What is the point of GM's notes?

darkbard said:

There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.

Click to expand...

I believe @Emerikol is talking about a difference in how they experience the story that emerges from the gameplay. IIRC, they value immersion (something not key to your or my TRPG experiences) highly. My guess is they experience the story in either first person or some sort of very tight third person, so they find it easy to identify their plan as their character's plan; a flashback mechanic, or inventing new facts about the setting, or spontaneously adding a prop or other detail: those things, they'd probably experience as an unpleasant narrative rupture, like a poorly-handled shift from first to third person narrative.

No, those things don't strictly speaking need to be such a POV shift. I'm merely guessing they experience it as one.

darkbard said:

There is no character-enacted change to any fundamental laws. When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.

Click to expand...

I can understand how if one is immersed in (or, in my case, identifying deeply with) a character, one might understand the linear experience (how the character would experience it) as being different from a non-linear experience (how an audience would experience it). In principle, around the table, these things are the same; in practice, these things are different.

Maxperson said:

When you "Plan" something during a flashback, there is no character inhabitation going on. It's purely the player coming up with a way to get by the current problem via the flashback mechanic.

Click to expand...

Long before Blades and other games introduced flashbacks as a mechanic, we used flashback scenes regularly in my old AD&D campaign in the 1980s and early '90s. My recollection was that even back then people were still inhabiting their characters just as much as they were in the fictional present.

Granted, these flashbacks were intended primarily as a way to add depth to a given character. So they weren't used to add capabilities to the party in the present. But I don't see any reason in theory that this couldn't be done in a satisfying way at the table. I'm intrigued to try it out.

Maxperson said:

It's more than that. You are also overcoming a current obstacle that you might not have known about or even thought might be present. That alone makes it very different from planning in advance.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is different, but I'm not sure that the difference means that you can't remain immersed in your character.

Here's an example of a possibly similar mechanic from my current GURPS Dungeon Fantasy campaign. One of the PCs in a Viking setting was a devotee of the fates. He invested many of his character points on various advantages that allowed him to be far luckier than average. One of these was called "Serendipity" and it allowed him to effectively call for "one fortuitous-but-plausible coincidence per game session."

At first, I was worried that it would be too "meta" and would break suspension of disbelief. The player, too, worried that it would take him out of his character. But we went with it to see how it played. Turned out to be awesome. In order to make the coincidences plausible, the player had to spend a lot of time thinking about his role-playing connections and backstory. Often, the serendipitous occurrences involved him bumping into people that he knew before, giving him better odds on a reaction check. This added a lot of role-playing scenes to the game. The other players loved it. I enjoyed having to be nimble enough to roll with it. The player ended up knowing his character far better than most of the other players. It was a win-win-win.

Obviously, there is a meta-dimension to this. The player had to think about what he could plausibly introduce that would change the odds of a situation in his favor. But, as he described it, it didn't feel any different to him than considering which spell he might cast or what combat maneuver to choose. There was, of course, a cost in terms of resources spent (he could only use it once per session). Sometimes he wasted it on a situation that wasn't as dire as he thought.

Sometimes there were additional costs down the road. For example, he serendipitously ran into his older brothers in one scene. They gave him an edge in a scene featuring negotiations with a minor lord. (His older brothers had more social clout than he did.) Later these brothers were slain—to all of our surprise—in a battle that went very badly for the group. This became a central element of the unfolding story and had a profound effect on the PC.

Emerikol said:

One is what your character could be doing. If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character. My character came up with that plan so to speak.

Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one. Unless you are playing a game where the characters can change the fundamental laws of the universe on a whim or time travel on a whim.

It goes back to the player doing something and whether what they do is done through the eyes of their character or not. If not then for me it's not immersing me in the character. It's a metagame decision.

Click to expand...

darkbard said:

There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.



There is no character-enacted change to any fundamental laws. When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

If I'm inhabiting my character, making decisions according to his knowledge, personality, intelligence, etc., then It's effectively the character that came up with it. I as a player might have a better plan, but if my PC doesn't know some of the things that make the plan work, I'm not going to attempt that plan, so it's not purely the player coming up with the plan when you do it our way.

When you "Plan" something during a flashback, there is no character inhabitation going on. It's purely the player coming up with a way to get by the current problem via the flashback mechanic.

It's more than that. You are also overcoming a current obstacle that you might not have known about or even thought might be present. That alone makes it very different from planning in advance.

Click to expand...

There are a few reasons why I agree with darkbard on this.

The first reason is the reality that the way we consciously (both the external experience and the process that underwrite them) experience the world is not marked by cognitive continuity and unity.

We are progressively discovering that a human mind is composed of heterogenous neurological states (automaticity being a big one where rote or low level activities are automated and our consciousness is elsewhere...driving a car or shopping or hitting golf balls...such that we have absolutely no recollection of perhaps an hours worth of time...another one is the opposite where profound states of agitation, stress, and adrenaline dump lead to an automated response and extreme fuzziness when recalling the details or the complete absence of recall) and disunity. To be held hostage to and take part in this reality is an important part of inhabitation of something resembling “what it’s like to be a human-like creature.” The absence of this would be jarring. So my expectation of cognitive continuity is very different from many on here.

The second is an artifact of gaming which we accept to be able to play at all.

We don’t inhabit our characters and experience anything like an actual cognitive continuity (and again, there is no such thing). If one PC asks another PC “what were your dreams like last night” or “did you try my coffee I brewed over the spit this morning” or “when was the last time you were sick” or “you’re from here...where is the farrier...we need to get our horses taken care of”, the Player in question is going to have to make something up for the PC to recall. There are dozens and dozens of instances like this that can/will come up in play that will intersect with that unavoidable lack of cognitive continuity.

