What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

There is a style that proceeds from GM notes though. Well more than one style, but one specific problematic style. That's been made pretty clear a number of times.

There are no problematic styles. There are problematic DMs who abuse certain styles.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are no problematic styles. There are problematic DMs who abuse certain styles.

Um, ok, I guess. I meant problematic in terms of discussions like this. That style makes me want to pull my hair out, but people are free to play what makes them happy. I wanted to separate the idea of notes from the idea of GM force.

 

[prabe]

There are no problematic styles. There are problematic DMs who abuse certain styles.

I think "abuse certain styles" is roughly congruent with "insist on styles the players at their tables don't want." I also think there are some styles that are easier to abuse (@Fenris-77 mentioned treating prep/notes as inviolate, which seems likely to be a problem, if all prep/notes are such--the occasional element here and there seems less likely to be troublesome) and there are, plausibly, some styles that are more likely to be what the players don't want.

 

[robconley]

That we do not get to have the best of all worlds ever.

Except throughout the life of the campaigns the situation is not static. The best of all worlds is being able to tailor one's approach to the circumstances. Use the tools that be suited for what happening now in the campaign and don't try for a one size fits all approach. It all boil down to how RPGs work in the first place. The players describe how they interact with the setting as their character. The referee describes what happens. The process and level of detail the referee uses to generate that describe can be varied. There no requirement in RPGs that the same approach has to be used every time as circumstance changed.

The only thing I would recommend that given the same circumstance try to use the same procedures as before. Consistency is a virtue when it comes to encourage players engaging with a setting as their character.

The problem here is that experience as a referee counts for a lot. The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that fun for all. A novice is pretty dependent on what aid the author of the rulebook gives. Even worse if they are younger and doesn't have much in the way of life experience or learning different subjects. The way around this is to emphasize that any particular method it just one way of handling this. Keep the broader picture in mind as new ideas and system are learned to be used in a campaign.

 

[robconley]

See my post above about the sect. Another example would be a local magistrate. I have the power structure mapped out. I know what a county magistrates role is, what a district magistrates role is, what a prefectural magistrates role is. They enforce laws, collect taxes, and promote farming. One of their chief functions is handling bandits through their sheriffs (but there are rival power structures they need to deal with as well). Because they serve the empire they are technically supposed to arrest martial heroes but they often can’t because they lack adequate resources to deal with someone that powerful. I also map out all the magistrates in each region where I can. For example I have a prefecture where each district I made an entry for the magistrate (county level magistrates were too numerous to individually make entries for: at least for me, though I do have many of them as well). I also have a chart with each of them on it showing who their sherif is, who the resident patrolling inspector is, how many men each OBS has; and chart shows which magistrate is loyal, bribed (by whom), etc. same with sheriffs and patrolling inspectors. I also have tracked politics to know what tensions and conflicts create problems for the magistrate. This all helps feed into how I play that magistrate (or the sheriff) when he comes up in play. Players belonging to the 87 Killers, going before a magistrate who is bribed by Lady 87, will be more likely to be released and not charged with a crime. Stuff like that.

All good but what are the final steps you take to figure out to roleplay the magistrate who controls district near the border with Xian? He is his own person right? With his own personality and history. So with those notes how you add the final bits to make a character the PCs can roleplay with?

 

[robconley]

"insist on styles the players at their tables don't want."

Sounds like a Human Relationship 101 problem to me. The heart of the advice I give about sandbox campaigns rest on talking with the players to find out what it is they want to play and what they find interesting. If a individual is unable or unwilling to do that. Well my advice on Sandbox Campaigns isn't going to be much use?

Yes every style has consequences. But I think when discussing them we should assume that participants have the Small Group Dynamic 101 part down pat. Otherwise the conversation will spin off to unrelated tangents that basically boil down to "don't be a dick about it and fracking listen to others."

 

[Maxperson]

I think "abuse certain styles" is roughly congruent with "insist on styles the players at their tables don't want." I also think there are some styles that are easier to abuse (@Fenris-77 mentioned treating prep/notes as inviolate, which seems likely to be a problem, if all prep/notes are such--the occasional element here and there seems less likely to be troublesome) and there are, plausibly, some styles that are more likely to be what the players don't want.

