What is the point of GM's notes?

[innerdude]

My number one priority as a player is a consistent standard for what good play looks like. It does not have to be a game described in any particular book, but the consistent application of both play principles and techniques is critical to me personally. That's also something I try my damnedest to provide to the people I play with.

What I personally value most in gaming is a shared sense of purpose. It's really what I value most in life. One team. One fight. That's really what draws me to games with more clear objectives. I know what the mission is. In the absence of clear objectives built into a game I will generally try to build that consistency back in.

Challenges in Blades compared to D&D are a bit different, that is true, though there is still plenty of overlap. What's interesting for me is that I've found that my group seems to have a much stronger connection to their character and their roleplay is stronger in Blades versus D&D. Yes, there are elements that have them contributing in a more authorial way, beyond the view of their character. But instead of breaking immersion, those instances seem to actually enhance it in other ways.

I think the players feel more a part of creating the world, and as a result their characters feel more like an actual part of that world. There's a kind of sympathetic angle there.

I think this is also enhanced by the XP/reward system in Blades versus D&D. Blades ties XP rewards to more character based things, where as D&D typically offers XP for either gaining treasure or for killing monsters. So as players try to get XP, they're actively defining their characters.

Now, there's nothing to stop players in D&D from diving into their characters and really defining and portraying them....but there's very little in any iteration of D&D that actively supports that, or promotes it in play. I mean, ultimately, if we look at the reward system of any RPG, that's a really strong indicator of what the game is about.

The role of functional incentive structures cannot be underplayed (in both life broadly and in games).

Its no coincidence that 4e's recharge schedule plus Milestone mechanic (if you push forward, rather than attempt to recharge, your group gets HUGE Action Economy gains...even as your daily suite of resources erodes) propelled play forward compared to the stall-out (and/or mini-game/arms race of Team PC pushing to affect a recharge of spell loadout) of workday issues of D&D of yore (and present).

Its no coincidence that Dogs players bring in their Traits and Relationships (and even the ones that specifically complicate their lives) as conflicts progress...which in turn (a) ensures thematic focus and (b) drives the xp/erosion of PC engine.

Its no coincidence that, despite being a game being about violent scoundrels ensconced in gang warfare, Blades games feature a lot more thematic xp triggers than body count (because body count = Heat...which engages with a positive feedback loop you don't want).

All of this is tremendously applicable to Ironsworn. The main driver of play is supposed to be the characters' "Iron Vows"---the solemnly sworn, honor-bound promises made to themselves and others within the game world.

And the mechanics dramatically reinforce how important these are to the characters. Abandoning an Iron Vow carries significant narrative and mechanical impact, all of it negative. The gaining of XP and advancement is solely tied to players successfully completing Iron Vows. There is no justification, in-or-out of fiction, for players not to agree to swear Iron Vows and then do everything possible to pursue their fulfillment.

And it's positively revelatory on how it shapes the dynamic of play for our group. Like, just last session, one of my players about 2/3 of the way through the session approached the group and said, "I'm not finding ways to connect my character's Iron Vows to what the group is pursuing. Can we talk about how we can build in some of these things into our pursuits?"

I was floored by it. This was a player taking an active role---wholly within the play principles established---of building on their character motivations. And everyone of course jumped happily at the opportunity to collaborate and build on this player's primary vow ("I will discover and eradicate the sources of darkness that have infiltrated this land").

The combination of Ironsworn's vows + progress tracker + "complete a vow" mechanical move are the kind of connected advancement mechanics that I would have never imagined possible in other contexts.

Savage Worlds never, not once, naturally pushed play in this direction, because the reward/advancement feedback loop in Savage Worlds is little more than, "Now you get to keep playing the game with a more powerful character."

We're heading into our 6th session tomorrow, and I don't recall being this excited to GM a game in years.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2) For your MCS, your Combat Rating and Strength actually looks very kindred with Blades Scale, Potency, Quality, and Tier. Do you have some procedure like this that determines the magnitude of things that are the collision of other events (not Mass Combat); eg pestilence + hysteria/panic vs a church's response + a city's physickers?

Sort of. I have tables for determining historical developments and events. Something like this:

But generally I would manage the developments from these events organically (which could involve rolls here or there if I thought it needed). So the church's response is generally going to be me figuring out what their response is. But if the church tries to do something to stem a problem, I may assign a dice pool and roll against a TN (say they send aid to an area hit by flooding, I might assign them 2d10 feeling they only sent a small group of clergy, and roll against a TN based on the extent of the flood---I might even make them roll monthly to see how well they manage it over time).

I also have sect shakeup tables for conflict in the martial world. This has things on it like a member of sect A infiltrating sect C, Sect B losing lots of men in a fight, Sect D encroaching on sect C's territory, etc.

in a different setting I have a table for religious sects and their development around characters (it is a setting where the characters have a spark of divinity and can attract followers: having a system for figuring out what becomes of that following was handy (characters with that divine spark are called Sertori, so the "Sertori present" column is the column for when the Sertori can be there physically to manage followers him or herself (and there is a tracking sheet as well--the full sheet goes up to 6):

 

[hawkeyefan]

We're heading into our 6th session tomorrow, and I don't recall being this excited to GM a game in years.

