What is the point of GM's notes?

[Aldarc]

I don't know Aldarc. I feel I have been offering very clear concrete examples (I have done so in other threads too). I have even posted links to videos and podcast of me playing or running games. I have posted links to my blogs. I have posted sections from my own games (knowing many in the room are hostile towards me). I don't think I have been evasive. In terms of romantic language. I don't know what to say there. Living world is a common expression among sandbox GMs. As are most of the other terms I used (and I was happy to break those terms down, explain how I use them, and explain how I thought other people used them). I do generally resist labels that seem insulting. That isn't that weird. I am sure if I tried to characterize player authored games uncharitably or inaccurately, and insisted I was just doing objective analysis, you guys would object too.

But you do know that I am not the only person in this thread who has conveyed similar sentiments about your posting, this includes more amiable people such as @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77, so maybe it's worth reflecting on why your posts have so regularly come across to me and others as often being opaque, evasive, and cagey. There is likely more merit to this than you realize, though this may also be one of your own personal blind spots.

Sorry you feel that way but I can't see how a game author can write a better essay on small group dynamics than somebody who specializes in the subject.

If you think an game author has the better insight then good for you. I happen to disagree.

I'm not suggesting that game author is better equipped to do so. I'm saying that these frank social contract discussions, guidelines, and principles are useful to have in games and that it's better overall to have them in games than not. It's unreasonable and unrealistic IMHO to expect everyone who picks up a game book to have read an essay on small group dynamics in order to safely run a game, because people won't.

Moving on, rather engaging my point whether it better to read a book on small group dynamics versus a game author writing about how to handle dynamics of a small group playing RPGs. You elected to resort to insult.

You elected to a write your post in a patronizing tone that was dismissive of social contract mechanics, rules, and guidelines that many groups, particularly younger groups, have not only found helpful but increasingly like to see in their games while also beating your chest about "western civilization values."

 

[Imaro]

Had a while to think about it, write about it, obverse other and practice it since I started playing and refereeing in the late 70s.

The exact mix in the end has to fit with an individual skills and more importantly interests. If one is not interested in other approach then you are stuck with the consequences. Over the years I tried various systems and styles outside of my wheelhouse and interests so I can improve what I do normally.

So sorry if I sound professorial but short of an entire book that the best summary I can give. If you want to remove the limitations of a style then learn others. Apply these other styles when the circumstances of the campaign warrant their use. This process take time and practice.

If you want a full explanation I suggest browsing the sandbox section of my blog.

Sandbox Fantasy on Bat in the Attic
Managing Sandbox Campaigns on Bat in the Attic

This is pretty much what I advocated for earlier in the thread. Get rid of "playstyles" in a strict sense and instead discuss various techniques, when to utilize them and the results they produce... then you can pick the technique that achieves the result you are looking for and fits best for you.

 

[Aldarc]

This is pretty much what I advocated for earlier in the thread. Get rid of "playstyles" in a strict sense and instead discuss various techniques, when to utilize them and the results they produce... then you can pick the technique that achieves the result you are looking for and fits best for you.

There has mostly been a desire, with a few exceptions, to focus discussion more concretely on specific games, because various games do actively try supporting these techniques through their mechanics, guidelines, and play framework. I think that @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 have both been big advocates for presenting concrete games and their associated techniques that they cultivate. The issue, much as @prabe says, is that some games support certain techniques (or social contract issues regarding player goals, spotlight, etc.) better than others, which may require that you hack or radically change things up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I say you described tersely how the character exist in the setting. I am not sure what you think the possible hinderances are? Either the NPCs life will intersect the PC's life in which case the prep is useful. If they never do then it wasn't useful except perhaps the enjoyment it brought you while sketching the character out.

The Blades in the Dark version is even more tersely described with the specific pushed to later. Blades in the Dark is designed in part to facilitate this kind of thing. Very rough sketch first, details fleshed out later in the interest of getting on with play.

