What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

I'd disagree. Romantic notions aside I know what the term means and its a specific and useful term. That said, the way some people use the term isnt useful, so there's that.

Sure, okay, please define it, specifically. Let's see if everyone using it agrees with your definition, then. I keep being told that this is a useful term, but no one seems to want to actually define it in stark terms.

 

[pemerton]

Does thought exist?

Yes. Some people think it is a type of non-physical thing or event. Others think that it is a state of, or event in, the brain. At least when speaking loosely, one might also refer to linguistic items - spoken or written words - as encoding thoughts.

 

[pemerton]

I'd disagree. Romantic notions aside I know what the term means and its a specific and useful term. That said, the way some people use the term isnt useful, so there's that.

As a useful term, does it largely overlap with what @Manbearcat is calling setting solitaire?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Some people think it is a type of non-physical thing or event. Others think that it is a state of, or event in, the brain. At least when speaking loosely, one might also refer to linguistic items - spoken or written words - as encoding thoughts.

If thought exists, then thought is real. That means that the RPG game worlds do exist and have reality. They just have a reality comprised of thought.

 

[Manbearcat]

If thought exists, then thought is real. That means that the RPG game worlds do exist and have reality. They just have a reality comprised of thought.

The work that “real” does in a conversation about an imagined space for a collection of people to participate in a TTRPG is as it pertains to the following:

* Does it have an actual persistent state that is detached from the attendance of those imagining it.

The answer to that is no. It ceases to exist without the participants.

* Does it have actual volition detached from the attendance of those imagining it.

The answer is no. It has no volition detached from the attendance of those imagining it.


Those are the minimum prerequisite for “real” here. Otherwise, Ouija Boards (and a host of other activities) could not be falsified.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think going down the hole of 'is thought real' will answer any relevant questions to how best to run games, what terms to use to describe a sandbox, etc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As a useful term, does it largely overlap with what @Manbearcat is calling setting solitaire?

Well I am definitely not going to start calling a living world, setting solitaire. But based on what he saw it didn't look to me entirely like what I would consider a living world to be (but I had trouble understanding his definition of setting solitaire)

 

[pemerton]

If thought exists, then thought is real. That means that the RPG game worlds do exist and have reality. They just have a reality comprised of thought.

This is wrong. There's a huge literature on this topic.

Thought exists. It doesn't follow that the things thought of are real. Right now I'm thinking of Gandalf. My thought is real - an actual event just took place in my brain. (Or, if you prefer, my mind.) It doesn't follow that Gandalf is real, anymore than unicorns are. (Which everyone who read that sentence and understood it just thought about.)

There are various ways of elaborating on what it means for something to be real, or exist. As @Manbearcat has pointed towards upthread, participating in causal relationships is a good test. My thought does - for instance, thinking of things sometimes makes me write them down or type them up.

Gandalf, and unicorns, and the City of Greyhawk, do not participate in causal relationships.

This is why exploring a gameworld is metaphor, whereas having the GM tell you what s/he is thinking of is literal. Only the latter can actually take place.

 

[Older Beholder]

The first group and approach offers very, very little to the faculty of everyone who is not a savant. I think this explains why D&D culture has been plagued by such a dearth of GMs (in proportion to its user base) and such a disproportionate amount of crap GMs; because this Master : Padawan relationship was how the craft was passed down historically (and, simply, it didn’t work at scale and created an enormous amount of discontent). So therefore demystifying the process so that people can actually learn it is how we get better (at large) as a culture of craftsfolk.


TLDR - GMs aren't Jedis and the only Force they wield is the kind that wrests the trajectory of play from the players/system to themselves...and acting like they are Jedis has made our hobby worse than it could be (because it doesn't produce capable Gamesmasters at scale).

Is this true though? I find more young people DMing than ever, and while new DM’s might not be as good as someone that’s been doing it for 20+ years. Personally I’ve found 1st time DMs these days are much better than when I was starting out in high school in the late 80’s.

 

[Maxperson]

This is wrong. There's a huge literature on this topic.

Thought exists. It doesn't follow that the things thought of are real. Right now I'm thinking of Gandalf. My thought is real - an actual event just took place in my brain. (Or, if you prefer, my mind.) It doesn't follow that Gandalf is real, anymore than unicorns are. (Which everyone who read that sentence and understood it just thought about.)

This is a Strawman of what I said. I said that the game world was real as a thought, not that a real world suddenly sprang into being because you thought about it. When I said that the game world is real, it is real as a thought. It has reality, even if it's not a tangible reality.