What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

Nominally it was about roleplaying in authentic medieval setting however I used a sandbox adventure that I am writing "Deceits of the Russet Lord" up so it serve and example of how I run adventures in a sandbox campaign.

Thanks for that Rob (I completely forgot that the session was for the authentic medieval style).

 

[Fenris-77]

Every style has people like that in it. I definitely know living world proponents who do that (not seeing them in this thread really). But that critique can be lobbed at any position in this thread: there are people who do that with styles of play and games folks on the other side of the debate are advocating. I usually push back against people saying they have 'the secret sauce' (whether they are proponents of living world sandbox or proponents of a style not my own). This isn't an issue unique to more widespread among living world GMs than others. One of the reasons I jumped in an rejected the premise of the thread is because I felt there was a secret sauce premise baked into the whole GMs notes thing

On the topic of significant misunderstandings would be the above. All the posters that you've been primarily interacting with here have no issues with D&D, sandbox play, or living worlds in general. Nor are any of them advocating for a secret sauce level up for the games they've examined in the course of the discussion (Blades, DW, Traveller etc). The goal has been, and continues to be, to get granular about prep and prep styles in terms of what they actually accomplish at the table. GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do.

So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Every other style, and games that aren't built to support their style, get characterized as 'less than'. This is the very foundation of one true wayism.

This I do not disagree with, but I think this swings both ways more than people realize. I have definitely seen instances of characterizing a style as less than directed at sandbox and living world (in this thread and in other ones). And this is why I even take time to defend the styles I didn't like that drove me to sandbox. Because I think any analysis that is built around my dislike of something and doesn't try to understand it from the POV of someone within that style, is doomed to misunderstand it. There may be some valid criticisms, but more often than not it is like watching a Lutheran complain about Catholic doctrine, or watching a Catholic complain about Lutheran doctrine. The only time I think either makes headway is when they put their untrue way aside for a moment and truly try to understand the position of the other side. And an even more doomed approach is to try to understand something, in order to attack it. That clouds your analysis.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the topic of significant misunderstandings would be the above. All the posters that you've been primarily interacting with here have no issues with D&D, sandbox play, or living worlds in general. Nor are any of them advocating for a secret sauce level up for the games they've examined in the course of the discussion (Blades, DW, Traveller etc). The goal has been, and continues to be, to get granular about prep and prep styles in terms of what they actually accomplish at the table. GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do.

Many of the posters are as you describe, but I don't know how you can post this with a straight face when Pemerton has made a consistent point of attacking the approaches I have advocated and undermining us at every turn in these conversations. I am sorry but that is my impression of his position, and I think it is well warranted (it isn't like I just started engaging his posts yesterday, there is a long history here and a big history of dismissal on his part in my view: we've gone pages of him not even accepting that a living world or sandbox is truly possible in other threads. And 'playing to discover GMs notes' emerged as a point of critique in one fo those threads by Pemerton).

 

[robconley]

Q: How do you run a successful sandbox campaign?

• By summarizing the setting tersely.
• Outlining some of the possibilities.
• Have a discussion with each player individually and as a group over what they would like play. Or more accurately what they would like to pretend to be or pretend to be doing.
• Guide them towards choices that result in a group that would stick together.
• When it settled write up a half page or a page of what the character knows generally. And another half page or page of what they know specifically.

A: I create a living world that is rife with possibility!

Q: Um....okay, but....how?

Yeah that "living world" kind of vague.

This is why I think literal descriptions can come in handy. "I give my NPCs motivations" is much more meaningful to me than "I breathe life into my NPCs".

While a setting has locales what brings it to life are its characters. And what brings a character to life is their personalities, goals, and motivations. All factors that go into how a referee or player roleplays a character. This is not the same as 'acting' or 'immersion'. It about the decision making process that goes into deciding what a character does in a particular situation. It can be fiat, or randomized. The result of the situation could be "acting", it code be acting as oneself with the abilities of the character, it could be third person. But it starts with understanding why a character would do certain things in certain decision. If the answer is clear cut then roleplay it out. If it not than toss some dice and roleplay the result.

