What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with all the above.



No, I'm not asking that question.
The original question was posed, IMO knowingly, in such a manner which invited aggravated dialogue between the usual suspects, engaging in much definition bickering with no real headway being made, while some engaging in earnest without ego were often and sadly met with sharp replies.

I really doubt that, as I'm 100% certain that if polite discussion and good trading of information broke out, @pemerton would be absolutely thrilled at that result. I know I would be. However, I find it telling that you're willing to openly question @pemerton's honesty in such a way, and ironic that you seem to pin any aggravated dialogue in this thread on his intentions, rather than acts such as this. I mean, a review of your posts in this thread seems to discount you from engaging without ego, yes? Your first post was to pose your above accusation in a veiled way (obvious now that you've be explicit) through a rhetorical question you never answered yourself. Then a bunch of arguing about whether people getting paid for sports is important (it wasn't), and now your accusation, here. It appears that you're accusing @pemerton of intending to do what you've actually done.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

Again, monetization is not only not a helpful way to perform a longitudinal study like this, its actively harmful in signal detection (because of the noise it introduces).

Not only that, but it doesn't even track the population you're trying to track. Professional athletes are at the far, far, far end of the tail of a population distribution. They aren't anywhere nearing the center. Artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills are, again, right at the tails of the distribution (and, again, their monetization picks up a lot of the aforementioned noise). This isn't the target population.

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.

You're arguing for exposure here. Exposure doesn't come into it when you're tracking % within a population.

All TTRPG players would (of course) have the necessary exposure that you're talking about (or they wouldn't be playing)!

Development of methodological means to create a higher % of functional practitioners (in this case GMs) WITHIN a population won't track to exposure.

If your point is that there are lots of other reasons to increase total population size (not % of functional practitioners within a population), then I agree. But that isn't the point of the theoretical longitudinal study here.

And (as to your last statement) I think you're short-shrifting the cognitive and social impacts of playing TTRPGs (particularly in the developmental stage).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hey, @darkbard has caught up!

 

[TwoSix]

Hey, @darkbard has caught up!

That's quite a bit of dedication!

 

[darkbard]

That's quite a bit of dedication!

QFT! I have few, if any, original thoughts to add at this point, and I've enjoyed a lot of the analysis and (some of the) debate, even as I tire of those who enter such discussions looking for perceived slights rather than helpful and thoughtful reflection. If nothing else, though, I note @Cadence's exposure to new approaches to RPGing, consider my own growth into new playstyles and agendas, and applaud @Ovinomancer's and @hawkeyefan's sharing of their own resistance to the conclusions of certain analysis only to come away with new perspectives once they tried playing these games.

 

[Manbearcat]

Notes, Setting Solitaire, and Living World

So in Blades in the Dark, the GM isn't messing with Fortune Rolls for the Setting or Setting/Faction Clocks (checked at Downtime Phase) unless the Player Characters have interacted with it. I mentioned this briefly upthread, but I'm going to discuss more. Here are the Downtime Setting/Faction Clocks after our last session:

Ulf Ironborn - "Studying Your Game" - 8 Ticks

Tier 1 = 1 Fortune Dice.

Roll 4 = 2

6/8

Ulf's crew attends some more of your home games. They've almost got a book on you guys.


The Crows - "Moving in on the Silver Stags Territory/your Hunting Grounds" - 8 Ticks.

Tier 1 (strong) vs Tier 3 = W[2d6]

Rolls 4 & 5 = 2

3/8

Despite the recent chaos and loss of personnel, they've now successfully taken up residence and are regulating, running schemes and rackets in your Hunting Grounds (shutting it down for you - see Entanglement). Now its onto the Silver Stags.

"Save Barrowcleft vs Barrowcleft Apocalypse" - 10 Tick Competing Clocks

Tier 6 + 2d6 for 2 * Major Advantages for Save, so 2d6 Save vs W[2d6] Apocalypse.

Save = Rolls 5 & 6 = 2 so 4/10
Apocalypse = Rolls 1 & 4 = 1 so 3/10

The tide turns back the other way. Your successful apprehension of some of the ghosts and deployment of the gear have led to a breakthrough for the Sparkwrights tweaking the gear to be more potent. Its also led to more enlistment of competent field personnel against the threat. Finally, the discovery of the two epicenters of death have led to the Spirit Wardens being able to work directly on those areas.

