What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

The "rabbit from the hat" is the salient knowledge. (I know you play lore checks in such a way that the knowledge may not be salient. That's not how I do it, though.)

And a player could go back to the moment if the wished - eg I remember when the ancient sage Yorumas told me all of the ancient lore of golems . . . A GM might even insist that this sort of narration be used to explain where the knowledge comes from.

Even if the player or GM doesn't do that, the past moment is obviously implied by the present fact of knowledge. Just as in the Flashback case the past moment is implied by the present fact of (eg) having a steak to distract the dogs.

I understand that. I'm not arguing that you don't or can't play that way. I'm saying that the what you describe there is not what the default D&D rules describe for lore checks.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to rub anything in here, or pile on, but Lore checks as regularly non-salient knowledge just doesn't make any sense to me in any system. What's the skill even for if on a success you get useless knowledge? That is not, I'd submit, the design goal there.

Not useful immediately =/= not useful ever. So you don't have any sound attack to use against this creature. You can prepare something for the next time you encounter one.

 

[Maxperson]

We have now established that @Maxperson, @Lanefan and @Emirikol personally dislike flashbacks. No one says the have to like them or use them. Can you at least contemplate that some of us can get use out of them as a means to feel more connected to our characters? That what pulls you out and makes you feel disconnected can also make me feel more connected? Acknowledge that different techniques can work for different people even if they share pretty similar objectives?

So you may have missed it, but I'm not completely against flashbacks. I only dislike the flashbacks that allow you to take some action in the past which can then change the present. A flashback to something that is relevant to why you are about to take an action in the present is something I find to be a good thing.

For example..... In your background I watched helplessly as a child while a friend was torn apart by trolls. Now in the present I am scouting ahead of the party which is a few rounds behind me and I come across a friend from town about to be killed by 3 trolls. It's unlikely that anyone else, even the DM will remember that little detail from my background(or it could be why it was included by the DM). I will in that situation describe my character flashing back to the past when he was unable to save his friend, describing that troll encounter, and then tell the DM that because of that past incident, instead of waiting for the group, I charge in and attack the trolls, screaming for my friend to go back to where the rest of the group is, because I'm not going to lose another friend that way.

That kind of flashback in my opinion adds to the game, letting the players know why I am taking a particular action, especially if the action is somewhat or even very detrimental to my character. It also helps me with that connection you talk about above.

I'm also not going to tell you that the kind of flashback that I dislike doesn't make you feel more connected to your character. We are all different and are affected differently by things. If you feel that way, those are your feelings. I had someone, I can't remember who, tell me that I couldn't feel immersed sometimes in NPCs as a DM. That was a load of bunk. His inability isn't mine.

 

[AnotherGuy]

And a player could go back to the moment if the wished - eg I remember when the ancient sage Yorumas told me all of the ancient lore of golems . . . A GM might even insist that this sort of narration be used to explain where the knowledge comes from.

I like. The GM's insistence of the narration in your example of a successful lore skill check is a neat way to flesh out one's character and is a relatively soft and simple method of training D&D players to introduce content. I'm going to incorporate this into our table's lore checks.

EDIT: I suspect that this type of contribution by the players would be inspirational to me as the primary author.

 

[Manbearcat]

That makes sense. It seems as though I think of fictional characters (including but not limited to TRPG characters) differently than you do, especially in the sense of having volition and awareness in the fiction (else it seems nonsensical to talk about character motivations and knowledge ...), I don't think there's exactly a wrong way to think about these things, though radically different presumptions can make communication difficult.

I wouldn't go so far as to say something not explicitly in a fiction doesn't exist in it; I believe things can be implied and have the weight of existence as applied to the fiction. If (for instance) someone wields a headsman's sword, it implies things about the setting, and even if those things never explicitly appear they have some weight. I think this might be why I'd probably be tempted to write a backstory for most characters in most games, because I know there are things that won't show up in play, and I want to know those things about the character. This seems of a piece with my preference as a GM to work out most of the setting before play starts.

That all looks right to me (the dichotomy of orientation and the downstream effects).

To be clear though (and I’m certain I speak at least somewhat for others who share my orientation), I’m a fan of and I’m no less compelled by the characters and curious about the settings and stories that spin out of the play of our games.

I want to know to know if Toru finds his family, what happened to them, if he and Anaya can close the Black Gates of Death, and (more immediate) if Riverstouch survives collision with the Red Dogs and the impending coup!

 

[Emerikol]

I want to know to know if Toru finds his family, what happened to them, if he and Anaya can close the Black Gates of Death, and (more immediate) if Riverstouch survives collision with the Red Dogs and the impending coup!

It does seem to me though like a third person attachment instead of a first person attachment to use a readers analogy.

I would agree that there are limits to how far into your character you can get. That to me is a failure of the game that at this point in our technological advancement can't be overcome.

But lets...analyze what is going on in someone's head.

1. Traditional
Player: Do I recognize the spell he is casting?
GM: rolls spellcraft (good roll), yes you believe he is casting the hold person spell.
Player: "Drats" looking at character sheet, "I wore my water breathing ring this morning expecting a water trap".

The player is asking a question about what his character knows because it's impossible at this time to create a game where he just knows it. The player though is performing the realistic task of thinking as his character to remember something from his past. The GM is providing the data.


2. Flashback
Player: The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
GM: Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell

The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill. He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.

It probably ultimately goes back to the ability to create fiction by players. The skill you'd be developing would be how to imagine events that come to your aid in desperate situations. That is the skill you'd be developing. Whereas the skill be developed in a skilled play game would be planning for possible outcomes and choosing what to take or not take. And then making wise tactical decisions once the action starts.

