What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

No, this isn't it at all. it isn't that you are demystifying anything like a biologist. It is that we disagree with many of your conclusions and your analysis. And that is fair. If you post an idea that purports to explain how RPGs work, or if you post an idea advancing one style of play over another, people are going to push back if they disagree. We could just give you an echo chamber if that is what you prefer. But I think it is a lot more normal for people on a forum like this to have disagreements and for there not to be a consensus because there are lots of different schools of thought in RPGs and a lot of different styles.

This in no way addresses what I wrote above and the implication that I want an echo chamber?

Seriously? That is your response to me?

I'm not talking about disagreements about analysis here. I'm talking about the propensity for people to effectively come to a thread and say "no one cares...this is all navel-gazing...the entire world of x hobby persists completely unabated by your windmill tilting."

I'm curious about what animates that SPECIFIC behavior (not the disagreement with details of the analysis) and what is the payoff?

See @prabe 's extremely insightful and interesting response regarding baseball analytics (this is actually the case study that provoked the question in my mind) regarding beauty and analysis of "revered thing" (whatever it might be). The analysis could be utter crap. I'm curious if merely attempting to break it down to its constituent parts and reveal the machinery is "romance-harming", lets say.

 

[Manbearcat]

I will certainly admit to being pugnacious about a few key issues in RPGs. But I think if you think this you are being extremely blind to the adversarial posts on your own side of the fence in the discussion. But I am not simply weighing in to be a jerk. When I disagree over something I think is important in the hobby, I make a point of being honest about disagreement with people. I think that is what you are supposed to do in any discussion (whether you feel outnumbered, or intellectually inferior to others, you still ought to say when you think people are wrong).

Can you please respond to what I'm asking. This isn't a response to what I'm asking above.

And please stop with the partisan "your own side" stuff. This isn't about sides. I'm asking about a specific thing that happens on all hobby boards.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can you please respond to what I'm asking. This isn't a response to what I'm asking above.

And please stop with the partisan "your own side" stuff. This isn't about sides. I'm asking about a specific thing that happens on all hobby boards.

I did respond to your post. If you are going to wonder aloud if the reason is people feel their game is being demystified by your analysis and suggest we are being highly adversarial, that is my response. And it is a fair one in my opinion

 

[Bedrockgames]

This in no way addresses what I wrote above and the implication that I want an echo chamber?

Seriously? That is your response to me?

Yes, because your post seems to be a request that we stop disagreeing with your analysis (or that we admit to some ulterior motive about our own posts in the thread)

 

[Bedrockgames]

And please stop with the partisan "your own side" stuff. This isn't about sides. I'm asking about a specific thing that happens on all hobby boards.

Your post frames it as a partisan issue (you grouped us together as people who come in and attack the discussion)

 

[Manbearcat]

Let me ask a counter question... if your technical analysis, deep dives and pontificating of playstyles about gaming don't apply or aren't even discussed by the vast majority of the playerbase... what practical purpose besides the self gratification of a small niche group of posters does it serve?

Before I go further with talking to you about this, I want to make sure that we're both on the same page with what you're saying here with the deployment of "pontification" for "self-gratification."

I don't know if you think this word is benign, but its not (pompous and dogmatic). If you aren't aware that you're telling me I'm pompous and dogmatic and you meant another word...totally cool, just let me know and I accept that.

If you do mean it, then this is actually accidentally revelatory because it is precisely what I was looking for. My sense is that there is a very high likelihood that people on hobby sites perceive the kind of thing I'm talking about as pompous. And there is a not-insignificant subset of people who go on attack when they perceive pompous.

So was this an accident (wrong word usage)? Or are you purposefully or accidentally telling me what you think (of me and of this conversation and these conversations) and what is animating you (yet the payoff is still to be determined...typically when someone attacks someone they perceive as pompous or dogmatic, they want that person to be publicly "cut down to size" and issue some kind of mea culpa...unclear if that is the theoretical payoff here).

---

So I'll answer your question above, but I need to know if you're revealing exactly what I hypothesized about what is going on here (the perception of a bunch of pompous asses navel-gazing their way to self-gratification).

If that is what you think...that is cool. I just want to hear you confirm my suspicions by cementing what you've written above.

I'll still answer the rest of your post, but understand that if I had to hypothesize what drives the kind of behavior I was talking about above, it would have 100 % have been what you wrote above -

"...because pompous, dogmatic asses, who is navel-gazing their way to self-gratification on a public forum need to be challenged and put in their place."

