What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

It’s not a job. It’s a hobby and people can and should engage with it in whatever manner they like. But wanting to improve isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing.

I have a good friend who plays local club snooker. He has a 3/4 size table at home that he practices on. He's not obsessive. He just enjoys his game and wants to get better.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, this post is agreeing with @hawkeyefan.

 

[pemerton]

having perfectly useful terminology taken away from me

No one has taken away anyone's terminology.

The fact that some people reject your terminology (eg because they think it's obfuscating) doesn't preclude you from using it. It does have the possible consequence that your communication with them will suffer, but sometimes that happens in life.

 

[Aldarc]

No one has taken away anyone's terminology.

The fact that some people reject your terminology (eg because they think it's obfuscating) doesn't preclude you from using it. It does have the possible consequence that your communication with them will suffer, but sometimes that happens in life.

Yeah, I don't think that "living world" is bad terminology - though it does come across as "marketing speak"* - but as a term it's not necessarily pertinent or lucid in a discussion about the underlying process of play and differences with other game models with similar objectives but different play processes. It conflates the ends with the means.

* The computer game Guild Wars 2 also markets itself as having a "Living World," but what they mean by this is not necessarily what a typical TTRPG sandbox game means by this. Yet they both use the term "Living World" to describe their ongoing fictional world. In fact, GW2 shows up in a Google search for "living world" long before it does for TTRPG sandbox play. Actually, I recall reading that "sandbox game" was actually a term coined by the video game community that the TTRPG community subsequently appropriated.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The two bits I've bolded are true for me too.

When it comes to how I ride my bike on the road, what everyone else is doing and expecting matters. If I try and cut against the grain, I might get hit by a car!

When it comes to how I engage with RPGing - either playing or posting - what everyone else is doing and expecting is irrelevant, except as something I might need to keep in mind to try and facilitate communication when I post.

The idea that me playing as I play, and posting as I post, is some sort of threat to other RPGers strikes me as completely bizarre. I don't think I've introduced as many players to actual RPG experiences as some others on these boards - I mostly play in my own group of friends whom I've known for a long time - but there are a number of posters on these boards over the years who have said that they got something useful from out of my posts, especially I think my actual play posts. And there are posters here whom I have learned from.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I don't think that "living world" is bad terminology - though it does come across as "marketing speak"* - but as a term it's not necessarily pertinent or lucid in a discussion about the underlying process of play and differences with other game models with similar objectives but different play processes. It conflates the ends with the means.

* The computer game Guild Wars 2 also markets itself as having a "Living World," but what they mean by this is not necessarily what a typical TTRPG sandbox game means by this. Yet they both use the term "Living World" to describe their ongoing fictional world. In fact, GW2 shows up in a Google search for "living world" long before it does for TTRPG sandbox play. Actually, I recall reading that "sandbox game" was actually a term coined by the video game community that the TTRPG community subsequently appropriated.

I'll probably engage with this topic less after this post but I just want to give one example. Now @Aldarc you aren't the only poster who has done this in the thread but this was the most recent example and so I grabbed it.

I'd love for posters to tell me how there isn't a certain air of pompousness or arrogance when one side (A) can claim an imaginary word (Protagonism) that is clearly rooted in a real word (Protagonist) define it and restrict it in any way they please and when it is asserted by the other side (B) that they are using a word that has caused confusion, or made it unclear for many posters to engage with the ideas being put forth are basically told to suck it up, it was defined and we are being petty, argumentative and difficult by engaging with the nomenclature instead of the ideas behind it...

Side B then claims a phrase(Living World) and are willing to define it in the way they wish to use it but side A summarily declares it unfit, unclear and for all intents and purposes refuses to engage with it on the basis of nomenclature...

How is one side (A) able to control the entire discussion in this way, including not only what is or is not valid for their own nomenclature and ideas, but what is or is not valid for the other side as well?

EDIT: As a secondary thought, I would ask @pemerton and @Manbearcat... what do you get from these discussions? I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions, so I'm just curious what is your pay off here?

 

[Aldarc]

@Imaro, I do think that "protagonism" is also marketing speak, though it's also not a conversation thread that I have been following too closely here, though I don't recall if alternative terms were ever offered to describe "protagonism" in TTRPGs. I did propose an anthropocentric and geocentric model, but I can't remember how that intersected with the sub-conversation you have in mind.

But my issue is, again, not with the term "living world" per se, but that it conflates the aesthetical ends (i.e., the living world) with the technical means of the play process, which was the primary focus of the discussion. This is an issue because very different games may desire to create a "living world" but achieve this through obviously divergent means, mechanics, and methods, particularly in regards to player/GM responsibilities. I don't see a problem with using "living world" as a term, but context matters, and simply liking the term to describe one's play doesn't make it ipso facto the most pertinent term for a given discussion.

But to answer your overarching question without getting bogged down into matters: two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[pemerton]

I've never seen either of you actually declare that something about your playstyle was changed or that you've adopted a different playstyle and/or goals during these discussions

In that case you've not read very closely.

Eg I have learned a lot from discussions of how AW plays. @Campbell has particularly helped in this respect by posting quite often about the contrast between scene-framed play and AW/PbtA play.

 

[Imaro]

In that case you've not read very closely.

Eg I have learned a lot from discussions of how AW plays. @Campbell has particularly helped in this respect by posting quite often about the contrast between scene-framed play and AW/PbtA play.

That didn't really answer the question though. What exactly about your playstyle or goals has changed as a result of that knowledge? I may have missed it but I haven't seen you post about any actual change or influence on how you play...

EDIT: And I readily admit maybe your goal in these threads isn't to find techniques or advice to change or modify your playstyle and if so that's fine, I'm just curious.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not either of the two you tagged @Imaro but I learned a lesson long ago: it's really damn hard to know what you actually like until you experience things. I missed out on the first couple years of 4e because I thought it was garbage, due to friends who irrationally hated it solely because it wasn't the way 3.5e did things. When I finally started sinking my teeth into it (believe it or not, in order to respond to arguments on a forum!), I started liking what I saw. And then I dug deeper, and started to realize how deeply mistaken I was both about my overall gaming preferences and about the kind of experience provided by 4e.

It's been many years since then, so more awareness has accreted slowly, and I am better aware of my interests than I was before. But there's still things to learn, even if you have to work harder to learn them. The two best sources of experience--outside of direct teaching, which isn't always relevant in this context--are direct action, and engaging in serious conversation with earnest people who don't share your views on a subject. Either you have to refine your own position so that it is successful, or you learn that there's actually a position that matters more to you than what you used to hold, or you (at bare minimum) gain a greater appreciation for the things that aren't for you even though you don't end up changing anything yourself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let me ask a counter question... if your technical analysis, deep dives and pontificating of playstyles about gaming don't apply or aren't even discussed by the vast majority of the playerbase... what practical purpose besides the self gratification of a small niche group of posters does it serve?

Gygax ring any bells?