisms about the outcomes rather than the process.

And, your final statement is also not novel -- I've said it multiple times throughout the thread in an attempt to deflect the arguments that have plagued the thread anyway. However, I believe that your use of it is different from mine -- I attempted to use it to say that analysis and criticism shouldn't deflect one towards or away from a thing that you like -- it's only use is to help refine what you like and do that more. You, however, tend to deploy such statements as a means to discredit analysis and criticism -- it's pointless because people like what they like. I, unsurprisingly, find this approach to be less than helpful to the hobby at large, and just defensive posturing to protect from perceived slights.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think @pemerton needs to step back to realize this -- it's a fundamental underpinning of many of his arguments. I might be wrong, he's free to correct me, but I can absolutely say for myself that this is not a new concept for me at all.

As for terms, the confusion about what they mean is limited only to those terms that have been used and not defined by the user. I don't think, though, this is your argument, because this argument says that my use of "protagonism," for instance, wasn't confusing because I spent many posts clearly, and without jargon, explaining what was meant by this. No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over. Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented. No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process. The rest of it is arguing over who gets to define a term. I even offered to change my term, but this offer was ignored because the point wasn't to engage the concepts, but to argue over words and prevent engaged discussion of the concepts behind them. This is borne out by the continued refusal to accept any -- ANY -- combination of terms to define how play proceeds when the GM is the primary (usually only) source of information about the fictional world, instead resorting to euphemisms about the outcomes rather than the process.

And, your final statement is also not novel -- I've said it multiple times throughout the thread in an attempt to deflect the arguments that have plagued the thread anyway. However, I believe that your use of it is different from mine -- I attempted to use it to say that analysis and criticism shouldn't deflect one towards or away from a thing that you like -- it's only use is to help refine what you like and do that more. You, however, tend to deploy such statements as a means to discredit analysis and criticism -- it's pointless because people like what they like. I, unsurprisingly, find this approach to be less than helpful to the hobby at large, and just defensive posturing to protect from perceived slights.

I suspect at this point Ovid if I said "Good day", you'd find some means of making it adversarial.

I agree we should have moved on from both Protagonism and Living World as terms and got to the meat of our meaning. Both are loaded of course as can be seen here. I think though it's not a shock that terms get adopted from the natural meanings to represent game constructs. I do think in both cases those terms may implicitly have a touch of condemnation for the other side which is why both sides may push back. I also think people are being truthful in their personal experiences. They just have different tastes.

To address the question "What is the point of GM notes" we have to figure otu what that means.

For someone specifically of my playstyle:
GM notes mean the entirety of the creative process a GM spends outside of the session that is brought in as established truth even if unknown to the players. GM notes again has a dismissive connotation but I'm taking your meaning in good faith at this point and not taking any offense.

In addition some common ways GM/Player notes in general are used.
To keep track of things happening in session. I can't imagine anyone would object to this usage of the idea of notes. Even in a game where everyone is contributing to what is known about a world, it may for those of us with less than stellar memories, to keep some notes.

So I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept. I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over. Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented. No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process.

but people took pains to explain what living world meant. I even included sections from Stars without Number explaining it, a clip from Feast of Goblyns explaining my own personal 'aha' movement with the concept, and we talked about examples, procedures, etc. But one thing you just can't get away from: Living World has currency and means something to people who play this style. It is a term we use and we know what we mean by that term. The term isn't a problem at all as far as I am concerned. If people want to ask: what does that mean exactly, we are happy to explain it. But the term does capture something of the goal. Most of the neutral terms I've seen offered as alternatives, for me at least, don't quite get at the meaning of living world or world in motion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect at this point Ovid if I said "Good day", you'd find some means of making it adversarial.

Is this ironic? You've again misused my name, I have to assume intentionally at this point, while claiming victimhood. Not a great look. I mean, I get it, it's a nice tactic, but it doesn't really bother me -- I've been called much worse. I point it out because of how small it makes you look.