What we actually do as players and GMs is what I think is needed when we get into this level of discussion or analysis. When it's more beginning stages or general ideas, like "What kinds of campaigns do you enjoy?" a response like "When I feel like I'm exploring a living world" is perfectly fine. I think we're past that point in this specific conversation.

Sure but there need a foundation. My goal is to lay out a pen & paper virtual reality. Create a setting, create some locales, create some character, create their personalities, and goals. Then summarize that up and ask "Does sound like an interesting place and time you want to visit and have adventures in?"

My goal is not to create a narrative or some type of movie or tv experience. At best I will make one feel like they visited and living in a fictional setting like Middle Earth, Babylon 5, or life aboard a Starfleet starship. But but 99 times out of 100 I won't be putting you in the shoes of Aragon, Captain Sheridan, or Capitan Kirk. Either it will be your own character or you with the abilities of a character within that setting (not every hobbyist likes to be an actor).

If you have a related goal for running a campaign that similar to mine then I have some advice that may help. If not, well only some of what I write about will be relevant.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.

Maybe one place to start is to take people at their word over what they are doing in play, and if you don't understand ask for clarification (rather than accuse them of deifying their approach or hiding behind euphemistic language). When you guys talk about clocks, I try to understand them. When you guys talk about player facing stuff, I am trying to understand what it is. I believe you when you say it does what it does. I could sit here and attack every little point you raise about these approaches. That kind of nitpicking is easy to do.

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton loves nuanced conversations about definitions, that's certainly true. Up to a point I agree with much of what he's had to say about shifty definitions in the hobby of exactly what that means (re living world). Saying he doesn't think a sandbox is possible is just silly though, he hasn't said that. He's even been up front about the fact that he plays from notes himself. Just because he's insisting on more granularity than you might like isn't the same thing as him bashing anything. No one is forcing you to engage in the definition game. Personally, I see that attempt as a direct result of the extent to which that particular playstyle gets valorized in general as what often gets called 'apex play'. I have no issue with someone asking for more deets there.

 

[robconley]

So the question then becomes what are we all doing? We certainly aren't all doing the same thing, pretty obviously. We all do different things, things that work at our tables and for our groups. The differences and similarities there are what's interesting about this thread, not so much bashing or trying to define GM notes. We all know what notes are, and we all have them, what's important is what gets done with them.

While certainly contributed my share of being aggressive in a discussion or debate." Overall I had a lot of success with the format of.

1. The problem I am trying to solve
2. How I went about solving it
3. The results of having tried the solution.

Written with the attitude, here is some useful to try if you experienced the same issue.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe one place to start is to take people at their word over what they are doing in play, and if you don't understand ask for clarification (rather than accuse them of deifying their approach or hiding behind euphemistic language). When you guys talk about clocks, I try to understand them. When you guys talk about player facing stuff, I am trying to understand what it is. I believe you when you say it does what it does. I could sit here and attack every little point you raise about these approaches. That kind of nitpicking is easy to do.

How to respond here without seeming shirty? You haven't managed to provide examples of play that match the granularity of what some other posters have provided in an attempt to demystify and make clearer some games and mechanics that get routinely misunderstood. No one is attacking your style, but your responses have seemed euphemistic and less than precise in some cases. I think it's a matter of speaking in different registers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

GM notes is probably the most common play style, which is probably a function of the popularity of D&D generally and the accessibility of just running published adventures more generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's also not what experienced GMs tend to do in their games. It's not what you do, it's not what I do, and it's not what @pemerton or @Manbearcat do.

The problem is 'GMs Notes' isn't a style. You are taking one aspect of prep and using that to define the style. That is in my view, backwards, and it doesn't describe what you see at a table, even in the most rigid adventure path or dungeon crawl. Notes are part of it for sure. No one in their right mind would deny that you have to map the dungeon, stock it, describe it, as part of the prep process. But the prep process isn't the play process nor is it the style of play.