What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

It started with you rejecting that as a description of another poster's play who - it turns out, unsurprisingly - may or may not play the same as you do.


No one in the history of mainstream RPGing has ever set out to create an unbelievable world. The "our side"/"your side" phrasing is nonsense, both in this case and in general (see my previous paragraph in this post).

There are complexities, though. Do you think X2 is a believable world? White Plume Mountain? Keep on the Borderlands? And of course Toon players do want a cartoony world, but I don't think anyone posting in this thread is a Toon player, and I seem to be the only poster who has played The Dying Earth and only for one session.

If players in WPM want to surf doors removed from hinges down the frictionless corridor to avoid the super-tetanus pits, and one of them pulls out a first year physics text to help with the velocity and momentum calculations, is that fair game?

In my Classic Traveller game we needed to decide how long it would take the PCs to drill and blast through 4 km of ice with a triple beam laser. The time mattered because it generates resource costs - especially fuel and salaries - and it also matters to what else might happen in the rest of the galaxy (the "living, breathing" world). As a group we Googled some stuff (published papers on using lasers to melt ice) and reached a consensus. Do you have any objection to that procedure? Is it is distinctive of "my side"? And what, if anything, does it tell us about the use of the GM's notes in play?

(More relevant might be who got to decide the alien complex is buried in 4 km of ice? Answer: me, the GM. Why? It's a component of framing, along with the fact that the planet was much colder than it had been 2 billion years ago when the aliens lived there, due to changes in the energy output of its star. How did I make the decision? I looked up the thickness of Antarctic ice and doubled it, because I wanted really thick ice.)

Part of the problem is you are focused on believability which is just one aspect of what I am talking about. If it turns out we don't actually disagree about anything, I would certainly welcome that. But you push back enough against my thoughts on sandbox, living world, sometimes even telling me what I say I am doing is an impossibility, that I think we must disagree here. The point of living world isn't just to make a believable world, but to make a world that is moving around the characters and feels external to them. The living part means the NPCs for example are not tethered to a particular place, are acting like PCs and doing things, responding to the players, etc. And this kind of thing, when you play it out, can produce a very consistent world experience (the players kill Scholar Han's wife; scholar Han goes to Iron God Meng then next day and hires him and his men to help track down and kill the PCs; The PCs learn Iron God Meng is after them and try to negotiate with him, outbidding Scholar Han; humiliated once again, Scholar Han decides to go into seclusion and try to achieve a martial arts break through so he is powerful enough to take on the party himself, etc)

 

[TwoSix]

Part of the problem is you are focused on believability which is just one aspect of what I am talking about. If it turns out we don't actually disagree about anything, I would certainly welcome that. But you push back enough against my thoughts on sandbox, living world, sometimes even telling me what I say I am doing is an impossibility, that I think we must disagree here. The point of living world isn't just to make a believable world, but to make a world that is moving around the characters and feels external to them. The living part means the NPCs for example are not tethered to a particular place, are acting like PCs and doing things, responding to the players, etc. And this kind of thing, when you play it out, can produce a very consistent world experience (the players kill Scholar Han's wife; scholar Han goes to Iron God Meng then next day and hires him and his men to help track down and kill the PCs; The PCs learn Iron God Meng is after them and try to negotiate with him, outbidding Scholar Han; humiliated once again, Scholar Han decides to go into seclusion and try to achieve a martial arts break through so he is powerful enough to take on the party himself, etc)

I think the salient point here is that all of us try to achieve coherent fiction in that regard; it's simply the method by which we do so is different depending on the system we're using. I have no problems with moving an NPC around to another place and have his current actions be in response to something the PCs did earlier, I just don't do it independently if the game system doesn't call for it.

No matter what type of game I was playing, I'd be keeping an NPC like Scholar Han in my back pocket. You can build a story around Scholar Han in a GM-driven game, or frame him into the story in a more narrative game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the salient point here is that all of us try to achieve coherent fiction in that regard; it's simply the method by which we do so is different depending on the system we're using. I have no problems with moving an NPC around to another place and have his current actions be in response to something the PCs did earlier, I just don't do it independently if the game system doesn't call for it.

No matter what type of game I was playing, I'd be keeping an NPC like Scholar Han in my back pocket. You can build a story around Scholar Han in a GM-driven game, or frame him into the story in a more narrative game.

I would say coherent world though in a living world. A lot of the debate here has been whether the only thing going on is 'the fiction' (which is a term a lot of us don't embrace). I get you might be using the term more casually but mentioning this in case you are using it in the sense of 'the fiction'. But I am not saying people doing other things are not looking for consistency, or that the world doesn't matter. Its just in a living world sandbox the world as an external thing to the PCs, with the active NPCs and energy I described is incredibly important (on the other hand if I am playing something).