I agree we should have moved on from both Protagonism and Living World as terms and got to the meat of our meaning. Both are loaded of course as can be seen here. I think though it's not a shock that terms get adopted from the natural meanings to represent game constructs. I do think in both cases those terms may implicitly have a touch of condemnation for the other side which is why both sides may push back. I also think people are being truthful in their personal experiences. They just have different tastes.

I did get to the "meat" of my meaning -- right from the start, where I defined the term as I used it, and multiple times thereafter. This is a "both sides" argument that falls flat. As for connotation, yes, that's the argument often used to dismissing analysis or criticism. I mean, I freely use the term to describe my own play as lacking protagonism, so that pulls a lot of teeth from the "it's mean to denigrate an approach" argument. When I run D&D, protagonism is very lacking, and this is fine because it's not a needed thing.

And, here we are with "different tastes" again. This is a motte argument, because how can someone disagree with people having different tastes? You can't. But, what you do with this argument is what I pointed out above -- different tastes is being used to negate analysis, as if what you like means you cannot deconstruct play at all. It's like saying that no one can successfully deconstruct what makes mac and cheese good, or the various ways you can make mac and cheese, or the impact of ingredient quality, because different people like different kinds of mac and cheese (or don't like it at all), so such discussion is pointless.

To address the question "What is the point of GM notes" we have to figure otu what that means.

For someone specifically of my playstyle:
GM notes mean the entirety of the creative process a GM spends outside of the session that is brought in as established truth even if unknown to the players. GM notes again has a dismissive connotation but I'm taking your meaning in good faith at this point and not taking any offense.

In addition some common ways GM/Player notes in general are used.
To keep track of things happening in session. I can't imagine anyone would object to this usage of the idea of notes. Even in a game where everyone is contributing to what is known about a world, it may for those of us with less than stellar memories, to keep some notes.

So I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept. I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.

One shouldn't be making assumptions about other people's answers when engaging in analysis. The point of the question was twofold, in my opinion. Firstly, it was collect information about how other people use GM notes in play. And, secondly, to cause people to stop and think about how they use notes in play -- to do a bit of self-analysis to tease out a procedure of play that they use and how GM notes work within that procedure. It's this latter that seems to be the point of contention -- some seem to strongly dislike analyzing their procedures of play in clear terms of process, for reasons I'm still unsure of. There seems to be a great deal of fear that there's some kind of trap, and that somehow in providing clear statements of process you'll stumble into given away a stick that will then be used to beat you. Which is weird, to me, because others have clearly done so without concern. I am currently running a game where the GM notes work exactly as you state above, and it's also a railroad (which isn't implied by what you state above), and which has little to no protagonism, as defined previously in this thread. None of this phases me, it's an honest statement of what's happening at my table, and it doesn't phase me because we're having fun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We've spent a bit of time talking past each other because we really are talking about entirely different "games".

Why the quotes? The discussion is very much about different games and how they work. Not one game and the many ways it can work.

So I am assuming the discussion was about my usage of the concept. I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.

@pemerton knows HIS answer to the question. There is no one answer. It will be different for each of us based on the games we play and how we like to play them. I would have a different answer for different games.

My 5E D&D game is very much about the players finding out what’s in my notes. That’s not a bad thing. I love my 5E game, and I’m reasonably certain my players do to.

Is there more to my game than what’s in my notes? Of course. It’s a simplification. But in a thread where people can just hear the term “living world” and understand all that it implies about RPGing process and rules, balking at “notes” seems needlessly defensive.

My 5E game is about my players discovering through their characters, the world I’ve crafted as a GM. Yes, I’ve taken plenty of cues from them, and I’ve incorporated plenty of their ideas....but the game largely revolves around the ideas that I as GM introduce. This isn’t bad and I’m not ashamed of it. I’m confident that the fiction produced in my game is as immersive and “living” as similar games.

This thread largely consists of people who balk at something they see as an accusation, and then in trying to “defend” their stance, essentially describe things exactly as they feared they were accused.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think the question itself though implies the poster does not know the answer which would surprise me since my playstyle is not that obscure.

I posed the same question a few pages back.
Apparently it was to improve one's craft. The question is who's?