Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
It is just my opinion, but the high volume of hostile responses suggests otherwise to me. My experience on forums is people making weak arguments generally get ignored.
What is the point of GM's notes?
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
It is just my opinion, but the high volume of hostile responses suggests otherwise to me. My experience on forums is people making weak arguments generally get ignored.
On the contrary, the difficulties you have had with the word fiction is insisting that we are using it to mean something we are not.
Do not confuse "I am persistent" with "my argument is strong."
Emerikol
Legend
It is a well established truth that authors who know their world well before writing are more likely on average to produce a compelling and immersive world. That point is not really all that disputable. So in a game, of course there are differences but the ability of the GM to interact with the PCs still benefits for the same reasons with a good knowledge of the existing world. That is the point we are making. That solid reliable world information is a great foundation for making better judgments and providing better info to the PCs as they progress through the world.
I'm not really sure what you mean by objective as that seems like a red herring. When I say more "real", I am saying "easier to suspend disbelief" just like you do when reading a fantasy novel. We all know the fantasy world is not real but we still come to care about the characters and the world. If you are going to get your PCs to care about the world, and if they do care they will be more immersed and more engaged, then that world needs to feel real to them. You are aided in making it feel real to them by having a good foundation of prep that guides your answers.
Edit:
I was once told by a player in one of my campaigns that my setting just felt more like a real place than any other they'd played in. They couldn't say why. It was just a feeling. It's a feeling I want to foster in all my players.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I personally disagreed with your framing of it. Especially the bits where you kept claiming things that I know are hard or virtually impossible (while still being worth pursuing) are easy. Not that your playstyle was impossible or had no value. I said it was impossible to have an entire world contained inside your head, but said the pursuit was a noble one. That does not seem like an attack on a playstyle to me.
I do not think I should have to see sandbox play the same way as you for us to have a conversation. I was not putting down the playstyle. I quite enjoy sandbox play and would hazard we use pretty similar techniques for it. I just see it differently.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
None of these. The next time you play, and an action calls the outcome of Syranna into question, it will be resolved according to the result of that action.
More to the point, the entire formulation here is flawed in terms of a Story Now game approach -- you don't have these things set up like this. The sending would actually be an action declaration that would have a resolution of success or failure (or a success with complication) and would be resolved right there. In reality, in most such games, even casting sending would be in question -- spells in D&D are compact bits of player-side fiction introduction that are not tested. What I mean by that is that spells in D&D allow players to change the fictional state of the situation by spending a resource chit and that don't have a chance of failure to occur. Some may fail to have the desired effect, but the act of casting generates no consequences for the caster except the resource chit expended. Many allow automatic changes in the fictional state, like sending does -- unless the GM makes a blocking move, sending sends a message without fail exactly as the PC wants. This isn't how most Story Now games treat such things -- the casting of a spell would likely have stakes attached and be uncertain. So, the very framing of the question has some issues.
Secondly, the idea that the issue of Syranna's fate must be decided offscreen is not well framed for Story Now, either. In Story Now, everything happens on-screen. The fate of Syranna would be decided by adjudication in the moment of player action declarations for their PCs. The best analogy I can see to your example would be that the PCs are going to risk casting a spell, and, if successful, this will generate another test to see how their goal of getting the Thayans to do something about Syranna. On a success, this would establish that the Thayans are going to do something, but that resolution wouldn't be decided now. In fact, if Syranna never comes up again in play, it would be dropped and never considered. If it does come up, it will be because the action requires it, and that would then test to see what might be happening. Perhaps, later, the PCs are doing something that impinges on the fate of Syranna, and fail, and the GM then narrates that Syranna shows up to be a threat, having evaded/defeated the Thayan authorities. Until then, we need not resolve Syranna's fate, and shouldn't.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Can you point to a post where fiction was used in this way? Where this problem you foresee has actually come to pass in this discussion?