 

[Manbearcat]

It does seem to me though like a third person attachment instead of a first person attachment to use a readers analogy.

I would agree that there are limits to how far into your character you can get. That to me is a failure of the game that at this point in our technological advancement can't be overcome.

But lets...analyze what is going on in someone's head.

1. Traditional
Player: Do I recognize the spell he is casting?
GM: rolls spellcraft (good roll), yes you believe he is casting the hold person spell.
Player: "Drats" looking at character sheet, "I wore my water breathing ring this morning expecting a water trap".

The player is asking a question about what his character knows because it's impossible at this time to create a game where he just knows it. The player though is performing the realistic task of thinking as his character to remember something from his past. The GM is providing the data.


2. Flashback
Player: The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
GM: Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell

The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill. He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.

It probably ultimately goes back to the ability to create fiction by players. The skill you'd be developing would be how to imagine events that come to your aid in desperate situations. That is the skill you'd be developing. Whereas the skill be developed in a skilled play game would be planning for possible outcomes and choosing what to take or not take. And then making wise tactical decisions once the action starts.

Well, I haven’t meaningfully ever been a player in a game (I’ve been a player in a few CoC one shots and a PC in an AD&D tourney style DC long ago). All I’ve done is GM.

So you’d have to have to ask my players how they feel they are oriented in my games. I suspect they’d say their perspective shifts from 1st to variations of 3rd pretty routinely. They sometimes talk as their PC. They sometimes talk in reference to their PC.

I suspect they’re all pretty connected to/compelled by their characters regardless of their fluctuating orientation.

Me personally as GM? My cognitive workspace is always devoted to trying to make every moment of play as disciplined (from a rules and principles standpoint) and as engaging and challenging (from a thematic and decision-point standpoint) as possible. I wouldn’t say I “grind”, but there is a lot going on at every moment. And I keep the pace up as relentlessly as I can.

So my personal orientation is not one of “being immersed”, at least in the sense you’re depicting. However, I am extremely held captive by the unfolding fiction and what hangs in the balance. I wonder if my players would say something similar. They’re not classically immersed, but extremely held captive by the unfolding fiction and what hangs in the balance (because every moment of play features something hanging in the balance).

 

[prabe]

It does seem to me though like a third person attachment instead of a first person attachment to use a readers analogy.

@Manbearcat is the GM. Toru is my character; Anaya is my wife's. I wouldn't have expected a first-person reference to my character in someone else's post (without a lot of context), and since we were talking about characters, not players, it makes sense not to use second.

FWIW, I fluctuate between first- and third-person in play, pretty much independent of my immersion in play or identification with my character/s.

2. Flashback
Player: The guy is casting hold person, I am glad this morning I decided to wear my ring of protection and not my ring of water breathing when dressing this morning.
GM: Okay you get a +1 on your save against the hold person spell

The player is not remembering a fact based on his lore skill. He is creating events that occurred that morning after the fact.

That seems to be a violent misrepresentation of how Flashbacks work in BitD. It's not free, and it is (in principle) dependent on what the character could have plausibly accomplished as part of planning for the heist. I don't even care for the game and I recognize this is ... a bad representation of the mechanic and the game play.

It probably ultimately goes back to the ability to create fiction by players. The skill you'd be developing would be how to imagine events that come to your aid in desperate situations. That is the skill you'd be developing. Whereas the skill be developed in a skilled play game would be planning for possible outcomes and choosing what to take or not take. And then making wise tactical decisions once the action starts.

This isn't entirely wrong, but it's still laboring, I think, under a misunderstanding of the limitations to the Flashback mechanic.

Look: If a GM wants to allow the players to use lore checks to add information to the game, there are three ways I can think of to do it:

1) Player makes lore check. GM hands out information and asks, "How do you know this?" The player has an opportunity to define something about his character.

2) Player makes lore check. GM asks, "What did you find out?" This is explicitly asking the player to add lore to the world.

3) Player asks if a piece of information is true and then makes a lore check. On a successful resolution, it's true; on an unsuccessful check, it's either untrue or inconveniently true.

All of those methods work, though they work differently around the table. The only one that's remotely like a flashback is #1.

 

[Manbearcat]

Look: If a GM wants to allow the players to use lore checks to add information to the game, there are three ways I can think of to do it:

1) Player makes lore check. GM hands out information and asks, "How do you know this?" The player has an opportunity to define something about his character.

2) Player makes lore check. GM asks, "What did you find out?" This is explicitly asking the player to add lore to the world.

3) Player asks if a piece of information is true and then makes a lore check. On a successful resolution, it's true; on an unsuccessful check, it's either untrue or inconveniently true.

All of those methods work, though they work differently around the table. The only one that's remotely like a flashback is #1.

Just wanted to quote this bit because it’s extremely well conceived and rendered.

Anyone wanting to know how Lore moves work in Story Now games (and particularly PBtA Story Now games) would do well to read this.

A lot of GMs struggle with making moves against players on Lore move misses.

“Inconveniently True” or “True in a way that sucks...deal with it” is what I lean into heavily and I would recommend that approach by GMs because (a) it gives the player a sense that their PC is anchored to and understands the world but (b) it changes the situation dynamically and adversely in a way that must be overcome/dealt with.

 

[Maxperson]

That seems to be a violent misrepresentation of how Flashbacks work in BitD. It's not free, and it is (in principle) dependent on what the character could have plausibly accomplished as part of planning for the heist. I don't even care for the game and I recognize this is ... a bad representation of the mechanic and the game play.

It seems reasonable to me, though, that the player could, knowing now that a cleric is present, have a flashback and during the planning phase, plan to use his ring of protection to help with spells such as Hold Person. That seems very plausible for what the character could have accomplished. What am I missing?