That’s awesome, man. I haven’t yet played Ironsworn, but I have a copy (it was free and I think still is?) and I remember being impressed by it just from reading. Always entirely different to see a game in play, though. Glad to hear your group’s digging it.

 

[Campbell]

Okay. I can see that. I've said time and time again, in thread after thread, that the DM/Players need to find like minded people to play with. I've used playstyle and not goal of the players, but it seems that I do the same thing that @Campbell does. I just didn't think of it in the same terms.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the framing of playstyles rather than designed games. Particularly when it comes with the conceit of someone having like a natural or inborn style. At least for me what's important is consistency within the scope of a game. Basically I want to have a firm grasp of what good play looks like so I can be the best player I can be. For me embracing whatever it is we are doing and like developing skill, having my skill and contributions valued, and like that sense of shared purpose means everything to me.

What makes those games where everyone has a different purpose for me personally is not missing out on a particular experience. It's that I have no way of knowing what good play looks like. Without that insight than I have no way of developing the skill of play. It's impossible for me to enjoy the experience because nothing is really fun for me in isolation (besides weight training). What's fun for me is the fun we are all having together when we are gaming rather than individual kinks.

I think that's why the idea of a shared fiction is so important to me. It's not that I do not see the value of prep which constrains play. I just believe that play functions best when we focus on what is shared rather than anyone's individual experience.

A lot of that is just in accident of my upbringing. I grew up playing card games, board games, chess, and playing team sports. My time in the military was some of the best years of my life because of that sense of connection. That sense of community and friendly competition is a big part of what makes me who I choose to be.

 

[Lanefan]

Your character reaches a new town and passes through the gates, and he looks around.....what does he see? It makes sense that he may not know, and the GM shares what he sees.

But what about what your character knows? You start play with a person who's likely a young adult or older.....so they have experiences that have already happened. They should KNOW things about themselves and about the world. Certainly, some of this knowledge may be limited, but where do you draw the line? While my PC may not know who is the king of all the orcs, he would know who his family and friends are, he would have some general knowledge about the world.

For many, having to rely on someone else to act as interface for these internal things that are a part of the character is disruptive to immersion.

I agree, but until-unless we get all the players wearing DM-controllable virtual-reality headsets with the whole setting programmed in it's kind of all we've got.

In part, this is why I tend to like playing characters who are foreign to the adventuring area when first starting a new campaign: I can discover the region along with my character. Then for a future character in the same game I can play a local and have some local knowledge already built in.

 

[pemerton]

No character ever wants to screw up due to alcoholism at a key moment in the game. A player might want to trigger such a thing but usually to incentivize such triggers there are metagame rewards.

Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.

So one possibility is no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.

Another possibility is that drinking alcohol (or consuming some other drug) confers an ingame beneift, which incentivises the player to have his/her PC consume it, and there is also an addiction mechanic of some sort. Rolemaster has a system like this, not for alcohol but for other drugs including magic-enhancing ones. In one of our games a PC ended up addicted to hugar (an intoxicant which allowed him to rapidly regain his spell points) and ended up losing all his money (from purchasing doses) and his house (from being unable to pay the lease) and then suffering withdrawal symptoms (until he was healed with relatively high-level healing magic). During this period of hugar addiction, another player whose PC had something of a "leader" status would have his PC plan expeditions based around the cycle of intoxication and recovery of the addicted character.

The possibility just described won't really work for drugs that confer no ingame benefit - while in real life pleasure can be a reason to do things, it doesn't generate much incentive for the player of a character who doesn't him-/herself get to experience the purely imaginary pleasure of the character's intoxication.

A third possibility is that drinking alcohol is desirable to the player because it does bring them a benefit (eg the metagame reward that Emerikol describes) and so the player, playing the PC, is tempted to have a drink just as the character is . . .

A further point that cuts across these possibilities is what does it mean to screw up in a RPG? In some approaches to RPGing, a failed check means not only that the PC doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" in the fiction) but that the player also doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" at the table). In other approaches to RPGing this isn't necessarily the case, because of how the adjudication of failure is handled. For instance, in the case of my RM game the character suffered problems due to his addiction, but the player was still able to play his PC who was continuing to have a big impact on the ongoing fiction of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I agree, but until-unless we get all the players wearing DM-controllable virtual-reality headsets with the whole setting programmed in it's kind of all we've got.

No. I've posted an example of a different way of doing this not very far upthread.

 

[Aldarc]

Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.

So one possibility is no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.

Another possibility is that drinking alcohol (or consuming some other drug) confers an ingame beneift, which incentivises the player to have his/her PC consume it, and there is also an addiction mechanic of some sort. Rolemaster has a system like this, not for alcohol but for other drugs including magic-enhancing ones. In one of our games a PC ended up addicted to hugar (an intoxicant which allowed him to rapidly regain his spell points) and ended up losing all his money (from purchasing doses) and his house (from being unable to pay the lease) and then suffering withdrawal symptoms (until he was healed with relatively high-level healing magic). During this period of hugar addiction, another player whose PC had something of a "leader" status would have his PC plan expeditions based around the cycle of intoxication and recovery of the addicted character.

