What is the point of GM's notes?

[prabe]

Yes, I agree. I think in this case, pemerton gave his idea of what this style of play seems to be. This is a conclusion, I expect, that he's come to as a result of playing that kind of game. He's boiling it down to it's basic parts and looking at it, and saying "this is how this seems to me".

The thread topic is about GM notes and the purpose they serve. We know what purpose pemerton seems to think they serve in games that have been describd as sandbox. To be honest, it still seems pretty accurate in my book, although I agree that yes, there is more to it.

I think @pemerton has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).

Sure. Isn't that largely what the players, via their characters, do? In my 5E D&D game, it simply is. Is there more to it? Yes, of course.....my notes (as they are) consist of lots of input from the players. So it's not solely my creation. But I am the one that acts as the kind of filter for everything. It all comes through me, for the most part. The players in D&D are not really free to establish details in play or the thrust of play without me making it so.

I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.

How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.

Yes, I absolutely agree. But the GM is absolutely vital to the process more so than any individual player. Again, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Many games have the GM as the primary source of the fiction, with the players only contributing through the actions they declare for their characters, and how those may influence the GM's ideas.

I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.

The kicker to me seems to be that the folks who balk at permerton's idea of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes are also folks who will acknowledge that the GM is the primary contributor to the fiction. Or the imagined shared idea space.

These two things seem to largely be the same thing, to me.

I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think @pemerton has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).

I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.

How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.

I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.

I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.

This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not? I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is. This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.

I'll agree this is a step past "notes" and more into who has authorities over the fiction. In the style of play partially, but not completely, characterized by @pemerton's "play to find out what's the GM's conception of the world" this is more easily framed as the GM has agreed sole authority over this. A benevolent GM will, of course, adapt to player inputs, but this doesn't move this locus of authority. I'm absolutely a benevolent dictator when it comes to how I run these games -- I'll take lots of player suggestions and inputs, and adapt things to fit what's going on in a way that encourages player input, but, fundamentally, what happens is because I've adopted it as my conception of the world and if I don't take a player input, that's that.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not? I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is. This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.

I'll agree this is a step past "notes" and more into who has authorities over the fiction. In the style of play partially, but not completely, characterized by @pemerton's "play to find out what's the GM's conception of the world" this is more easily framed as the GM has agreed sole authority over this. A benevolent GM will, of course, adapt to player inputs, but this doesn't move this locus of authority. I'm absolutely a benevolent dictator when it comes to how I run these games -- I'll take lots of player suggestions and inputs, and adapt things to fit what's going on in a way that encourages player input, but, fundamentally, what happens is because I've adopted it as my conception of the world and if I don't take a player input, that's that.

What you're describing is the difference between Neo-trad cited in the Culture blog and No Myth Story Now.

And they're extremely different.

 

[Emerikol]

This really boils down to preference and comfort level on the part of the GM. Having a "vast and detailed knowledge" of a fictional world does not in and of itself enhance verisimilitude. It may for a specific GM, and that is fine.

Well in anything we are talking averages. I definitely think, for the same reason given by the author of that book, that on average having more detail is going to improve the game. I agree there are other factors and that is not the exclusive property of a good game.

My experience with DMs/GMs is that those that ad lib a lot are not very good. So as soon as I figure out that there is nothing under that DM's hat, I tend to move on and leave that game. I've gotten better at figuring out this stuff ahead of time than when I was in college.

But for others, it can be the opposite. Being free to establish details as needed or desired rather than as predetermined, or as how they may be shaped by predetermined events, can also add to verisimilitude.

My reaction is that generally ten authors can't write as good a story as one author can but I'm sure some author could be found that is worse than some selection of ten authors. So I view it as a typical truth and not absolute for every single situation ever. Just like authors who bother to build a world tend to write better worlds than authors who don't. I'm sure there are exceptions to everything.

It really just boils down to what works for the GM and players. I used to think that I needed to have as much information as possible to do the job of a GM and that the world would seem made up if I didn't do all that work beforehand. But then I realized that running an RPG is not the same as writing a novel, and that when it comes to the moment of play, a detail that is made up on the spot is very often just as good as one that is prepared ahead of time.

I do agree that whatever enhanced the fun of the game is a good thing for that game. No argument there. I just wonder if perhaps the benefits of the "opposite" of my style are in other areas and not verisimilitude.

The question really is about all that time spent preparing and if memorizing a vast and detailed knowledge of a fictional setting is the best way to spend that time.

