What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this? The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff... That isn't me trying to denigrate the conversation just put it into perspective it's a small subset of the hobby overall regardless of playstyle, techniques, etc that take part in this so no, I don't think your claim of imbalance in the wider hobby holds up and for the record it also seems "two wrongs don't make a right" only applies in certain circumstances.

The fact that your average gamer only understands the games they play enough to play them, but not analyze them, dissect them, or indeed write them themselves isn't a point that has anything to say about the segment of the hobby that can and indeed enjoys doing all three of those things. I'm not talking about the 'sides' here either, just about the interest and ability to engage in higher level discussion.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I feel this post is worth unpacking.
Lots of good material to work from here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames - Promoting a style? You miss the point sir, entirely. Analyzing a style would be correct. Even comparing styles might be correct. To say promoting very much identifies a conflict where none exists. Your use of aggrandizing is also pointlessly combative. To put those into a sentence using their definitions you get something like this: You are trying to enhance the reputation of game X beyond what is justified by the facts. When you add in pompous (affectedly and irritatingly self important) you get quite the ad hominem brew of aggression. Perhaps this wasn't your intent, I'm not sure, but that is certainly the result.

@Fenris-77 , I don't think you promote styles. I think you have a genuine interest in analysis. I think the line between analysis and promotion gets very blurry in this kind of thread with a lot of posters. Sometimes I think it is unintentional (we don't know our own biases and can often analysis without meaning to in ways that glorify our own style over others), but sometimes I think it is intentional.

I wasn't trying to be aggressive nor hostile. But there is a lot of hostility towards the approaches I engage in and even towards posters who engage in it. And I feel like a lot of my responses have been reactions to that. I was asked if one of the reasons I responded the way I did to a set of posts, was because I found them pompous, and that was one of the reasons. I pointed to the kinds of posts where I think this sort of thing is going on. I wasn't trying to be anti-intellectual or anything. I do think education and self improvement are good. I just don't think using your education or your own strengths to mock other people, belittle them is a good thing in a discussion about RPGs. Also, look back at the thread, you will see plenty of instances of people attacking me and others, belittling us, and engaging in behavior that could be described as pompous. I will fully admit, when I've been irritated, I don't always make the best posts, and may have been hostile to someone when it wasn't warranted. But this isn't always just neutral analysis and a lot the disputes here in this thread have long histories between the posters involved.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not talking about the 'sides' here either, just about the interest and ability to engage in higher level discussion.

I think this assumption is part of why there is so much disagreement. From our point of view we are not seeing higher level discussion. We are seeing a particular lens be appleid to games and it is a lens we don't especially agree with. Now there is nothing wrong with having a lens if it works for you. Where it is becoming a problem is assertions like:

"The fact that your average gamer only understands the games they play enough to play them"

...simply because they don't analyze games using your framework. I've been playing with and posting among your average gamers for a long time. They are mostly very intelligent, very astute at observing things about rules, systems, etc (I mean I've been on the receiving end of such astuteness in debates around 3rd edition, around game balance, etc). I think the problem isn't that most gamers don't understand the games they play (my experience is most gamers do understand and they have a very clear idea of what they like as well), it is that they don't play games according to your model. And I think the reason is, the model only works for highly focused styles of play (which most gamers aren't interested in). Heck, most gamers aren't interested in living world sandbox either. I don't see that as a reflection of them failing to grasp high concepts or being worse GMs. I can totally understand its lack of appeal to the mainstream. Now what I get out of such games definitely hits the right buttons for me in a better way, and feels like a higher level of play to me, but it only feels that way because it appeals to my particular set of tastes and frustrations with other styles of play.

Not saying your analysis isn't useful. There are probably gamers for whom it is helpful. I don't think framing it as you being above regular gamers is helpful though in bringing that message to people

 

[Aldarc]

In one instance I was essentially asked point blank by a poster if I thought people were being pompous, and I answered that question honestly. Prior to that point I tried to use more civil, but still accurate language, to describe the behavior I was seeing.

We are all the virtuous heroes in the stories that we tell about ourselves.

I have a completely different estimation here of the popularity of styles. I think the stye you are promoting is one that is gaining tremendous traction. I don't know who is more niche. I think I have expressed though an openness to there being a wider net when it comes to sandbox, so long as we are making distinctions between things that matter within that framework. And I don't think there is anything bad about the approach you are promoting. The only time I get into disagreements about it is when someone aggrandizes that style in a way that seems at the expense of other styles (for example when I see people asserting living worlds are impossible or that they are really 'just playing to discover the notes', or when they try to diminish the role of agency in a sandbox and claim it for something more player facing).