I am happy to play according to a system. Like I said I have run DramaSystem, and that is definitely not intended for living world style play (I would describe it as an incredibly subjective approach to immersion because words you speak in character can become reality in the setting----which is almost the opposite of living world sandbox). I can definitely enjoy myself doing that.

And if I am running a living world sandbox, I am typically going to select a game that fits what I am trying to do. I wouldn't use Dramasystem for my wandering heroes campaign (though I have tried mixing them to see what happens). Even a game like savage worlds, I am not sure I would use for more sandbox oriented play (probably could work but I tend to use it for different things).

 

[Bedrockgames]

No matter what type of game I was playing, I'd be keeping an NPC like Scholar Han in my back pocket. You can build a story around Scholar Han in a GM-driven game, or frame him into the story in a more narrative game.

I wouldn't describe living sandbox as GM driven or as building a story around Scholar Han. The whole point is to make scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn. I am not particularly interested in what story that produces. He might not even get far enough to be of that much consequence. It is about treating the NPC more like a PC who is reactive to the PCs but also active and driven by his own motivations and goals.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I wouldn't describe living sandbox as GM driven or as building a story around Scholar Han. The whole point is to make scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn.

If the whole point is to make Scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn, then how do you accomplish this? Specifically you in your game....what do you do?

Because Scholar Han can be made to do things that make sense at each turn in a GM driven game or in a No Myth game, right? Those games would reach that point in different ways.

I am not particularly interested in what story that produces. He might not even get far enough to be of that much consequence. It is about treating the NPC more like a PC who is reactive to the PCs but also active and driven by his own motivations and goals.

So how do you accomplish this? Do you have a list of bullet points about Scholar Han? Do you use something like a “Faction Turn” where you look at all the different NPCs and groups and adjust their standing according to what’s happened in play? Do you make rolls for any of this as part of some formalized system, or do you simply use your judgement?

Again, in this case I mean specifically you, @Bedrockgames .

 

[Aldarc]

I thought it was a perfectly valid distinction to draw. I do understand what you mean now. But one thing points to an entity that has a very debatable existence in reality (and if it does, is supposed to exist outside the GMs mind), the other points to something that exists as a thought in the GMs mind. One is the world beyond. The other the world inside.

This is a distinction without a difference. Either way, players are sussing out information about the Spirit/Game World from the medium, whether they are a Game Medium or Spirit Medium.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the whole point is to make Scholar Han do things that make sense at each turn, then how do you accomplish this? Specifically you in your game....what do you do?

Because Scholar Han can be made to do things that make sense at each turn in a GM driven game or in a No Myth game, right? Those games would reach that point in different ways.

When I think of GM driven, I think of something like a linear adventure path or a plot driven adventure (like 90s storyteller). I see living world sandboxes as more back and forth, where the GM actually kind of hangs back once things really get going on their own (it is ultimately an interplay between GM and Players: not one side). But I don't know what a No Myth game is, so not sure about that one.

You accomplish it playing him the same way players play PCs. There isn't really a magic procedure here beyond asking yourself questions and answering them (and applying any procedures or rolls you think are needed). It is more like the players go to the village and one of them gets in a fight with Scholar Han and his wife. The fight plays out according to the rules of the game, and scholar hans wife is killed, while Scholar Han runs away. At that point you ask yourself: what is Scholar Han doing? Based on what I know of him, I sure he will want revenge, but I know he is going to be a bit clever about it, so given what he knows of the area, going to Iron God Meng. Then the players go about their business and do whatever they are doing. During that time I am periodically. Maybe the next day the players have gone to Mai Cun to attempt to join the 87 Killers Gang. Checking in with Scholar Han, I see (Tung-On, where Iron God Meng lives) is about a day away; so Scholar Han is probably trying to convince Iron God Meng to turn help him get revenge against the PCs. He offers him funding for his organization to persuade him. This might become more involved (for example I may think that Iron God Meng would want Scholar Han to prove his worth first, or that there is even a possibility he would say no, despite the money) but let's say for the sake of argument he goes along with it. Now Scholar Han needs to find out where the PCs are and try to organize an ambush against them with Iron God Meng and his men. So I'd probably have him make a roll based on what kind of information network or connections he has OR I would have him make a knowledge roll related to the Martial World (to reflect him going to various people he might know in town who have heard rumors). I'd give him a roll a day and when he succeeds he may learn they were in Tung On asking about the 87 killers. Let's say that he succeeded on the 4th day, he'd go to Mai Cun and it would probably become a question fo competing survival rolls to see if he sees them first or if they see him first. And once there what the PCs have been doing will matter a great deal, if they manage to become part of the 87 killers organization for example, I think its possible Iron God Meng would withdraw his support. If that happens, the emerald monks are nearby so Scholar Han might hire them to send an assassin after the party. It is a little hard to say how all this will play out at each stage though because so much of it is dependent on what the players are doing. But let's say they haven't joined the 87 killers, its possible Iron God Meng, Scholar Han and some of Iron God Mengs men surround the party as they are walking through the city (or maybe they choose to strike them at night in an inn room). However if the players saw them first, that might change things and it could be the players either striking first or trying to lose them. If they've joined the 87 killers then I would have to wait a bit to see what the players are doing, what Scholar Han is able to learn about them and then see if he is able to find a good opportunity for sending assassins after them (for example if the players go on a mission for Lady Eighty Seven after joining the 87 killers, maybe Han learns about that and directs the assassin at them at that time)

