What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

That is an oversimplification. I originally weighed in because I felt the OPs framing was a bit of a trap (and I clearly stated that). But then I found myself drawn into a discussion about sandboxes, living worlds etc, which I was genuinely interested in once it got started. But I find when I participate in threads with people like you and Pemerton (and other posters who frequently post in the same threads), I find myself seeing posts that fit the above description and I feel the need to respond. For me there isn't any payoff, I think I am just built to react negatively when I feel like I see that stuff. If there is a payoff, maybe it's a hope that there is a place to bridge the gap, or possibly persuade people. Also, I think one of the reasons I post in reaction to things I disagree with strongly is I feel that its important. A lot of people read these threads but don't post. And even people who post, are often afraid to disagree with something for fear of looking stupid. I think it is useful for people, when there appears to be a consensus around a conclusion in a thread, to be a dissenting voice if you disagree.

Ok, that is what I was looking for man. I wish we could have saved all of the rest of this and you would have just written this paragraph.

* Meeting of the minds

and/or

* Persuade the other side to move toward my position or off their position

and/or

* Fight for the hearts and the minds of the people who are either interested onlookers or afraid to engage (some sort of Culture War impetus).

That is what I was looking for (and those would be 3 that all seemed likely).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Viewing hit points as dissociative is fairly easy, if that's what one wants to do.

It's also every bit as easy to view them as having a connection to the fiction and causing/requiring fictional changes (at least in terms of description) as they are lost, if that's what one wants to do.

And this is perhaps the underlying root of the argument about what hit points represent. The hit-points-as-plot-armour side views them more dissociatively, the hit-points-as-meat side views tham as having a basis in the fiction.

Or - as many do - one can see them as kind of a combination of both the above: to some extent plot armour, to some extent meat; and the dividing line on where one becomes the other varies for everyone.

Doesn't this challenge the very idea of "dissociative mechanics"?

You've just presented the argument that dissociation in mechanics is a matter of perspective, not the inherent character. It is no longer accurate to say that every mechanic is inherently associative or dissociative.

It's only an abuse of the GM's authority if she doesn't give out information the PCs should reasonably have access to. However, note this does NOT include foreshadowing every hidden hazard the PCs are about to face: it's on the PCs to assume there's potentially danger at every turn and to approach things in that frame of mind.

It's not an abuse in the slightest if the PCs neglect their due diligence and-or throw caution to the wind.

And the serious problem lies exactly there: which "information the PCs should reasonably have access to."

Well, that and instilling a deep and fundamental paranoia into your players isn't necessarily the healthiest or most enjoyable gaming experience.

Wait... in the context of ttrpg's how are you defining getting better. I think for many nowadays rpg's for most are like a poker night or boardgame night as opposed to a field of study or job they are trying to get better at... but I might not be fully grasping the usage here.

Question: If I write poetry for personal enjoyment, is it totally impossible to make sense of the idea that I want to improve my ability to do so? For example, increasing my vocabulary, reading example poems to see what other authors have done, or writing down interesting phrases I hear from others, would all seem examples of ways to improve my writing abilities, even though I do it purely because I enjoy it.

Eh I play games to have fun with my friends and family... if thats happening I'm not to worried about getting better.

Edit I guess I could ask them to study other games and playstyles so that our fun might get "better" but the group probably wouldn't be interested in this type of homework to facilitate better fun.

I guess I find that attitude really hard to grasp. Even when I do something because I like it (such as cooking for my family), I want to cook a really enjoyable meal. I ask for feedback and listen, and I experiment with new things (sometimes because I have to, but often because I want to). Sure, I don't want to be giving 110% literally every time, but I'd much rather deliver a meal that the family says, "Wow, that was great!" than one that we never finish off the leftovers because it was merely adequate. Likewise, when I run my game for my friends (the only people I would run a game for), I want it to be more than just an adequate experience. I truly work to make the most enjoyable game possible, and that means trying to do better over time.