In my opinion it is time well spent but then I enjoy it and I enjoy making my players happy with a good world that they enjoy.

Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.

I don't care for the style though I have no issue with a series of adventures set in a well designed world with a sandbox. The players can choose to follow that path or not.

Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?

You should never have to pretend. Just say what you like. I don't mind what anyone's preference is. My opposition only comes when I think my own style is being mischaracterized or maligned.

The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.

Well by your own definition, the fiction is only what emerges from play and does not include the entirety of the living world.

Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.

Well stories are emergent from almost any hobby. I have stories of great chess games I've won or lost. Maybe my time ran out and I had a winning position. That doesn't mean the game is ABOUT creating a story. If so then did I make the clock run out on purpose to make the loss more memorable and dramatic? Absolutely not. I was playing to win.


So in my own style of roleplaying the players are trying to advance their agendas. They develop their agendas from experiencing the world and creatively thinking about their character. That a story emerges on occasion is a side effect and by no means the purpose.

 

[Imaro]

And, again, I assure you it has not. It has been used primarily in the context of how GM Notes are used, because that's the topic of the thread.

You're imagining a slight that doesn't actually exist.

Please go back and re-read the thread. It's been the crux of pushback because it has.

EDIT: Honestly our discussion around this can probably end here. It's becoming a pointless back and forth and honestly the thread has veered off and transcended the topic so many times that to keep using the OP as some sort of fallback at this point feels like you are choosing to willfully ignore parts of the conversation. Which is your choice but also tends to make me think we won't get anywhere on this line of discussion.

 

[Emerikol]

What you're describing is the difference between Neo-trad cited in the Culture blog and No Myth Story Now.

And they're extremely different.

I had a question and your mention of No Myth and Story Now together has reminded me to ask it.

Are they the same idea? Is Story Now something new that grew out of No Myth?

 

[prabe]

This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not? I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is. This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.

I think that to the extent the GM is playing to discover the players' conceptions of their characters, the players have say over that; seems to mean the players are deciding what is emerging. I'll grant that's probably not a common GMing approach in D&D--but it's part of mine.

I also think it is, perhaps, continuing to conflate "setting" and "fiction." The former is a subset of the latter, and everything the players have their characters do changes the fiction. At least, it should--and the fact it really doesn't much in AP-style play is probably my biggest gripe with that playstyle.

I'll agree this is a step past "notes" and more into who has authorities over the fiction. In the style of play partially, but not completely, characterized by @pemerton's "play to find out what's the GM's conception of the world" this is more easily framed as the GM has agreed sole authority over this. A benevolent GM will, of course, adapt to player inputs, but this doesn't move this locus of authority. I'm absolutely a benevolent dictator when it comes to how I run these games -- I'll take lots of player suggestions and inputs, and adapt things to fit what's going on in a way that encourages player input, but, fundamentally, what happens is because I've adopted it as my conception of the world and if I don't take a player input, that's that.

The players can change my world--and have done so. Granted, in play that's been entirely through character action/s, but there've been changes based around backstories as well. But yes, I have far more authority over the setting than the players do, and I have far less authority over their characters than they do.

 

[Manbearcat]

I had a question and your mention of No Myth and Story Now together has reminded me to ask it.

Are they the same idea? Is Story Now something new that grew out of No Myth?

Myth is just level of prep of backstory/setting. No Myth just means very little prep (there is always going to be some prep, but its often communal such as creating the villain in My Life with Master or making the map in Dungeon World or players proposing their background initiation scene in Dogs in the Vineyard). Story Now games come in different levels of prep, but overwhelmingly feature low but very focused prep which features provocative (relative to the game's premise and the espoused PC themes/dramatic needs) situations. Setting fills out/firms up and Story generates during play as a product of the PCs colliding with those provocative situations. That is the Now part.

Contrast with Story Before where much (or at least most of the most important parts) or all story generation (this would be AP Railroads) happen before play:

* Setting is high resolution and happens almost exclusively before play.

* Situations that come up in play are overwhelmingly PC-neutral in their framing. That doesn't mean players can't pick their own plot hooks out of the Setting's menu (like a Pick Your Own Adventure book), but it does mean that the Setting and Situation material isn't intentionally framed around the PCs thematic/dramatic needs in order to provoke them (like a Town is in Dogs in the Vineyard).

