What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

To me, the "discovering the GM's notes" sounds ... more like reading a book. (Note: I have never particularly enjoyed sandbox play--all my experiences have been roughly consistent with being told by the GM, "Go and find the fun.") It sounds less interactive and more one-sided than I have found it to be in practice, other than the most linear AP-style play.

I think "playing to discover the GM's notes" misses the idea the GM might not know everything (and probably doesn't, no matter how extensive their notes). I think there's often the implication the GM's notes include plot--as @Fenris-77 indicates, that's the worst-case scenario (I think there's probably some disagreement about whether it's the only bad instance, but I suspect it's the case most likely to be considered bad).

I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are supposed to discover rather than something they can discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are supposed to discover rather than something they can discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.

But are you not ignoring Skilled Play - how much Agency is there within Skilled Play?

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are supposed to discover rather than something they can discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.

Yes. It's a DM problem, not a style problem. If a DM holds too tightly to the notes and constrains the players inappropriately with them, that's bad.

 

[prabe]

I wouldn't say it's the only negative instance, but it's certainly the most visible one, IMO anyway. Anything about GM prep can be an issue in the hands of certain GMs. Specifics aside, the kind of negative we're talking about generally looks like referencing the content of those notes as the most important goal of play, one way or another. So content as something the players are supposed to discover rather than something they can discover. Mostly this comes down to issues of agency, and that some GMs very much want to be in control of the teleos of play.

Most of the good GMs I've been around have written up things because they wanted the players to find out about them. Whether that means the GMs wanted to be in charge of plot is plausibly debatable. In my instance, I enjoy being asked specific questions about my setting--I have a number to answer before a session tomorrow night, and I'm expecting to have a good deal of fun doing so; but the questions are relevant to PC goals, so very much in service of PCs' dramatics needs, IMO.

 

[Fenris-77]

But are you not ignoring Skilled Play - how much Agency is there within Skilled Play?

Skilled play isn't synonymous with railroad GMing. In a skilled play campaign, lets assume the OSR version for the sake of clarity, you will indeed have GM notes in plenty. You'll have set encounters in set places, you'll have nefarious traps and trickery, all sorts of goodies, all usually backstopped by rigorous resource management and a plethora of random tables. However, the agency in that game still lies firmly with the players as it's up to them to decide how to engage with obstacle X, or even to engage with it at all. An important note about skilled play is that it is usually not balanced in the way that, say, 5E is balanced, at the encounter level, but rather it is left to the players to decide if they are in over their heads in a given encounter and should flee.

The issues I outlined upstream can easily happen in a skilled play game of course, but with experienced players the attempt by the GM there will be glaringly obvious as it's quite at odds with the expected teleos of play in those games.

 

[Fenris-77]

Most of the good GMs I've been around have written up things because they wanted the players to find out about them. Whether that means the GMs wanted to be in charge of plot is plausibly debatable. In my instance, I enjoy being asked specific questions about my setting--I have a number to answer before a session tomorrow night, and I'm expecting to have a good deal of fun doing so; but the questions are relevant to PC goals, so very much in service of PCs' dramatics needs, IMO.

The difference between want and expect or even insist is really the key here.

 

[prabe]

The difference between want and expect or even insist is really the key here.

It's kinda the difference between filling a bird feeder and making pate, innit?

 

[Fenris-77]

To give a specific example, I'm running a pretty skilled play sandbox kind of game right now, PbP, using the Black Hack 2E rules set. We're still early days, but before we started I'd sat down and done a bunch of prep in the direction I thought the players were going to decide to go first. I build a bespoke bestiary, developed a bunch of encounter areas, and had a cool background faction game all ready to go. Needless to say the players went another direction entirely, and that's what we're playing. I made no overt attempt to guide them back to my prep, or make that other direction problematic and thus easily abandoned. We may never end up using that prep, but that's fine. It's not my job to guide the emerging narrative, only to frame it well and place appropriate obstacles in front of the party in whatever direction they choose to go. So notes without the negatives.

Edit - so I might want them to play through that prep, it's pretty cool, but I don't expect them to.

 

[Maxperson]

To give a specific example, I'm running a pretty skilled play sandbox kind of game right now, PbP, using the Black Hack 2E rules set. We're still early days, but before we started I'd sat down and done a bunch of prep in the direction I thought the players were going to decide to go first. I build a bespoke bestiary, developed a bunch of encounter areas, and had a cool background faction game all ready to go. Needless to say the players went another direction entirely, and that's what we're playing. I made no overt attempt to guide them back to my prep, or make that other direction problematic and thus easily abandoned. We may never end up using that prep, but that's fine. It's not my job to guide the emerging narrative, only to frame it well and place appropriate obstacles in front of the party in whatever direction they choose to go. So notes without the negatives.

Edit - so I might want them to play through that prep, it's pretty cool, but I don't expect them to.

Exactly.

 

[Aldarc]

I think what I'm trying to get at is that the GM may also be discovering/realizing things about the setting, even if they are effectively the sole arbiter thereof.

Sure, and the taxi driver may know things about their passengers' desired destination or they may discover things about their passengers' destination as they drive there.

There's also, I think, something in the phrasing that tends to change from being about the process of play to being about the purpose of play. If the intended purpose of play is to change the setting, there needs to be some definition of what the setting is before the change.

I think that differences in the process of play is more informative and insightful than the purpose of play. This is why I would prefer to keep the focus on how rather than why or to what end.

For example, let's take another system: i.e., government. The purpose of a style of government may broadly be to create a democratic republic that represents the people, but that will look different between a political system like the United States, which invests a lot of governing power in the President through first-past-the-post elections, or one of the various European parliamentary systems, which places greater governing power in legislative coalitions that form governments headed by a prime minister with executive heads-of-state often serving as figure-heads. There are also sorts of variables, such as who gets to vote, who can veto legislation, the balance of power, etc.

That underlying process is an important part of how that purpose of play is achieved, whatever that may be. The purpose of play may be to generate a good story, but some will do so through AP play, highly GM-curated experiences, railroaded play, open world sandbox play, PC-driven dramatic play, etc.