So why do Flashbacks have special domain in being jarring/disruptive to a priority for a cognitive continuity that already doesn’t exist (and, as per my first part above, is undesirable for a sense of experience an actual “human-like existence)?

The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.

Honestly if anyone wants a lesson in how heterogenous we are neurologically, look no further than my posts!

One post is lucid and sensible and easy to follow.

A day later I’ll post a flurry of responses that are borderline unintelligible! And not just to folks reading it! I’ll read it the next day and be all “what in the eff was I even trying to say here!”

Manbearcat said:

Honestly if anyone wants a lesson in how heterogenous we are neurologically, look no further than my posts!

One post is lucid and sensible and easy to follow.

A day later I’ll post a flurry of responses that are borderline unintelligible! And not just to folks reading it! I’ll read it the next day and be all “what in the eff was I even trying to say here!”

Click to expand...

Maybe you are flash forwarding to an incident we have no knowledge of.

Arilyn said:

Maybe you are flash forwarding to an incident we have no knowledge of.

Click to expand...

If that were true, I suspect that would break my immersion in reality.

Manbearcat said:

The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.

Click to expand...

So I strongly agree with both your post and @uzirath's. With yours specifically as you touch on Skilled Play which is something I'm concerned with, and with uzirath's regarding the focus of resources.

In BitD (I'm not sure if this is the flashback mechanic or something else), there is the thing where one has open slots for their equipment, which a player could expend such resource to author that a particular equipment was brought along.
Now in D&D this is tricky as it connects to gold, encumbrance and movement rates. One can incorporate such a mechanic with various parameters such as you need to have had the gold before leaving town and whatever item is authored into existence shouldn't affect your movement rate. I did incorporate this mechanic once, specifically when the party were travelling on horseback and/or with pack animals. It was much easier to get around the encumbrance and movement rate limitation.
The players enjoyed the mechanic as the adventure focused on exploration and equipment attrition.
Three horses were harmed in the playing of this adventure - one by a wild griffons, and two while traversing a perilous mountain path.

In Greg Saunders' post-apocalyptic Summerland game (originally released prior 2010 I think) you play Drifters who have suffered trauma during their lives which makes them partially immune to the Call, the siren-song of the forest. The trauma is not fully established at the start of play, but one can use the game's mechanic (similar to a flashback) to slowly build on the trauma in order to overcome obstacles. In so doing the character goes through a process of redemption and begins becoming more susceptible to the Call.
I bought and played the original game which is strongly immersive with its narrative-styled mechanics.

​

Manbearcat said:

So why do Flashbacks have special domain in being jarring/disruptive to a priority for a cognitive continuity that already doesn’t exist (and, as per my first part above, is undesirable for a sense of experience an actual “human-like existence)?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much that people expect to experience every moment; I think it's that people expect to experience the moments they experience, in chronological order. There's also possibly a sense that Flashbacks are specifically a narrative technique/mechanic, and some people might break into hives at the idea of story in their TRPGs.

Manbearcat said:

The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.

Click to expand...

I'm quoting this, because I think this touches on something I've had thoughts about: Different people get (or want to get) different pleasures from their TRPGs--and this is cool!--and there are some pleasures it is difficult-shading-to-impossible to get from (or, looking from the other direction, without) some systems. It connects to wanting different pleasures from a novel than from a TRPG, I think.

prabe said:

I don't think it's so much that people expect to experience every moment; I think it's that people expect to experience the moments they experience, in chronological order. There's also possibly a sense that Flashbacks are specifically a narrative technique/mechanic, and some people might break into hives at the idea of story in their TRPGs.

I'm quoting this, because I think this touches on something I've had thoughts about: Different people get (or want to get) different pleasures from their TRPGs--and this is cool!--and there are some pleasures it is difficult-shading-to-impossible to get from (or, looking from the other direction, without) some systems. It connects to wanting different pleasures from a novel than from a TRPG, I think.

Click to expand...

Good post.

On the first paragraph I would say/ask:

* When you’re forced to engage with any of the questions I proposed above (eg dreams, coffee, sick, farrier), you’re also not experiencing the moments you “experience” in chronological order.

Therefore...

* I think it’s more likely that your second statement is true. Systematizing memories (whether for genre purposes, for immersive purposes of what it must be like to be a Scoundrel flying by the seat of their pants in a heist, or for generating interesting tactical overhead) is likely where the issue lies. So it’s not a matter of actual continuity. It’s sensitivity to certain sorts of systemization of the fabrication of continuity as it integrates with play that was elided prior.

Manbearcat said:

Good post.

On the first paragraph I would say/ask:

* When you’re forced to engage with any of the questions I proposed above (eg dreams, coffee, sick, farrier), you’re also not experiencing the moments you “experience” in chronological order.

Click to expand...

Um, at least as I experience them, they might be discontinuous, but they're in chronological order. I do not experience the past after the present. Or in the middle of the present. While I might not experience all of the sequence of A-to-Z, the experience will be A-D-F-H-L-P-S-V-Y, not D-T-H-S-W-V-T-Q-N.

Manbearcat said:

Therefore...

* I think it’s more likely that your second statement is true. Systematizing memories (whether for genre purposes, for immersive purposes of what it must be like to be a Scoundrel flying by the seat of their pants in a heist, or for generating interesting tactical overhead) is likely where the issue lies. So it’s not a matter of actual continuity. It’s sensitivity to certain sorts of systemization of the fabrication of continuity as it integrates with play that was elided prior.

Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of being a narrative technique/mechanic, being discontinuous, and not being the pleasure some people want out of TRPGs. Of course, my problem with Flashbacks was that looking at the SRD it didn't seem as though it would ever be worth the price in Stress, but that's an entirely different issue.