Considering the amount of games played of D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, OSR, etc. - yes I know that you don't play D&D - that all envision a similar GM/player role that exists apart from the paradigm found in the sort of story now games that pemerton, Manbearcat, etc. play, I don't think we need a rocket scientist to figure out which is more niche regardless of how much traction it may be gaining.

The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this? The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff... That isn't me trying to denigrate the conversation just put it into perspective it's a small subset of the hobby overall regardless of playstyle, techniques, etc that take part in this so no, I don't think your claim of imbalance in the wider hobby holds up and for the record it also seems "two wrongs don't make a right" only applies in certain circumstances.

The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this because their positions on these matters are largely taken for granted as the norm. Why should they have to discuss the norms? It's not like they are the ones who have to justify having differences of gaming opinions or preferences that exist apart from this norm. So trying to complain about a power imbalance of conversational capital that only exists in this thread but not in the hobby as a whole where the situation is largely reversed, if not more so, so it comes across as missing the big picture. I'm sorry that I can only play you the world's smallest violin about perceived power balances in this thread conversation in light of that overarching context.

This really is a highly imperfect analogy... as a black male in America I'm just going to say this... there is a big difference in being actively persecuted for your race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. and them being ignored. This discussion is a non-starter to the wider hobby they aren't going out of their way to engage you or setting up systems that oppress your playstyle... the wide majority just don't care. It's kind of insulting to compare the two.

My analogy drawing upon LGBTQ+ issues came directly from my FTM partner but whatevs. The wide majority of people don't care about trans issues or systemic oppression of trans people either. Most people just wanna go about their day to day life in peace and they resent anything that rocks the boat of the status quo or requiring them to change things about themselves or their behavior.

Not that I agree with your sword of MSG, but are you saying indie gamers in this thread feel less than or hard done by?

It may be more accurate to say that indie gamers are well aware that their gaming views don't necessarily represent those of the hobby as a whole.

 

[Fenris-77]

Let's clear the air, for the sake of this thread, about 'your style'. Bedrock enjoys a very oldschool sandbox approach (among other things, of course). I also play that style of sandbox and enjoy it immensely, as does @Manbearcat and probably most of use here. There's no element of denigration of that style involved.

What that leaves us with is word use and mockery. That's been flying think and fast from most corners here at times. I do hope you aren't disclaiming any part in that?

Moving on to your second post. If you aren't seeing higher level discussion you aren't looking hard enough. There was no critique of the 'average gamer' implied there. They don't have to be interested in this kind of conversation in order for it to have merit. I notice that your immediate response there is to ride to the defense of that (entirely fictional) average gamer in the face of my, IDK, intellectual bullying? I didn't say I was 'above' the average gamer, only that I was interested in aspects of our shared in hobby that they aren't. Is this something you pulled from my use of 'higher level discussion'? Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's not what that means.

Perhaps, rather than ascribing me the worst intellectual failings you can think of, you could just respond to the actual content? Analysis isn't a bad thing, deeper understanding isn't a bad thing - and neither need to be the product of intellectual arrogance.

Also, I'm not bloody robin hood, I'm not trying to 'bring the message to the people' (and neither are you in this instance).

 

[Bedrockgames]

We are all the virtuous heroes in the stories that we tell about ourselves.

I am not claiming to be a virtuous hero. I am claiming to be responding honestly when I say these kinds of posts bother me

 

[Bedrockgames]

What that leaves us with is word use and mockery. That's been flying think and fast from most corners here at times. I do hope you aren't disclaiming any part in that?

I am not, but I think it has been very lopsided. Obviously I could be missing posts that were coming from people who agreed with me, and like I said, I've made some of my own. But the hostility I have been getting from some posters has been in my view intense

 

[Bedrockgames]

Let's clear the air, for the sake of this thread, about 'your style'. Bedrock enjoys a very oldschool sandbox approach (among other things, of course). I also play that style of sandbox and enjoy it immensely, as does @Manbearcat and probably most of use here. There's no element of denigration of that style involved.

Just for the record, I wouldn't describe my style as very old school. I take a lot of inspiration from old school. But I do a lot of things old school GMs would reject.

 

[Aldarc]

I am not claiming to be a virtuous hero. I am claiming to be responding honestly when I say these kinds of posts bother me

You may be missing my wider point in favor of nitpicking my particular word choice.