What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

@Imaro, I do think that "protagonism" is also marketing speak, though it's also not a conversation thread that I have been following too closely here, though I don't recall if alternative terms were ever offered to describe "protagonism" in TTRPGs. I did propose an anthropocentric and geocentric model, but I can't remember how that intersected with the sub-conversation you have in mind.

But my issue is, again, not with the term "living world" per se, but that it conflates the aesthetical ends (i.e., the living world) with the technical means of the play process, which was the primary focus of the discussion. This is an issue because very different games may desire to create a "living world" but achieve this through obviously divergent means, mechanics, and methods, particularly in regards to player/GM responsibilities. I don't see a problem with using "living world" as a term, but context matters, and simply liking the term to describe one's play doesn't make it ipso facto the most pertinent term for a given discussion.

But to answer your overarching question without getting bogged down into matters: two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes but my bigger point was that one side (A) had the power (and used it) to not only enforce their nomenclature on the other side (B) but to summarily dismiss any attempts of side B to establish nomenclature for their playstyle because it wasn't to their liking. In other words there;s 2 points I am trying to make...
1. How can there be a true discussion of equal merit when one side has and wields such an imbalance of power?
2. Can you not see how Side B could perceive side A as both arrogant and pompous when this imbalance of power is wielded in the thread.

It's not about right or wrong it's about perception and respect so that honest discourse can take place.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not either of the two you tagged @Imaro but I learned a lesson long ago: it's really damn hard to know what you actually like until you experience things. I missed out on the first couple years of 4e because I thought it was garbage, due to friends who irrationally hated it solely because it wasn't the way 3.5e did things. When I finally started sinking my teeth into it (believe it or not, in order to respond to arguments on a forum!), I started liking what I saw. And then I dug deeper, and started to realize how deeply mistaken I was both about my overall gaming preferences and about the kind of experience provided by 4e.

It's been many years since then, so more awareness has accreted slowly, and I am better aware of my interests than I was before. But there's still things to learn, even if you have to work harder to learn them. The two best sources of experience--outside of direct teaching, which isn't always relevant in this context--are direct action, and engaging in serious conversation with earnest people who don't share your views on a subject. Either you have to refine your own position so that it is successful, or you learn that there's actually a position that matters more to you than what you used to hold, or you (at bare minimum) gain a greater appreciation for the things that aren't for you even though you don't end up changing anything yourself.

@EzekielRaiden I don't have a problem with any of this but let's not overlook the fact that it was a comment that treating the game as just a game was a bad thing that sent us down this line of discussion.

I've explained why I think it is important to keep in mind that this discussion isn't for the vast majority of people who play ttrpg's and also why I think a frank discussion of actual techniques and concrete actions would be much better than discussing overarching playstyles that don't ever seem to fully apply to most people (It was the same issue I had with the forge terminology, of gamism, narrativism, etc... back in the day... no one played in those strict categories). But I won't ever agree that people playing for enjoyment and not concerned with bettering their roleplaying is a bad thing...

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you are fighting to naysay a minority gaming position on this forum on behalf of faceless people who likely hold the super majority mainstream positions, but mostly don't care about these discussions? How truly noble and valiant!

No, I am engaged in a conversation in a thread, and when I see posts that bother me or I disagree with, I state my opinion. A lot of the opinions I have been defending (like sandbox and living world) are not super mainstream at all.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes but my bigger point was that one side (A) had the power (and used it) to not only enforce their nomenclature on the other side (B) but to summarily dismiss any attempts of side B to establish nomenclature for their playstyle because it wasn't to their liking. In other words there;s 2 points I am trying to make...
1. How can there be a true discussion of equal merit when one side has and wields such an imbalance of power?
2. Can you not see how Side B could perceive side A as both arrogant and pompous when this imbalance of power is wielded in the thread.

It's not about right or wrong it's about perception and respect so that honest discourse can take place.

