GM fiat - an illustration

[soviet]

That is not agency. And that is the problem nowadays because the word has been corrupted. Freedom has been corrupted in the same way. You have the agency if you can attempt things that you will to do. It does not guarantee any outcome.

None of what I said is about guaranteeing an outcome

 

[Emerikol]

To flip it around: when I quote the Burning Wheel rulebook which says, among other things, that "The GM is responsible for challenging the players. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players' priorities" (Gold Revised. pp 10-11), do you think that I (or Luke Crane) think that play is not immersive, because that description of how play works is rather dry and technical?

I find the immersiveness of narrative games to be more akin to the immersiveness of most games in general. You can get into almost any game deeply. What sets our style of play apart and why I think D&D exploded in the 1970's as a new form of game is the immersion in a setting different from our own world but feeling like a magical version of it. The various narrative approaches always push us out of that immersion. If my fellow player names a tavern and especially if the DM asked him to name it, I instantly start thinking like a player and not my character. I don't like that experience.

I want a DM who will to the very best of his or her ability hide the fact the world is not real. I want the appearance of a living breathing world where my suspension of disbelief is strong enough that I half believe it's real. I get that from books and movies that are really good. When a book or movie though does something stupid and non-immersive, it is ruined for me.

 

[Emerikol]

I think we love to have these discussions but the bottom line is they are at least two different games if not more. Some of us really value our game more than the other. Others probably float back and forth between the two. It is what it is.

 

[soviet]

No, I just fundamentally don't like this framing of it. One there is still more going on than just the GM being prompted to reveal note information. And it is a very static image. That information can change based on events. The players may be dong things that require the GM to adapt what is in the notes. And sometimes what the GM does isn't about 'revealing what they have written". An example might be talking to an NPC. Some interaction may include information the GM has in his notes. But a lot of it is going to be a fluid conversation where the GM is building a character on the fly (because no amount of notes are going to be extensive enough to tell a GM how to bring a character to life in that moment: they may inform how the GM interprets the characters once things get started, but it is more than just giving the players information on the page). I just find this description very reductive

With respect I think there's an element of trying to preserve the mystery of the stage magician's techniques in your position here. 'Don't peek behind the curtain'.

Yes the 'play to find out the contents of the GM's notes' description is very reductive. Yes it leaves out a lot of the depth and nuance of actual play. But it's also fundamentally accurate.

If we are to profitably discuss the merits of different playstyles, rulesets, and approaches, then we must first be honest about their fundamental character.

I don't think anyone is saying there is something wrong with this kind of play, or that it's hollow, or artificial. i think it's a perfectly enjoyable and valid way to play and it describes a good chunk of my GMing.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think anyone is saying there is something wrong with this kind of play, or that it's hollow, or artificial. i think it's a perfectly enjoyable and valid way to play and it describes a good chunk of my GMing.

I kind of agree with Soviet here to a degree. I don't think players are thinking that in there minds. The players become their characters and the campaign world is the one they live in all the time. So for them it is like us discovering our own world. But one some cosmic scale that too is just a set of notes either Gods (my view) or random chance.

I find this style done well to be incredibly immersive and actually thrilling. I find done poorly that it can be pretty poor.

I think the narrative approach is a different sort of game. Those that enjoy it have their own reasons and perhaps for them it is immersive. It is not at all for me. It would be more akin to a boardgame where each player lays down tiles to change the game. I might enjoy a one off boardgame with those characteristics but I wouldn't want to roleplay an entire campaign that way. And I am most definitely NOT saying narrative play is a board game. I'm just saying in that one element they share something with those board games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

With respect I think there's an element of trying to preserve the mystery of the stage magician's techniques in your position here. 'Don't peek behind the curtain'.

Yes the 'play to find out the contents of the GM's notes' description is very reductive. Yes it leaves out a lot of the depth and nuance of actual play. But it's also fundamentally accurate.

If we are to profitably discuss the merits of different playstyles, rulesets, and approaches, then we must first be honest about their fundamental character.

I don't think anyone is saying there is something wrong with this kind of play, or that it's hollow, or artificial. i think it's a perfectly enjoyable and valid way to play and it describes a good chunk of my GMing.