The point of all this isn't that there is any particular technique to use, just that you play Han like a PC, accounting for his skills and his intelligence, social standing (Scholar Han passed the imperial exams), etc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So how do you accomplish this? Do you have a list of bullet points about Scholar Han? Do you use something like a “Faction Turn” where you look at all the different NPCs and groups and adjust their standing according to what’s happened in play? Do you make rolls for any of this as part of some formalized system, or do you simply use your judgement?

Again, in this case I mean specifically you, @Bedrockgames .

I don't have a formal mechanism or procedure like "faction turns". However I do track what my factions are doing, and if there is conflict between them I make regular rolls to see who is winning, how many men are being killed etc (and I have a sect and organization shake up table I roll on on occasion anyways). Mostly I think it is about playing the factions and playing the NPCs. Just like I pointed to in the Feast of Goblyns entry. There is no formal: do this, then this, then this. I simply have the NPC stats, description (which is more of a memory aid, what is most important is the concept of the character and his motives: very rarely need to read this again during play), his kung fu techniques, etc. I do often make rolls for the NPCs (as I described above), but that often comes down to two things: 1) being uncertain about something---for instance if I were uncertain about Iron God Meng's reaction to Han I may have Han make a Persuade roll, and 2) playing the game fairly. I don't want to have Han just arrive by fiat to stage the perfect ambush as some kind of set piece. I want him to have to work for that just like the players would (this is why I occasionally outsource NPCs like this to friends no playing in the current campaign if they are available to do so: I call this long distance villainy). So Han will make skill rolls. I may make rulings on other types of rolls (for example maybe Han sends some of his servants to abduct the player's friend in another town as an ace up his sleeve: I would rule on this by assigning a general competence level to the servants of 0 to 6, and then roll a pool of d10s either against a target number of my choosing or against one of the mental defenses of the victim). If Scholar Han is moving around a lot I will often take out a map, put it on the table (if it is a live game with people I would put the map behind a screen) and place a pawn on the map to track his movement). This is really kind of an intuitive process where you are regularly drawing on what seems to be the best tool for the moment

 

[Bedrockgames]

2) I don't know how many comedians you know. I don't know a ton, but the ones I'm familiar with (I know 2 in real life) actually describe a structured process that hews very closely to what I'm talking about. Anecdotes of professional comics and guys I know make the tradecraft part of it look like this:

* Always be switched on. Always have a pen ready to write new material. You're constantly practicing the cognitive framework.

* Understand your shtick, develop it (these things don't accidentally come together), stick to it.

* Be around other comics as much as possible so you're always bouncing material off of each other. This is practice.

* Practice your material and delivery in small clubs (even HUGE comics do this regularly) so you're constantly sharping your iron and trying out material with considerably reduced stakes.


That looks exactly like what I'm talking about.

I definitely agree there is a craft to it as well. I am from Boston and comedy clubs are (well were, not sure they are open during covid) really common here. I think as a GM you are experimenting with all kinds of prep, play, ways of thinking, absorbing media that feeds how you run the game and what tools you bring to the table. I was just focusing on the phenomenon of bombing in comedy. In part because comedians talk about it a lot. But also because when they talk about it some of them describe this detachment where they are able to learn about what is going wrong (and others use it as a moment to just try other things: like that famous Bill Burr rant against the hostility crowd, that shifted to laughter). One of the most instructive moments for me as a GM is when things go off the rails or don't work. When things work, you almost don't learn anything, you just think you are awesome. But running into trouble at the table forces you to think about what didn't work, re-evaluate any ideas you take, etc. Ultimately though however much prep or craft you do, you learn by doing (like in comedy). A comedian has to perform like you point out, and a GM has to run games.

 

[Fenris-77]

Post-mortem analysis of successful play can be very enlightening.