Okay, so let's make your bigger point even bigger. Take that hypothetical power imbalance that exists in this thread (or sub-forum) and then reverse it, magnify the scope, and apply it to the hobby at large. That broadly describes the "other side's" experience in our hobby. That's the sword of mainstream gaming that's been collectively pointed against the indie gaming scene (and the more story now-focused subset) for decades, constantly reminding indie gamers of how insignificant they are by comparison. The fact that a hypothetical power imbalance of conversational capital exists in isolated form in this thread is potentially short-sighted when looking at it from that bigger picture perspective. And that is one reason why I can't take the supposed "power imbalance" seriously at face value. It ignores the vast privilege at which more mainstream games (and their heart-breaker kin) and perspectives already wields as orthodoxy.

Another highly imperfect analogy:

Spoiler

It is similar to, though not in terms of meaningfully real stakes and scope of, LBGTQ+ discourse fighting an uphill battle to deconstruct mainstream cis-heteronormative societal discourse on sexuality, gender, and disability. Who gets to control or frame the terms? Who wields the power to define these things? Who gets the privilege to define "normal" or "man" or "woman" or "marriage"? You would no doubt agree that it would be quite silly if I went on a FTM thread as a cis male and said that they were pompous and arrogant for redefining terms for gender (and possibly more) as I traditionally knew them, that they were just engaging in pointless ivory tower pontifications that were detached from that of the vast majority of men, or even that I felt that there was an acute power imbalance of conversational capital that existed between me (a cis man) on a FTM thread discussing gender. Because outside of that thread, I have far more social privilege and acceptance of my gender as a cis male.

No, I am engaged in a conversation in a thread, and when I see posts that bother me or I disagree with, I state my opinion. A lot of the opinions I have been defending (like sandbox and living world) are not super mainstream at all.

It would be nice if you could do so without accusing others of being pompous, intellectual bullies, or pontificating when they do the same. That said, even if more mainstream AP/GM-driven play lies outside of your preferences, I would nevertheless estimate that your opinions are more closely aligned with mainstream gaming, particularly in regards to the GM/player power imbalance, than that of either @pemerton or @Manbearcat's games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nevermind, shouldn't post with a fever.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It would be nice if you could do so without accusing others of being pompous, intellectual bullies, or pontificating when they do the same. That said, even if more mainstream AP/GM-driven play lies outside of your preferences, I would nevertheless estimate that your opinions are more closely aligned with mainstream gaming, particularly in regards to the GM/player power imbalance, than that of either @pemerton or @Manbearcat's games.

In one instance I was essentially asked point blank by a poster if I thought people were being pompous, and I answered that question honestly. Prior to that point I tried to use more civil, but still accurate language, to describe the behavior I was seeing.

I have a completely different estimation here of the popularity of styles. I think the stye you are promoting is one that is gaining tremendous traction. I don't know who is more niche. I think I have expressed though an openness to there being a wider net when it comes to sandbox, so long as we are making distinctions between things that matter within that framework. And I don't think there is anything bad about the approach you are promoting. The only time I get into disagreements about it is when someone aggrandizes that style in a way that seems at the expense of other styles (for example when I see people asserting living worlds are impossible or that they are really 'just playing to discover the notes', or when they try to diminish the role of agency in a sandbox and claim it for something more player facing).

 

[Campbell]

@EzekielRaiden I don't have a problem with any of this but let's not overlook the fact that it was a comment that treating the game as just a game was a bad thing that sent us down this line of discussion.

I've explained why I think it is important to keep in mind that this discussion isn't for the vast majority of people who play ttrpg's and also why I think a frank discussion of actual techniques and concrete actions would be much better than discussing overarching playstyles that don't ever seem to fully apply to most people (It was the same issue I had with the forge terminology, of gamism, narrativism, etc... back in the day... no one played in those strict categories). But I won't ever agree that people playing for enjoyment and not concerned with bettering their roleplaying is a bad thing...

I feel should clarify my desires here. I suspect it will make matters worse, but it reflects my true desires. When I say I want to play with people who try to get better I mean at the specific game we are playing. Not some overly precious generalized notion of what roleplaying is. I mean if we are playing Burning Wheel try to be the best Burning Wheel player you can. If we are playing old school D&D try to be the best at that you can. That includes learning the rules, what the game expects, and embracing those expectations. It's why I like games with strong reward systems.

If I'm playing poker with friends I want to win because I played my best against their best. If I'm playing Magic same damn thing. In cooperative play I have an expectation that everyone will contribute and give it their all as best as they are able to.