Well, as I said the hindrance is that the NPC in my D&D game has more limited trajectories based on what I've decided about him. The dynamic between that NPC and his PC rival is more clearly defined. He has set allies (although his feelings there are conflicted). The way he will interact with the PCs and the gameworld are pre-defined.

It may not be a hindrance at all to some folks. To others, it may be.

The former can be an issue if your time is limited and need to make every moment of prep count. The latter can be an issue because the campaign develops differently as the details are made up after when they are needed.

None of this is good or bad it just how it is when you use one or the other.

Right, I said as much in my post, I think. Each may have benefits or drawbacks, but those are subjective and will vary from person to person, and so neither approach is objectively good or bad.

The result in both cases is an NPC rival of a PC. The two are similar game elements, but crafted in different ways, and so I wanted to share them as the kind of specific example I think helps most in these conversations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You elected to a write your post in a patronizing tone that was dismissive of social contract mechanics, rules, and guidelines that many groups, particularly younger groups, have not only found helpful but increasingly like to see in their games while also beating your chest about "western civilization values."

You are bringing assumption to the table here that Estar is not. He was not beating his chest about western values. He was just trying to talk about how people in a lot of English speaking countries are raised when it comes to gaming culture (and he wasn't doing so with commentary). Estar is not a 'save western civilization from X' thinker at all, nor is he a culturally arrogant person.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But you do know that I am not the only person in this thread who has conveyed similar sentiments about your posting, this includes more amiable people such as @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77, so maybe it's worth reflecting on why your posts have so regularly come across to me and others as often being opaque, evasive, and cagey. There is likely more merit to this than you realize, though this may also be one of your own personal blind spots.

There are a small group of posters here who frequently post together, I would expect them to have similar reactions to my posts. However I have a much easier time communicating with some than others (I don't feel I have an issue communicating with Fenris the way I do with you for example). And I am not saying I am 100% innocent here, I get irritated sometimes and post impulsively. But you've been hostile to me from the beginning. I have been trying to engage what you say and answer honestly. As far as I can tell, your attitude towards me is I should ether get on board and post how you want me to post, or go away.

 

[robconley]

I meant something more along the lines of the difference between a social contract around the table concerning, i.e., how much consideration the GM will give the PC's needs/goals/history, and specific rules that tell the people at the table how much consideration will be given. Or, how much and how often authority will be shared around the table. If I want to do that in my 5E games, I need to explicitly hack the system or implicitly hack the social contract; someone running, say, Blades in the Dark has those rules right there.

My counterpoint that it is not something RPGs need to address. You need to address it and tailor your approach to the group of folks you are gaming with. That you will need to address this issue whether the group decides to play a RPG, a boardgame, a wargame, a card game, go to a LARP event together, and gather online for a MMORPG. And it not all on you either. Each individual there need to take responsibility for their part to make things happen.

If you have specific problems with individuals or getting the group motivated then there are books available on Amazon that will help better than advice from a game author. Like I said in a previous post, the advice, rules and mechanics that various RPGs have about social contracts can be useful but they are almost never through or cover all the bases.

Look, I understand if you disagree. All I can say it try it. If it safe, (considering the pandemic and all) go to your local library and look at some books on subject. If you are lucky they will have somethings on-line. If not then browse Amazon and other bestseller and pick something. See if it helps.

While I may thing having social contracts as rules is not ideal, I do see them working for some. It may be that you are one of them. For myself my technique is to pay attention and ask questions. All the time every session. Sure most of the time it friends just talking, but I will make sure I ask about how the campaign is going for them as a group and individuals periodically. I have to remember to do this it is not something that comes naturally.

I don't disagree that game rules are not the way to handle out of game problems, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about games that take some steps to codify the social contract as far as who does what in the game. I suppose in a way I'm talking about table-safety stuff, too (like the X-card) but most of what I've seen in that space is pretty system-agnostic.