I don’t think there is. I am not denying the role the GM plays or the role prep and notes play. I am saying this does not feel like a satisfying explanation because it reduces all of play to one very basic and stiff set of actions (the notion that it is simply about promoting the GM to reveal information). Revealing information is going to be part of it. But equally important will be having the NPCs in the mystery acting with their own agency. And there is also the passage of time and the adventure unfolds. The information in the notes is an important set of established facts. It isn’t everything. And there is going to be necessary extrapolation of notes and adjustment. It is the same reason I wouldn’t describe a dungeon crawl as just revealing as prompted what’s on the GM’s map. The map is a snap shot. And the GM is going to have to extrapolate because there is only so much information a map can include. And both these approaches can be making use of other tools like random tables for events. It is very common for murder mysteries to include ongoing murders for example. That is another key aspect of play that can’t just be reduced to the GM being prompted to reveal notes. It is a one note explanation of styles that involve multiple techniques for bringing the adventure to life (and yes notes are part of it)

 

[soviet]

I kind of agree with Soviet here to a degree. I don't think players are thinking that in there minds. The players become their characters and the campaign world is the one they live in all the time. So for them it is like us discovering our own world. But one some cosmic scale that too is just a set of notes either Gods (my view) or random chance.

Thanks. Yes, 'the sanctity of the GM's notes, and whoa are they detailed' is a genuinely useful tool for creating certain kinds of play, and when done well it can be very enjoyable.

I think the narrative approach is a different sort of game. Those that enjoy it have their own reasons and perhaps for them it is immersive. It is not at all for me. It would be more akin to a boardgame where each player lays down tiles to change the game. I might enjoy a one off boardgame with those characteristics but I wouldn't want to roleplay an entire campaign that way. And I am most definitely NOT saying narrative play is a board game. I'm just saying in that one element they share something with those board games.

I never know what people mean when they say 'narrative games'. It seems almost the opposite of the GM's notes thing, it's so broad and amorphous that it has no meaning. I'm familiar with a bunch of games that might be described as 'narrative', and even wrote and published one, but I don't recognise at all your description of how they play out.

 

[soviet]

I don’t think there is. I am not denying the role the GM plays or the role prep and notes play. I am saying this does not feel like a satisfying explanation because it reduces all of play to one very basic and stiff set of actions (the notion that it is simply about promoting the GM to reveal information). Revealing information is going to be part of it. But equally important will be having the NPCs in the mystery acting with their own agency. And there is also the passage of time and the adventure unfolds. The information in the notes is an important set of established facts. It isn’t everything. And there is going to be necessary extrapolation of notes and adjustment. It is the same reason I wouldn’t describe a dungeon crawl as just revealing as prompted what’s on the GM’s map. The map is a snap shot. And the GM is going to have to extrapolate because there is only so much information a map can include. And both these approaches can be making use of other tools like random tables for events. It is very common for murder mysteries to include ongoing murders for example. That is another key aspect of play that can’t just be reduced to the GM being prompted to reveal notes. It is a one note explanation of styles that involve multiple techniques for bringing the adventure to life (and yes notes are part of it)

OK, what would you add to the GM's notes sentence to incorporate these elements? Or is there a second, separate descriptor that applies here?

It's not clear to me which RPGs wouldn't have the elements you describe though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OK, what would you add to the GM's notes sentence to incorporate these elements? Or is there a second, separate descriptor that applies here?

It's not clear to me which RPGs wouldn't have the elements you describe though.

I am sure the language I would add would be deemed too poetic. But that is honestly a much larger discussion, one we have had before. And a position I have explained many times to this group of posters. My main point here isn’t to restate the debates over that but remind people that this GMs notes explanation of play in this style isn’t widely embraced by most people who lean on this style (because it keeps coming up like it is settled: but it has been hotly contested whenever it has come up in the past)

 

[Micah Sweet]

But... "a world" is still a bounded space. Like, planets have a finite physical area.

If you never reach the walls, and no one's stopping you from trying, how important is it that they're there?