This sounds like a job. I think some people feel this way but the vast majority just aren't interested in pursuing the study of ttrpg's to the degree you and some others are... some people barely want to read a single rulebook.

There's a difference, IMO, between reading a rulebook and understanding design principles and techniques. The former is restricted to a single system. The latter is a generic skill you can bring to anything you do in gaming, improving the games you provide. And it doesn't need to be incredibly fancy. This is stuff like (for example) learning how much probability affects the outcomes of things, so you can make your own random-gen tables or new moves (or whatever) to suit what you and your group want/need.

 

[Manbearcat]

I find a large part of this conversation comes off as pompous. I don't know you personally so I can't comment on you as a person or your motivations, I can only speak to how the tone of many of the posts in the thread come off to me.

That is what I was looking for and what I figured. I appreciate your honesty.

You haven't told me the payoff you're looking for when you express what I wrote in the initial post yet, but here is why I engage on these subjects.

* I am a giant narcissist with a fragile, flailing ego and I desperately need people to think I'm smart and interesting and special.

* I'm a firm believer (in all things in life) that penetrating the mysteries of whatever you're doing and going as hard as you can is the best way to become "your best self" (at whatever it is you're doing). Its aspirational. I engage the material to challenge myself and challenge others to this end.

* Specific to the TTRPGing hobby, my sense (obviously) is that people playing a wider variety of games will be rewarding for them and that diversity will help the hobby grow in multiple axes. It will be good for the games they're playing now, it might get them to enjoy some other stuff as well, and, throughout that alchemy, it might seed a deeper diversification of the hobby at large (because one person bringing a new perception or a new game to a home table has downstream effects because of the multiple participants involved).

* The best way I know to get better at something is be humble, scrutinize your efforts (whatever that might entail), have others scrutinize your efforts and grow from that. When it comes to TTRPGs, I get better when I work my way through a post mortem of one of my games. Just the practice of mentally recalling it in my mind is helpful. But then going a step further to scrutinizing it (particularly where I felt I had a problem or didn't perform optimally). Self-scrutiny and the sanitizing light of others is enormously helpful. This is why I encourage intense post-mortem of the actual machinery of play (not an abstracted narrative of the play...the nuts-and-bolts of the play). The biggest improvements I've made is when I've been challenged (by myself or by others) and have either (a) become better at articulating the conceptual space that we're discussing or (b) I've "downloaded" a different perspective on a grey issue and I've assimilated that for the future (which helps in a host of ways).

---

Unrelated to TTRPGing, take Football prospect analysis. Evaluating the Edge (On-ball Linebacker or Defensive End) is difficult. I didn't play that position (I was a Defensive Back - both CB and S) but I certainly understand it. Through intense effort and correction by others with a better trained eye than myself I learned not just how the alchemy of (a) Snap Anticipation + (b) Burst + (c) Bend + (d) Effective Hand Usage + (e) Developing an Effective Pass Rush Suit/Counters comes together to create the base foundation for a promising prospect. And not just the reality of that, but what that looks like on film (and when a prospect doesn't possess those traits...what that looks like). There are several other facets of productive Edge play (identifying Pullers and Spilling them, attacking with the appropriate leverage, Stacking and Shedding in the run game, converting Speed to Power, how length and frame intersects with all of this), but that is the base.

I'm very glad I learned that through aggressive analysis and conversations with a wide variety of people from different backgrounds (along with my own intense regime of self-learning). It helped me improve. The exact same process of my TTRPGing could be ported over in lockstep to evaluating NFL Draft Prospects (and I give the same advice to people looking to be better at it).

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, I was hoping to get to the deluge of older posts out there that I have yet to respond to. I thought this was going to be an innocuous aside (surprise!)!

I'll try to get back to the "offline/online" content evolution discussion tomorrow.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I work out a lot and go to the gym. It can be very easy to become a muscle head without meaning to. It can also be easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone engages fitness in the same way, and that can cause friction. I am not saying an interest in taking RPGs seriously automatically translates into table issues. But my post was in response to the intensity of the original post, which to me seemed to be going in that direction.

