What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

I think also that Bedrock and I are similar but not identical in our preferences. That may confuse if anyone starts thinking we are a united front. I speak for myself only. Creating a secret door on the fly makes me wince just for the record. Fidelity to the reality of the world is paramount to me.

You are right and it is further complicated by the fact that I sometimes run games differently depending on the genre. If I am running a game in what I call "Chang Cheh mode" I am much more inclined to create a secret door on the fly, throw in a bunch of hooded assassins hiding in the wardrobe and under the bed, etc. If I am running in "King Hu mode", things are much more grounded and believable. I usually do try to convey to players what 'franchise' they are in before play so they understand not just the genre but the genre logic I may be using.

I will say though on the secret door, my point was not so much about the above, as it was about even if I am running a more grounded game, if the players go into a chamber and I look at the map and see no secret door, but realize that this was actually a mistake (for example it is just painfully obvious to me that the owner of said chamber would have had the time, desire, and tactical need for such a door: I don't mind going against what is on the page). But in my mind this is in service to the reality of the world.

That said, if I am running it in Chang Cheh mode, the physical reality of the world is less paramount than the emotional reality of the underworld they are all inhabiting.

Also there is a gray area here: the players go inside a residence you didn't plan in advance and you need to decide in that moment if a secret door exists

 

[Emerikol]

It's pretty darned important to me, as well. The difference is that you're saying that the "reality of the world" is based on things you've already thought of, whereas I'm basing it on "is it possible a secret door could be here?" That's pretty much true -- a secret door could be there, and that would retain fidelity to the reality of the world because it doesn't violate any physical laws or established truths about the world.

When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase. Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase. Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.

No, I understood that, I'm just pointing out that your choice of euphemism is disguising this, and that fidelity to the reality of the world doesn't mean that alone.

You complain about loaded words, when the ask is just to put it plainly and bluntly and quit romanticizing it -- ie, to unload the language.. I mean, I did, at the end of the post your just quoted, when I explicitly said I do exactly what you're talking about in my 5e games.

 

[Emerikol]

I think for me there is also two different periods of development for a sandbox campaign.
#1. The creation of the world. This could be the DM doing the work as is most often the case for me, though I do revise and plugin existing adventures often enough, or it could be the DM purchasing a world and reading it. Think of this as the pre-campaign setup phase. Often there are periods where the GM returns to this phase. Mostly to add to the calendar of events for the NPCs (including monsters). It might also be for the development of a second sandbox if it appears the group may be outgrowing the one they are inside of at the moment or are showing signs of wanting to move out.

#2. Then there is the arbiter phase. This is where the GM neutrally interacts with the PCs and conveys details from the first phase. The facts of phase #1 are independent of this phase. They could come from a third party for example. This phase is about making sure the world and rules of the world are administered as the PCs state their actions and interact with the said world. Some improv occurs here. Not everything can be detailed. It is heavily informed improv though.

In my games the players count on a good DM to be fair and impartial in phase #2. They also expect an interesting and creative DM in #1 (or they expect him to lay his hands on something interesting and creative).

 

[Emerikol]

No, I understood that, I'm just pointing out that your choice of euphemism is disguising this, and that fidelity to the reality of the world doesn't mean that alone.

You complain about loaded words, when the ask is just to put it plainly and bluntly and quit romanticizing it -- ie, to unload the language.. I mean, I did, at the end of the post your just quoted, when I explicitly said I do exactly what you're talking about in my 5e games.

I'm not romanticizing it. Something isn't real until it exists. So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment. The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to. Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When I say the "reality of the world", I mean the world that has been established outside the playing session during the campaign construction phase. Every single solitary word has to be loaded with you and Pemberton.

mess this directed at me or another poster? (If me will try to clarify what I meant as I wasn’t disagreeing with you)

 

[Emerikol]

mess this directed at me or another poster? (If me will try to clarify what I meant as I wasn’t disagreeing with you)

It was NOT directed at you. I was replying to Ovidmancer specifically and I mentioned it was an issue on occasion with Pemberton too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not romanticizing it. Something isn't real until it exists. So your genre agreements and established fiction are all the reality your game has at any given moment. The world real here though was to something that existed prior to the players learning of it that you would have fidelity to. Maybe that clarifies my use of the term.

I understand how you're using it, but the terms you've used are not actually descriptive of what you're doing and can apply easily to other approaches. You're trying to claim "fidelity to the reality" as some romanticized wording for your approach because this sounds really good. What you're actually doing is saying that the GM's preconception of the fiction is binding on the action resolution process. This is clinical, though, and doesn't sound as good as "fidelity to the reality" so it gets strong pushback, and the attempt to claim "fidelity" is made to elevate your approach.

This, though, is obscuring what's actually happening at the table. If the players in your game search for a secret door, and you haven't previously placed on there in your preconception of the fiction, then there is no secret door there. However, this isn't any more 'real' that a different GM using mechanics to determine if a door does or doesn't exist, because as far as 'real' goes, that only matters if it makes sense that a door can be there, not really if one is or not. If it doesn't make sense that a door can be there, then neither system will generate one, and the "fidelity to the reality" is the same.

It was NOT directed at you. I was replying to Ovidmancer specifically and I mentioned it was an issue on occasion with Pemberton too.

My name is right there, and doesn't have a 'd' in it anywhere. I know I've recently pointed this out to you, so, at this point, it's looking like it's more an intentional attempt to get a rise rather than an honest mistake. Surely, though, this isn't the case?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It was NOT directed at you. I was replying to Ovidmancer specifically and I mentioned it was an issue on occasion with Pemberton too.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. Was worried I accidentally conveyed the wrong meaning in my last post

 

[Fenris-77]

My name is right there, and doesn't have a 'd' in it anywhere. I know I've recently pointed this out to you, so, at this point, it's looking like it's more an intentional attempt to get a rise rather than an honest mistake. Surely, though, this isn't the case?

Nor does @pemerton have a 'b' in it. There are a lot of made-up superhero names to keep track of.