You will probably say something along the lines of most gamers are not like me. So what? I'm just here to offer my perspective on what I think makes for the best gaming. People can make their own judgments. "Most gamers" do not need you to defend their interests. You do not speak for them anymore than I do. Why not just offer your own perspective without trying to act as some arbiter for the unwashed masses?

I personally would prefer to have a frank discussion of actual play techniques and feel like I often provide that. In the past when I have attempted to do so I often receive pushback (often from you personally). Do not get me wrong here. No one has the right to expect no pushback. I do think some of the pushback is overly precious about language use. I don't expect you to completely abandon the framework you to use to understand RPGs in order to have a discussion with me. I do not understand why you expect me to.

 

[Imaro]

Okay, so let's make your bigger point even bigger. Take that hypothetical power imbalance that exists in this thread (or sub-forum) and then reverse it, magnify the scope, and apply it to the hobby at large. That broadly describes the "other side's" experience in our hobby. That's the sword of mainstream gaming that's been collectively pointed against the indie gaming scene (and the more story now-focused subset) for decades, constantly reminding indie gamers of how insignificant they are by comparison. The fact that a hypothetical power imbalance of conversational capital exists in isolated form in this thread is potentially short-sighted when looking at it from that bigger picture perspective. And that is one reason why I can't take the supposed "power imbalance" seriously at face value. It ignores the vast privilege at which more mainstream games (and their heart-breaker kin) and perspectives already wields as orthodoxy.

The mainstream hobby doesn't discuss stuff like this, I think you agree with that point so how is there an imbalance when the wider hobby as a whole isn't involved in discussions like this? The vast majority of the hobby doesn't care about this stuff... That isn't me trying to denigrate the conversation just put it into perspective it's a small subset of the hobby overall regardless of playstyle, techniques, etc that take part in this so no, I don't think your claim of imbalance in the wider hobby holds up and for the record it also seems "two wrongs don't make a right" only applies in certain circumstances.

Another highly imperfect analogy:

Spoiler

It is similar to, though not in terms of meaningfully real stakes and scope of, LBGTQ+ discourse fighting an uphill battle to deconstruct mainstream cis-heteronormative societal discourse on sexuality, gender, and disability. Who gets to control or frame the terms? Who wields the power to define these things? Who gets the privilege to define "normal" or "man" or "woman" or "marriage"? You would no doubt agree that it would be quite silly if I went on a FTM thread as a cis male and said that they were pompous and arrogant for redefining terms for gender (and possibly more) as I traditionally knew them, that they were just engaging in pointless ivory tower pontifications that were detached from that of the vast majority of men, or even that I felt that there was an acute power imbalance of conversational capital that existed between me (a cis man) on a FTM thread discussing gender. Because outside of that thread, I have far more social privilege and acceptance of my gender as a cis male.

This really is a highly imperfect analogy... as a black male in America I'm just going to say this... there is a big difference in being actively persecuted for your race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. and them being ignored. This discussion is a non-starter to the wider hobby they aren't going out of their way to engage you or setting up systems that oppress your playstyle... the wide majority just don't care. It's kind of insulting to compare the two.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Bedrockgames - Promoting a style? You miss the point sir, entirely. Analyzing a style would be correct. Even comparing styles might be correct. To say promoting very much identifies a conflict where none exists. Your use of aggrandizing is also pointlessly combative. To put those into a sentence using their definitions you get something like this: You are trying to enhance the reputation of game X beyond what is justified by the facts. When you add in pompous (affectedly and irritatingly self important) you get quite the ad hominem brew of aggression. Perhaps this wasn't your intent, I'm not sure, but that is certainly the result.

The idea that anyone here is doing anything at the expense of other styles, or asserting that X is impossible in other styles, or trying to diminish X, is entirely a fiction. Trying to figure out how game X is different from game Y, especially in terms of producing similar effect Z, isn't a work of diminishment but of comparison.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That's the sword of mainstream gaming that's been collectively pointed against the indie gaming scene (and the more story now-focused subset) for decades, constantly reminding indie gamers of how insignificant they are by comparison.

Not that I agree with your sword of MSG, but are you saying indie gamers in this thread feel less than or hard done by?