I don’t think that we should conflate the idea of “always doing our best” with the kind of over indulgence and lack if etiquette you’ve implied.

 

[Campbell]

I work out a lot and go to the gym. It can be very easy to become a muscle head without meaning to. It can also be easy to lose sight of the fact that not everyone engages fitness in the same way, and that can cause friction. I am not saying an interest in taking RPGs seriously automatically translates into table issues. But my post was in response to the intensity of the original post, which to me seemed to be going in that direction.

I believe in self selection. Just like I'm going to search out training partners who want to train in the same way I want to train I choose to game with people with compatible tastes. I'm also very selective about the friends I have. I have cultivated a particular approach to life and find I enjoy life a lot more when I'm around people who share a similar interest in cultivating skills and basically trying hard in every aspect of their life. I will not apologize for that.

I'm pretty considerate to most people. I certainly would not join a casual group and start playing the game super hard. That's a dick move.

What I tend to get from a lot of these conversations is that engaging in the way I choose to is somehow wrong. That I have the wrong desires. I do not care how anyone plays who is not presently sitting at a table with me. No one should.

"Most gamers" are irrelevant to me. I just care about the individual conversations we get to have here. That's why I'm not a fan of this debate club nonsense. No one speaks for me except me.

 

[Aldarc]

I can definitely say I find much of this discussion pompous. But I don't find analysis on its own pompous. And someone being pompous is still not enough to make me dislike them or want to be adversarial. I have enjoyed a lot of our exchanges for example (when I haven't felt like I was being belittled). But I think the way in which the analysis is done and the certainty around it is one of the things that makes it feel pompous to me here.

But I was pretty clear about this I feel earlier in the thread that one of the things I don't like is the intellectual bullying I see. I get a bit snappy when I see that, or when I feel like someone is saying I am an idiot (and I definitely feel I have seen this and been on the receiving end of the latter). But I also am not here to get angry or make enemies. I am always happy to move on and answer questions that feel sincere, and are not insulting. And I am always happy to hit the reset button.

See, what's funny is that I get a bit snappy when people like to repeatedly come onto threads to accuse other people who they disagree with of being pompous, engaging in intellectual bullying, while also making repeated passive aggressive barbs about the behavior of "the other side" and rudely try treating them as a monolithic entity or political block.

I find a large part of this conversation comes off as pompous. I don't know you personally so I can't comment on you as a person or your motivations, I can only speak to how the tone of many of the posts in the thread come off to me.

I find most of the counter arguments raised against said "pompous conversation" to be needlessly rude, aggressive, hostile, anti-intellectual, and reactionary. I can't speak about you as a person either, just the tone of how many of the counter arguments in the thread come off to me.

That is an oversimplification. I originally weighed in because I felt the OPs framing was a bit of a trap (and I clearly stated that). But then I found myself drawn into a discussion about sandboxes, living worlds etc, which I was genuinely interested in once it got started. But I find when I participate in threads with people like you and Pemerton (and other posters who frequently post in the same threads), I find myself seeing posts that fit the above description and I feel the need to respond. For me there isn't any payoff, I think I am just built to react negatively when I feel like I see that stuff. If there is a payoff, maybe it's a hope that there is a place to bridge the gap, or possibly persuade people.

But you do? Maybe you should learn to stop posting in these threads?

Also, I think one of the reasons I post in reaction to things I disagree with strongly is I feel that its important. A lot of people read these threads but don't post. And even people who post, are often afraid to disagree with something for fear of looking stupid. I think it is useful for people, when there appears to be a consensus around a conclusion in a thread, to be a dissenting voice if you disagree.

So you are fighting to naysay a minority gaming position on this forum on behalf of faceless people who likely hold the super majority mainstream positions, but mostly don't care about these discussions? How truly noble and valiant!