The possibility just described won't really work for drugs that confer no ingame benefit - while in real life pleasure can be a reason to do things, it doesn't generate much incentive for the player of a character who doesn't him-/herself get to experience the purely imaginary pleasure of the character's intoxication.

A third possibility is that drinking alcohol is desirable to the player because it does bring them a benefit (eg the metagame reward that Emerikol describes) and so the player, playing the PC, is tempted to have a drink just as the character is . . .

A further point that cuts across these possibilities is what does it mean to screw up in a RPG? In some approaches to RPGing, a failed check means not only that the PC doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" in the fiction) but that the player also doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" at the table). In other approaches to RPGing this isn't necessarily the case, because of how the adjudication of failure is handled. For instance, in the case of my RM game the character suffered problems due to his addiction, but the player was still able to play his PC who was continuing to have a big impact on the ongoing fiction of the game.

I think that the first two examples often involves a "play to win" mentality/approach to the game where character flaws are either excised or minimized* for the sake of the player's ahem... I mean "character's" victory. Character flaws or backstory elements are "conveniently forgotten" in times when they would potentially be an impediment to personal or group victory.

* Which commonly includes, at least in this mode of thinking, lacking any form of personal character attachments (e.g., family, friends, pets, etc.) that can be "weaponized" by the GM against the player characters.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think that the first two examples often involves a "play to win" mentality/approach to the game where character flaws are either excised or minimized* for the sake of the player's ahem... I mean "character's" victory. Character flaws or backstory elements are "conveniently forgotten" in times when they would potentially be an impediment to personal or group victory.

* Which commonly includes, at least in this mode of thinking, lacking any form of personal character attachments (e.g., family, friends, pets, etc.) that can be "weaponized" by the GM against the player characters.

This is all true.
In 5e D&D one can introduce a mechanic whereby when a PC uses their Inspiration, the DM gains a token.
The DM may, if the PC's flaw works within a future moment's fiction, use such token to hinder* the PC, thus weaponising as you've put it.

* Raise the DC required by 5 or incur the disadvantage mechanic on the die roll.

The other method is the DM offering the PC an Inspiration point to incur disadvantage on their roll by activating their flaw (again if it works for the fiction in the moment). I have not had much success with this method.

 

[Imaro]

Yet in real life some people, sometimes, screw up at key moments because of (say) alcoholism.

So one possibility is no PC in this game will ever be an alcoholic. In my experience that's basically how classic D&D plays.

Another possibility is that drinking alcohol (or consuming some other drug) confers an ingame beneift, which incentivises the player to have his/her PC consume it, and there is also an addiction mechanic of some sort. Rolemaster has a system like this, not for alcohol but for other drugs including magic-enhancing ones. In one of our games a PC ended up addicted to hugar (an intoxicant which allowed him to rapidly regain his spell points) and ended up losing all his money (from purchasing doses) and his house (from being unable to pay the lease) and then suffering withdrawal symptoms (until he was healed with relatively high-level healing magic). During this period of hugar addiction, another player whose PC had something of a "leader" status would have his PC plan expeditions based around the cycle of intoxication and recovery of the addicted character.

The possibility just described won't really work for drugs that confer no ingame benefit - while in real life pleasure can be a reason to do things, it doesn't generate much incentive for the player of a character who doesn't him-/herself get to experience the purely imaginary pleasure of the character's intoxication.

A third possibility is that drinking alcohol is desirable to the player because it does bring them a benefit (eg the metagame reward that Emerikol describes) and so the player, playing the PC, is tempted to have a drink just as the character is . . .

A further point that cuts across these possibilities is what does it mean to screw up in a RPG? In some approaches to RPGing, a failed check means not only that the PC doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" in the fiction) but that the player also doesn't get what s/he wants (ie has "screwed up" at the table). In other approaches to RPGing this isn't necessarily the case, because of how the adjudication of failure is handled. For instance, in the case of my RM game the character suffered problems due to his addiction, but the player was still able to play his PC who was continuing to have a big impact on the ongoing fiction of the game.

I think there might be a fourth possibility. In this possibility the player has declared his character an alcoholic and it is for the most part a flavor thing with the option for the player to choose when and how severely it affects their character mechanically, gaining a minor benefit when it does affect them in game.

IME this is how I've seen the modern version of D&D play out. One of my players takes alcoholism as their flaw, whether it is a focus of their character, a hindrance that pops up a majority of the time or an addiction that they manage to control for the most part is entirely up to them and since the reward is minimal the player doesn't feel forced to lean into it any more than they want to. Commonly the effects of actually drinking alcohol in-game are decided in one of two ways... either the DM and player talk it out and come to an agreement or it is usually codified through an equipment like list.