And understand that this reality puts us in the most hostile, most adversarial relationship possible on a message board.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See @prabe 's extremely insightful and interesting response regarding baseball analytics (this is actually the case study that provoked the question in my mind) regarding beauty and analysis of "revered thing" (whatever it might be). The analysis could be utter crap. I'm curious if merely attempting to break it down to its constituent parts and reveal the machinery is "romance-harming", lets say.

For me this isn't the issue. The issue isn't that you are 'romance harming' it is that I disagree with the analysis and its conclusion. It is that I don't like having perfectly useful terminology taken away from me (under the guise of demystifying) but then all the replacements for that terminology seem a little self serving and even more mystifying

 

[hawkeyefan]

Who said it was a bad thing? But its also not a bad thing to view a game as a game.

Well you described it as work, and of the “ugh work” kind and not the rewarding kind, so that’s what I was saying. And no, there’s nothing wrong with treating a game like a game.

What I would say is wrong is thinking that a person can’t simultaneously want to improve their skill at a game and also remain aware that it is a game.

Who said any of this?

Right here:

2) lots of people, probably most, engage in leisure activities to unwind and kick back. If you have a table of four chill people and you are trying to amp up the energy and get them to ‘bring their A game’ you are totally misreading the room (and probably reducing their enjoyment of the past time)

It’s just silly. It’s like saying if I want to work out and get in shape I’m going to become some muscle head with no etiquette, dropping dumbbells and grunting loud enough to get the entire gym’s attention.

I think I have other priorities and thus the amount of time, effort, study, and experimentation I put into getting better at ttrpg's are weighed against those. I think for more casual players it may be something that interests them very little if at all.

Sure that’s fine. Who here is a casual gamer?

You give me a thread where a general RPG question is posed, and I’ll approach it with the idea that there may be some new or inexperienced GMs/players who may see it, and my advice will be tailored accordingly.

But as I said, I don’t think anyone here in this thread at this point is likely to fit that description.

We’re all gamers here. Enthusiasts of the hobby. My comments are tailored accordingly.

And that would prove?? Or do you think most of us here are representative of the majority of people who play ttrpg's?

What would it prove? I don’t know if it would prove anything...I’m simply stating what I’d expect of people engaged in this kind of conversation for this long, about a creative hobby.

As I said, conversations like these (at its best parts) have expanded my enjoyment of the hobby. There have been some similar bright spots in this thread. It isn’t all just argument for the sake of argument.

 

[Arilyn]

I think all hobbyists generally like to improve their skills. Gardeners want better vegetables or amazing flower beds. Golfers want to improve their swings and painters work on composition and brush strokes. Considering the huge number of You Tube channels focussing on role playing tips and advice, I think there must be a lot of role players wanting to improve too.

It doesn't have to be a burden. I have recently decided that my fight scenes are lack lustre, so I've been deliberately working on improving my descriptions both as a player or GM. I am interested in Story Now, so I read pemerton's posts, as well as other proponents, and have been giving it a whirl. I guess it's technically work, but it's work I enjoy. I'm assuming even the most casual beer and pretzel GM likes to hone skills to keep the players coming back for more.

How players improve their skills vary. Some might just watch a favourite you tuber, others play a wide variety of games, or discuss techniques on forums. Some dedicate a lot of time improving their craft, whereas others are improving simply by playing or GMing.

Saying that role playing is just for fun and improvements don't have to happen or be a priority seems an odd sentiment. Even the most casual player will improve just by doing. Role playing is engaging, and learning new techniques and working on particular skills is too, and I don't think this is only true for "hard core" RPG philosophers.

And BTW, doing deep dives into game philosophy and techniques is interesting, which is one reason these kinds of threads get so long.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you do mean it, then this is actually accidentally revelatory because it is precisely what I was looking for. My sense is that there is a very high likelihood that people on hobby sites perceive the kind of thing I'm talking about as pompous. And there is a not-insignificant subset of people who go on attack when they perceive pompous.

I can definitely say I find much of this discussion pompous. But I don't find analysis on its own pompous. And someone being pompous is still not enough to make me dislike them or want to be adversarial. I have enjoyed a lot of our exchanges for example (when I haven't felt like I was being belittled). But I think the way in which the analysis is done and the certainty around it is one of the things that makes it feel pompous to me here.

But I was pretty clear about this I feel earlier in the thread that one of the things I don't like is the intellectual bullying I see. I get a bit snappy when I see that, or when I feel like someone is saying I am an idiot (and I definitely feel I have seen this and been on the receiving end of the latter). But I also am not here to get angry or make enemies. I am always happy to move on and answer questions that feel sincere, and are not insulting. And I am always happy to hit the reset button.