The question I would ask myself about X-card is what I am doing as a referee (or maybe a player) that makes the individuals uncomfortable to speak up about something they are not having fun with, offended by, or uncomfortable with. Why have things gotten to the point that there needs to be a prop or formal system to signal those things?

This needs to be dealt with as part of what make a RPG work. In my experience the nuances are best handled by the training I got managing volunteer groups. If X cards work for you and your group then great. It more important have something than nothing at all.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think we've actually managed to collectively hit on an important thing here. Games like Blades, or Dungeon World, have a very specific style that their mechanics are purpose-designed to foster and support. Talking about them is, at least in that way, pretty easy. Those games still vary from GM to GM of course, but not to the same extent that D&D or OSR games do. With those latter games things change. They lack the same mechanical support for a specific style or approach, that portion of their rules is left very much to the GM or perhaps the table to decide on. Here I'm talking about things like the division of agency or the fashion in which outcomes are driven by player decision making. That's neither a good nor a bad thing, just a thing. But it does result in a much higher variance in GM styles and approaches using the same rules set, and I think it's about as hard, perhaps harder, to compare two different D&D GM styles than it is to compare a Blades GM to a D&D GM because the rules themselves lack specific mechanics that would provide a shared frame of reference.

When you ask a PbtA GM how he works threats in his game, for example, he can point to the idea of fronts and be very specific about how those notes turn into adjudicated outcomes and consequences at his table. D&D or OSR games? No such luck. Each GM in those cases is faced with the problem of trying to elucidate their personal style from scratch, a style that they might well not have formally codified, it's just a collection of learned skills and habits accreted over time. That's not necessarily an easy thing to explain. Personally, I've taken a lot of ideas from PbtA and Blades and codified more of what I do at the table as a GM in those terms, even if might I adjust the specifics to match different systems or desired table outcomes. So for me it's maybe easier to compare my OSR campaign to a Blades campaign. But for someone who hasn't run Blades? Maybe more difficult. Frame of reference is, I think, tripping us up a little here.

 

[Aldarc]

You are bringing assumption to the table here that Estar is not. He was not beating his chest about western values. He was just trying to talk about how people in a lot of English speaking countries are raised when it comes to gaming culture (and he wasn't doing so with commentary). Estar is not a 'save western civilization from X' thinker at all, nor is he a culturally arrogant person.

Then his purposes would have been far better served had he not included it at all.

There are a small group of posters here who frequently post together, I would expect them to have similar reactions to my posts. However I have a much easier time communicating with some than others (I don't feel I have an issue communicating with Fenris the way I do with you for example). And I am not saying I am 100% innocent here, I get irritated sometimes and post impulsively. But you've been hostile to me from the beginning. I have been trying to engage what you say and answer honestly. As far as I can tell, your attitude towards me is I should ether get on board and post how you want me to post, or go away.

As I recall you elected in your first post in this thread to make hostile, passive-aggressive barbs about pemerton. Don't act like some sort of unfairly treated victim when people treat you like you choose to treat others.

 

[robconley]

Well, as I said the hindrance is that the NPC in my D&D game has more limited trajectories based on what I've decided about him. The dynamic between that NPC and his PC rival is more clearly defined. He has set allies (although his feelings there are conflicted). The way he will interact with the PCs and the gameworld are pre-defined.

I view the part I highlighted in bold as a misconception. My advice is to work out how to roleplay the character from first principles every time it comes up. The character's personality. motivations, and goals are what they are but how the character acts on them at that moment in the campaign is not predetermined. At least in my campaign circumstances are too nuanced for me to do that. Instead I look through the character's eyes and imagine what would happen based on what the character see and known. If a bunch of things leap then maybe I will dice for it. Often there one or two things and it straightforward what to do as a result.

The only time something predetermined happens is that the PCs are not around. To be specific what they did or not do hasn't intersected what the NPC is doing or not doing. Then and only then will things proceed in accordance with my notes.