"Ramon's Suit" - His 6 Tick vs your 4 Tick (whenever you take it up)

Tier 2 but we'll throttle it back to 0 so W[2d6] due to Scale

4/6

PENDING Stiv Downtime Activity

"Hutch's Vendetta" - His 8 Tick vs your 4 Tick (whenever you take it up)

Tier 2 but we'll throttle it back to 0 so W[2d6] due to Scale

Rolls 6 & 4 = 2

3/8

Hutch drunkenly stalks a Bluecoat private who was recruited by the Captain. He slugs him in an alley in the middle of the private's beat before running off. The dude needs help.

The Dimmer Sisters - Parley Arcane Secrets to Tier 3 - 6 Tick

Tier 2 so 2d6

Rolls 6 & 1 = 3

The interaction with the Demon Thyraxis was lucrative. They've discovered a Spirit Well and are poised to pilfer it. Their ascendance is all but assured.

---

So there are probably about 2 dozen other Factions in Duskvol that are doing things in the background offscreen. However, the PCs haven't interacted with those Factions/Setting elements. We have the following relevant Factions that have been interacted with:

(directly and on screen)

The Silver Stags
Shells
Ulf Ironborn
Dockers
The Crows
The Dimmer Sisters
The Lampblacks
The Red Sashes
The Gray Cloaks

(indirectly or off screen)

Sparkwrights
Ministry of Preservation
Spirit Wardens

They haven't interacted with most of the wards of the city. The only 3 wards they've consequentially interacted with (The Docks were interacted with by their Cohorts but there was no mayhem) primarily play has been:

Silkshore (where their Lair and Hunting Grounds are)
Barrowcleft
Crow's Foot (at the neutral Tangletown - flotilla on the river between wards so not even really Crow's Foot)


So every Fortune Roll, every Faction Clock that has been undertaken has either been (a) what those Factions are now doing (that they've been perturbed/interacted with) or (b) to resolve some setting-relevant situation that the PCs are indirectly involved with (eg, if a big fire manifests as a result of a Score in the wood-framed, stacked row houses of the artist/entertainment ward of Silkshore...does the Brigade get there in time to resolve it...what happens due to the fire?). Both (a) and (b) will change the situation of the setting and have some kind of mechanical teeth (Factions Tiering up, triggering an Entanglement decision-point for the Crew, triggering worse Position in particular conflict types against a Faction, gaining a permanent Asset, the Crew losing or gaining Faction with a Gang or gaining a friend/enemy that will open up later player moves or Complications/Entanglements for the GM).

All of this stuff is directly relevant to play.

So the questions I'm proposing are this:

1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?

2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things? Whatever is happening there is offscreen.


My position on this is that if the answer to (1) and (2) is because of "Living World", then what you're really undertaking is "Setting Solitaire." That is because the only only person who is actually interacting with this stuff is the GM. Its all GM-side and any given constituent part of the population of these Factions/events has a significantly better chance of never seeing "onscreen" than it does ever seeing play. The only "Living" and "World" aspect of this stuff is for the GM exclusively...therefore it transcends the notions of "Living World" presented here and becomes "Setting Solitaire."

Once any of these Factions gets on screen and/or the Setting gets perturbed in a meaningful way by the PCs (as mentioned above)...yes, absolutely, deploy Fortune Rolls to give shape ("life"...as in "living") to these things and set up Faction/Setting Clocks to represent the goals and trajectories of peoples and events (so the PCs can intercede if they so choose).

But "Living World" entirely offscreen and more likely to not see play than to see play becomes "Setting Solitaire." Its there for the GM only (some form of exclusive self-immersion or cognitively scratch your "Sim Setting" itch). There is no reason for the GM to not retain the initial conditions (Tier and orientation/status) of any Faction/Setting situation for when their number is dialed up and they go from offscreen to onscreen (if they/it ever will).

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to quickly answer my two questions above in the only compelling way that I can personally conceive of:

"I endure the extra burden of the Setting Solitaire because it keeps me cognitively 'in the zone.' It keeps me stimulated, fresh, and on point. It helps me to frame more interesting, provocative scenes and come up with interesting decision-points and complications in the course of running next week's session."

The above is basically a "Game Face" response to my above questions. If someone is willing to endure that extra cognitive load and that is what one needs to keep their Game Face on...then yeah, "Setting Solitaire" is worthwhile in that case.

However, if the Setting starts becoming the volitional force of play in a way that is detached from PC Dramatic Need AND play is supposed to be highly Protagonistic where the players are the volitional force of play through their PCs' dramatic needs...then the Setting Solitaire is a problem (because that means to achieve your Game Face isn't worth the dysfunction at the table...find another way).