In my experience, it's pretty easy to abuse any style. Notes aren't supposed to be inviolate any more than a DM in a player facing game is supposed to ignore player input. A bad DM is going to be bad and that's not the fault of the style. I don't think that traditional note style games are more prone to be abused, but rather since there are so many more of them than other styles, most abusive DMs are among that style of play.

 

[Campbell]

Except throughout the life of the campaigns the situation is not static. The best of all worlds is being able to tailor one's approach to the circumstances. Use the tools that be suited for what happening now in the campaign and don't try for a one size fits all approach. It all boil down to how RPGs work in the first place. The players describe how they interact with the setting as their character. The referee describes what happens. The process and level of detail the referee uses to generate that describe can be varied. There no requirement in RPGs that the same approach has to be used every time as circumstance changed.

The only thing I would recommend that given the same circumstance try to use the same procedures as before. Consistency is a virtue when it comes to encourage players engaging with a setting as their character.

The problem here is that experience as a referee counts for a lot. The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that fun for all. A novice is pretty dependent on what aid the author of the rulebook gives. Even worse if they are younger and doesn't have much in the way of life experience or learning different subjects. The way around this is to emphasize that any particular method it just one way of handling this. Keep the broader picture in mind as new ideas and system are learned to be used in a campaign.

This all comes off like magical thinking to me. It also comes off as very professorial. I have been in this game for awhile and have direct experience running games in a variety of ways. Sure experience matters, but it is also specific to the skills and techniques being practiced.

 

[Maxperson]

This all comes off like magical thinking to me. It also comes off as very professorial. I have been in this game for awhile and have direct experience running games in a variety of ways. Sure experience matters, but it is also specific to the skills and techniques being practiced.

The bolded portion is exactly what he said. He said, "The more ways of adjudication and playing one masters the bigger the toolkit one has to handle things quickly and in a way that is fun for all." Mastery comes from experience and is related to the specific skills and techniques being practiced. It also equates to experience.

 

[prabe]

Sounds like a Human Relationship 101 problem to me. The heart of the advice I give about sandbox campaigns rest on talking with the players to find out what it is they want to play and what they find interesting. If a individual is unable or unwilling to do that. Well my advice on Sandbox Campaigns isn't going to be much use?

Yes every style has consequences. But I think when discussing them we should assume that participants have the Small Group Dynamic 101 part down pat. Otherwise the conversation will spin off to unrelated tangents that basically boil down to "don't be a dick about it and fracking listen to others."

I think most non-game-rule GMing problems are Human Relationship problems. Insisting on GMing in a style the players don't want is an example, and it's at least mostly how I'd define a GM abusing a style. I think the rest of it would be on the lines of not understanding the style you're trying to run. I don't really get the appeal of dungeoncrawls or hexcrawls, so I'm probably not the right GM for either of those styles (and to be clear, the fact I don't get the appeal doesn't mean I think they're wrongbadfun or anything) and any attempt I made at those styles would probably be so wrong (as perceived by someone into those styles) as to seem abusive.

I think there is something to say in favor of game rules that make the social contract stuff more explicit. Way upthread I answered a question about how I was constrained as a GM by my players and/or the social contract, and I don't think any of my answers were in the rules of the game I'm running--which doesn't mean the constraints aren't real, it just means they're specific to me (or the tables I'm GMing).

In my experience, it's pretty easy to abuse any style. Notes aren't supposed to be inviolate any more than a DM in a player facing game is supposed to ignore player input. A bad DM is going to be bad and that's not the fault of the style. I don't think that traditional note style games are more prone to be abused, but rather since there are so many more of them than other styles, most abusive DMs are among that style of play.

I do think some styles are easier to abuse than others, but I don't disagree that one can GM any style in bad faith. I agree that it's probable that what you describe as "traditional note style games" are abused more often than some others because they're more common, but I think the main part of the reason they're so common is that's the style most people learn (by running AP-style adventures) and I think the reason they're specifically abused in the "the notes are inviolate" sense is because people learning to GM are probably A) less likely to know the adventures (notes) can/should change and B) less likely to be comfortable changing them.