What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

It's not supposed to be an example of protagonism... it was addressing the statement that the GM/DM decides everything that happens. that said could you provide an example of protagonism?

Is someone I can't see trying to claim that DM notes = railroading?

 

[Imaro]

nothing in the 5e rules demands they particularly honor success in any specific or defined way. Heck, the GM might actually call for a second climb check after the first if they determine it's necessary, meaning the first check isn't really a success but just a wicket passed on the way to the second check.

This is the definition of DM'ing in bad faith and what your entire presumption seems to be based upon. Not only that the DM doesn't honor the success but that he actively disregard it. Well yeah if we don't honor the rules of any game protagonism suffers...

 

[pemerton]

Player A: I want to climb to the top of the wall to avoid the guards that are searching for me.
DM (Deciding there is a chance for failure since Player A's PC is in a stressful situation): Sure, give me an Athletics check with a DC of 10
Player A (Rolls a 12)
DM: Okay you climb to the top of the wall disappearing onto the top of it just as the guards turn into the alley and raise their torches. They peer into the alley for a few minutes before turning and moving down the adjoining street,

This seems like a pretty typical exchange in a traditional D&D game... Where is the GM "deciding what happened"?

Well, it's a bit hard to tell what's going on, in terms of table decision-making, until we know:

• Who narrated the existence of the wall, and why - ie via what process and according to what principles?
• Similarly, who narrated the existence of the guards?
• Similarly, who established that there is an alley for the guards to look down?
• Perhaps most importantly, what has brought it about that the PC is in this place trying to achieve this particular thing?

EDIT: I've seen @Ovinomancer's posts in response to this example. We're not carbon copies but I think nevertheless are in broad agreement. His point about what follows, in the fiction, from getting to the top of the wall (eg hiding as opposed to being discovered by a hitherto-unnoticed NPC the GM has secretly recorded as present) is particularly well-made.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is the definition of DM'ing in bad faith and what your entire presumption seems to be based upon. Not only that the DM doesn't honor the success but that he actively disregard it. Well yeah if we don't honor the rules of any game protagonism suffers...

I gave two examples -- which is in bad faith? The first was that the GM's notes indicated a guard on top of the wall that had not yet been noticed, so the character does successfully climb the way but doesn't get their intended result. There's no bad faith here, you see this kind of thing all the time in games that feature the GM's notes as both secret and inputs to resolution. The second? There's lots of talks about how climbs of various lengths could require multiple checks. I haven't seen you in those threads labeling GMs that determine the need for a second check to be playing in bad faith.

Bad faith would be seeing the success and then just saying that the action failed. I'm not suggesting this.

 

[Imaro]

We can see here that the role of notes (beyond serving as memory aids for mechanics - 4, 5) is to support framing (1, 2 3, 6) and to help determine consequences of action declarations (maybe 1, definitely 2, and also 3 and perhaps 6).

In protgaonistic play the notes that the GM makes at 1, 2 and 3 would all be done after learning of the dramatic needs established for the players.

But if they are only suggestions... they can be. Furthermore I want to clarify that part of my prep is probably based on the fact that I have been gaming with my group for nearly 15 years and I can anticipate alot of what many of them will choose to do. I would probably prep differently for complete strangers.

 

[pemerton]

But if they are only suggestions... they can be.

I don't quite know what the they refers to here. Who is making suggestions to whom?

 

[tetrasodium]

I am big fan of non-turtling play, for much the same reason that I prefer backgammon to chess as a boardgame and five hundred to bridge as a card game. But this really doesn't have much connection to the idea of protagonistic RPGing. And it doesn't really shed light on the role of GM notes.

Did you quote the wrong post? Beyond the ability to recognize the board I don't know anything about tbackgammon or either of those card games. The post you quoted of mine (126) is about drama & dramatic needs. turtling along till the GM has had it & is forced to introduce a pyramidhead type threat of urgency or something is the opposite of drama.

 

[Imaro]

I gave two examples -- which is in bad faith? The first was that the GM's notes indicated a guard on top of the wall that had not yet been noticed, so the character does successfully climb the way but doesn't get their intended result. There's no bad faith here, you see this kind of thing all the time in games that feature the GM's notes as both secret and inputs to resolution. The second? There's lots of talks about how climbs of various lengths could require multiple checks. I haven't seen you in those threads labeling GMs that determine the need for a second check to be playing in bad faith.

Bad faith would be seeing the success and then just saying that the action failed. I'm not suggesting this.

No, bad faith is violating the implicit agreement the DM made when the player stated his goal (avoiding the guards), the DM agreed to a DC for success and the player rolled successfully. To then find a way through narration to negate that agreement is DM'ing in bad faith.

 

[Imaro]

I don't quite know what the they refers to here. Who is making suggestions to whom?

The notes on resolution are suggestions. I state that in the post.

 

[pemerton]

The post you quoted of mine (126) is about drama & dramatic needs.

But your pst didn't say anything about dramatic needs. That was my point. Your post seemed to be about ways to avoid turtling (both player-side and GM-side ways); but turtling is nothing to do with dramatic needs and rather is a problem particular to some GM-driven play.