 

[Maxperson]

This is a good post, and I hope this question is thought provoking, but even when the GM is discovering things, who's doing the deciding if it's part of the shared fiction or not? I think this is the thrust @pemerton's point is moving towards -- that even if the GM is accepting that they're innovating in play, and even if the GM is listening to the player's inputs, that it's still about what the GM thinks it is. This is different from systems where the GM is constrained and players have the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the GM's agreement.

Not really. If the player tells me what his PC does, I don't have the option to decide if it's part of the shared fiction. It IS part of the shared fiction at the moment the player told me what his PC did. The only way the DM can do otherwise is to violate the social contract. What the player does is not about what the DM thinks it is. It's a collaboration of DM and player inputs that is just narrated by the DM, possibly with some rules adjudications if necessary.

The players don't need the DM's agreement. That "agreement" is guaranteed by the social contract. It's not that other systems allow the players the ability to introduce things into the shared fiction without the the DM's agreement and D&D doesn't. Both do that. It's that the player facing games allow the players to introduce things into the shared fiction without the DM. He's simply not a part of it at all in some cases.

D&D allows the following.

1) DM contribution to the shared fiction without any players.
2) DM and player collaborative contribution to the shared fiction.(You don't need the DM to agree to this.)

Player facing games allow the following.

1) DM and player collaborative contribution to the shared fiction.
2) Player contribution to the shared fiction without the DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think @pemerton has at least implied that description applies to other styles of play that are primarily GM-authored, as well. Pretty much anything where the GM has primary responsibility for the setting, if I understand right (and I'll hope to be corrected if I don't).

Yeah, I expect that's the case, too....or close to it.

I'm not sure it's as large a part of the game as you seem to, and I think it omits what the GM is doing. I think the GM is also plausibly doing some combination of A) discovering their own conception of the world, B) discovering the players' conception/s of the world, and C) discovering the players' conception/s of their characters.

Yeah, I agree with all of this. I think this is all happening, or at least potentially happening, as we play. It will vary of course, as many examples in this thread have shown.

Would you say that the purpose of the GM's notes in this kind of game is to offer something for which the GM/players to interact with in order to facilitate your A through C?

How much the players can shape the thrust of play--or even details of the world in play--seems to depend a great deal on the DM. In an AP, not much. In a sandbox, possibly a great deal (depending on how detailed the DM's prep is, I suspect). In my games, the players have a lot of say in the thrust of play (it seems to me) even though outside of establishing things as parts of their backstories they don't get much direct say in the setting.

I can't really say how your game goes, but I imagine it is similar to mine in this regard. I feel that my 5E D&D game allows much more player freedom than the default 5E expectations, and most other similar games. This is not always 100% true at all times.....in my campaign I've incorporated some published materials, and they do constrain this somewhat. But overall and in general, I think that my approach to 5E grants them a lot more ability to determine how play will go.

But even then, it's largely shaped by my input. Not entirely of course....but a significant portion such that I would say it's still the majority.

I think there's a lot of range covered by "how those may influence the GM's ideas." There's a difference between working out a nemesis' offscreen actions and developing an entire servitor race to satisfy a PC's revenge arc.

Sure. There's also influence in the other direction. The players make decisions that are influenced by the GM. It's a loop, for sure, and the GM's influence on that loop is significant.

Which would you say is greater? Player influence on GM's ideas of the fiction, or GM's influence on players' ideas of the fiction?

It's a genuine question.....one I don't think has an objective answer, but I think it is kind of central to the idea here.

I'm fine with "fiction," though phrasings that capture the shared nature of it I find more aesthetically pleasing. I persist in thinking that focusing the phrasing on the GM's notes (or conception of the fiction (or whatever)) undersells the importance of what the players provide. The setting (what I bring) is not the entirety of the fiction; I'd be inclined to say it's not even the part the game is about. The game is about the characters and their actions, in pursuit of their goals and/or needs.

I get the connotations and why people have an issue with the first. But mostly this thread has just confirmed for me that it's a pretty accurate description. I don't think it must be a pejorative, even if that's how it may seem or may have been intended (although I think it was meant more to provoke a response than to really put a style down).

Does it undersell the importance of the players? I don't know. I get what you're saying, but it talks about the players role as "discovering" so that's in there. I feel like maybe it undersells the fictional world, since that's what's being discovered and that's what's actually in the GM's notes.

But that then brings us to the original question, what are the GM's notes for. If you wanted to say "To help construct a fictional world in a collaborative manner with the players, where we are free to discover things about the world and the characters through play" then I think that's a more complete picture.