From what I can see, everyone has been using the term fiction to mean "the stuff we make up when we play" which is the most accurate term we could probably come up with, and that is regardless of the game in question. It's true of D&D and Traveler and Call of Cthulhu and Apocalypse World and everything in between.
No, I can't. Not in the way it's actually being used.
You seem to be arguing that fiction means "story" and despite everyone telling you that's not the definition we are using, you ignore that and then discuss as if we mean story.
It is only you that's using that definition. You are the only one equivocating on this.
If this is how you look at it, then how do you really have a problem with a comment that play is about finding out what's in the GM's notes? Seriously. Sure, there may be more to it.....but by your own description here, a big part of play is about finding out what's in the GM's notes.
And to comment on this castle idea.....sure, I get it. There's a castle and all these encounters the PCs are having in the area are ultimately coming from this hidden castle. Cool. But let's say that before the PCs actually find the castle, they move on. Something else in the sandbox catches their attention and the leave the area, and stop interacting with anything that is related to the castle. And they go about their business until the campaign eventually comes to an end.
When you discuss it with them, you may say "Remember all those creatures in the Desolate Valley? They were all coming from the Haunted Castle nearby....but you guys never explored that hex!" And I get that this is true to you because it was your intention.
But if you don't tell the players this, and instead you just ask them what happened in play, they'll describe the Desolate Valley and all the creatures they fought.....but they will never ever mention the Haunted Castle. Because it never came up in play. It was never established. What if one of them imagined that all those creatures were coming from a portal to another dimension? This is what he imagined would be the case.
Is his imagined reason "real"? Does it "exist" in the same sense as your Castle?
No one is using that definition except you. We've all pointed out "no, not that definition.....the next one".
Where? That's literally not happening at all.
We're seeing it in this thread be used to defend a playstyle that is perceived to be under attack, when it in fact is not.
No one has said "living world" is impossible. Most folks have acknowledged it's a pretty common goal in RPGs. Dynamic setting was an alternate term that has been offered.....and that's one that I think most of us want to achieve. I'm currently playing in two games each week. One is 5e D&D and the other is Blades in the Dark......in both cases the GM and players are trying to present a dynamic setting.
The issue with "living world" is that it's more a goal of play, rather than a technique. If you asked someone their style of GMing and they said "dynamic setting" you may be a bit confused. You may have some ideas about what it means.....they've given you a goal, and so you may have ideas about obtaining that goal......but how do they obtain it? That will potentially vary by game.
For the two games I'm in, there are methods used for D&D that are not used for BitD, and vice versa, and then there are methods used by both.
Yet who was the poster who started a thread answering no to the question Is RPGing a literary endeavour?
That's right, it was me!
There are novelists who outline their novels, and there are novelists who don't. Both types of novelists can create compelling fiction, in any genre. Setting is, at best, part of what makes a novel compelling.
Can it help a GM to have a good idea of a place or a person, so they can better convey that to the players? Yes. Is it necessary? Nope.
I mean objective in the sense the GM can see themself as a neutral reporter of events. You're not making this up on the spot (the fact you made it up beforehand is ... elided). It is possible to get players to care about a world with far less prep than you do (my campaigns) or next-to-no prep (such as a well-run and well-played game of Dungeon World). That previous statement doesn't mean it isn't possible the way you do it: It just means the way you do it isn't the only way to do it.
In the Dungeon World game we're playing, my wife describes the world as feeling very real to her. I think the players in the campaigns I'm running feel as though the world is real to them. I suspect that's more a matter of GM skill (or facility with a given set of techniques) than one of any approach or specific set of techniques.
I don't think I was around for that thread, but I agree with your answer. And I don't think TRPGs should try to mimic literary forms, let along specific stories, and I think using specific works as anything more than broad/vague inspiration is probably a bad idea. I think I've said things to that effect before.
Yes, I think playing a TRPG uses some of the same mental faculties as writing fiction, in the same way that wrestling and playing rugby use some of the same muscles. That doesn't mean I think they're the same thing. I don't see a conflict.
Similar Threads