 

[AnotherGuy]

Let's not be to hasty to close this thread just yet, topics still to be covered - DoaPM (the Partial is silent), Ticket to Ride is BadWrongFun and Alignment what is it evil for?

 

[Aldarc]

I believe in self selection. Just like I'm going to search out training partners who want to train in the same way I want to train I choose to game with people with compatible tastes. I'm also very selective about the friends I have. I have cultivated a particular approach to life and find I enjoy life a lot more when I'm around people who share a similar interest in cultivating skills and basically trying hard in every aspect of their life. I will not apologize for that.

I don't think that it's pompous or intellectually self-serving to try understanding the fundamental differences in games, systems, and modes of play in our diverse hobby. Mainstream views in the hobby can definitely take the criticism it gets, and it doesn't need white knights defending it from internet nobodies.

I wouldn't be interested in learning about the art and craft of this hobby if I didn't engage these sort of conversations that actually dared to question the normal paradigms of mainstream gaming. I have learned a lot about my own gaming preferences (and those outside of my preferences) through these conversations and how to elucidate those preferences that I have. These conversations have also expanded my growing list of games that I've played and would like to play.

I understand that my level of philosophical engagement of the topic may not match the typical gamer, but look into any hobby. I enjoy watching basketball when I can, but there are people who love memorizing the stats, the plays, the rules, etc. That's not me, but I'm not one to brow beat others for engaging this at an overly intellectualized or mathematical level. One of my relatives is an amateur wildlife photographer. The level of engagement that they immerse themselves with is far beyond that of a casual photographer taking outdoor pictures. They are constantly reading, learning, practicing, engaging other amateur and professional wildlife photographers about how to make better nature photographs in terms of their their timing, their framing, their techniques, their equipment, their software, etc. For many people, myself included, they are perfectly fine with being the sort who takes casual photos in the wilderness. However, I wouldn't dare accuse them of intellectual fanwankery just because it's above my own level of engagement in the hobby.

What I tend to get from a lot of these conversations is that engaging in the way I choose to is somehow wrong. That I have the wrong desires. I do not care how anyone plays who is not presently sitting at a table with me. No one should.

"Most gamers" are irrelevant to me. I just care about the individual conversations we get to have here. That's why I'm not a fan of this debate club nonsense. No one speaks for me except me.

Yeah. Same.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's a lot of value in the pursuit of mastery, even in your hobbies. Particularly in group hobbies. Developing new skills and getting better at existing skills is fun for me personally. In a shared hobby where we are all expected to contribute I think giving it your all is something you owe the other people you play with. Even from a completely selfish standpoint when you give it your all it's often contagious. You raise the bar and in doing so everyone starts to bring it more.

I believe in trying hard in everything you do. Professionally, personally, and in leisure activities. Obviously we all need to recover and we should make sure we properly prioritize things in our lives, but why not try to do our best rather than just good enough?

This is interesting.

I probably come at this with a different set of ideas. They might lead to the same general conclusion - I'm not sure.

When I'm GMing, I want the game to be exciting, engaging and at least a little bit meaningful. And I don't want the excitement to be 'performative', in the sense of gripping narration or suddenly raising my voice - I will do those things from time to time, but they're not what I'm thinking of for excitement. I mean that the fiction itself - as a set of shared ideas, possibilities, characters, situations - is exciting. The engagement and meaningfulness I'm hoping for aren't separate from this - given what players do in a RPG, which is manage their PCs and declare actions for them, I want the fiction itself to really call on them to declare actions, to act on it and through it; and I want the upshot of action resolution to have a bit of depth or weight to it.

I think this is something that I can get better at, by learning new techniques, paying attention to what I'm currently doing, thinking about what parts of the systems I'm using will help me push towards these goals and how I can use them more, etc.

When I'm playing (which is much less often), I want to live my character in the full sense of that idea - emotions, hopes, 'what will happen next for me?', etc. And I want to bring that out to the other participants. Sometimes this requires taking risks, or making calls, and sucking up setbacks. That's something I can improve at too.