 

[Maxperson]

1) Why would I need to create and roll Faction Clocks for Factions that haven't been interacted with, thereby changing the nature of the Factions' opening situations which are completely offscreen?

2) Why would I need to make up Situations for other wards and roll Fortune Rolls to evolve Setting when the PCs have had no interaction with these things? Whatever is happening there is offscreen.


My position on this is that if the answer to (1) and (2) is because of "Living World", then what you're really undertaking is "Setting Solitaire." That is because the only only person who is actually interacting with this stuff is the GM. Its all GM-side and any given constituent part of the population of these Factions/events has a significantly better chance of never seeing "onscreen" than it does ever seeing play. The only "Living" and "World" aspect of this stuff is for the GM exclusively...therefore it transcends the notions of "Living World" presented here and becomes "Setting Solitaire."

It's not Setting Solitaire, because it's possible for the players to interact with every last thing you do. It would only be Solitaire if the DM were the only one who could interact with that stuff. It's intended that the things that continue to happen in the world be able to be interacted with by the players. Whether that's through rumor alone, or more directly. However, it's possible that the PCs go a different way or due to their actions they never encounter it. That's okay. The possibility that the players don't encounter some of the stuff that goes on in the world doesn't make it setting solitaire, though.

If your system makes it unlikely for it to ever be encountered by the PCs, then it's not a tool to use with that system.

 

[prabe]

But "Living World" entirely offscreen and more likely to not see play than to see play becomes "Setting Solitaire." Its there for the GM only (some form of exclusive self-immersion or cognitively scratch your "Sim Setting" itch). There is no reason for the GM to not retain the initial conditions (Tier and orientation/status) of any Faction/Setting situation for when their number is dialed up and they go from offscreen to onscreen (if they/it ever will).

Yeah. I saw the questions you posed, but I'm going to respond to this--and maybe that'll answer them indirectly.

I do the setting stuff because I enjoy it, yes--in addition to the fact that the tables I'm DMing are playing 5E which at least mostly assigns that to the DM (if you're not running published adventures, which I dislike intensely and an incapable of running well). All of that aside from my bad experiences with more-collaborative world-building--which, while they've shaped my preferences are not proof of anything other than that approach doesn't work for me.

If I've prepped stuff in a place, and the PCs go there, I'll use it more or less as it's written. If they go somewhere else first, there's a good chance they'll need (both dramatically and ... I dunno, not? other needs they might have?) different things than I originally prepared. So, I'll prepare different things--which might be evolutions of what I have, because they're a starting point; or they might not.

If it's a place the PCs are going back to, I am--again--almost certainly going to prep changes to that place. Part of that is that places don't stay the same (so, verisimilitude, I guess) and part of that is that--again--the PCs will have different needs than they had before.

It doesn't feel from inside my head as though I'm changing things around in the setting just to do it, or to have things happen offscreen, or to scratch any itch I have. I do, sometimes, have ideas that get ... parked, I guess, and when I deploy setting stuff (either writing stuff from scratch or changing it) there is some amount of making sure it fits with what has gone before.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not Setting Solitaire, because it's possible for the players to interact with every last thing you do. It would only be Solitaire if the DM were the only one who could interact with that stuff. It's intended that the things that continue to happen in the world be able to be interacted with by the players. Whether that's through rumor alone, or more directly. However, it's possible that the PCs go a different way or due to their actions they never encounter it. That's okay. The possibility that the players don't encounter some of the stuff that goes on in the world doesn't make it setting solitaire, though.

If your system makes it unlikely for it to ever be encountered by the PCs, then it's not a tool to use with that system.

Yeah, it is more like an expanding set of circles with the first circle being things the PCs will definitely or very likely be interacting with (and you are probably going to put more work into that), the next circle is stuff they may interact with, the next is more distant but still possible, the next is even more distant but still possible, etc. I think the key thing is, there is always a possibility the stuff could come into play. And there is always the possibility they notice the changes that are arising. It may not seem like it, but all it takes is the players asking an NPC a handful of questions about recent events, and those circles do become handy and can inform a lot. And the ones closer to the pcs will have very direct and real impact on them. I think the thing with a living world is yes you are focused on what is going on around the PCs, but the living world is about creating a world that feels real, like it is moving and happening around them (whether they go to the Imperial capital or not, there is stuff going on there, and that stuff could impact them in some way)