What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

What causes puzzlement and objection is combining the above with (i) denials that the GM is authoring this fiction, and (ii) denying that a good part of what the players do in a game like this is learn the GM's conception of his/her world.

Because with (i) it's co-authoring, since what I do is in large part dependent on and constrained by what the players are doing, and with (ii) I can't recall anyone actually saying that. We're saying that the players do not play to find out what is in the DM's notes. They play for other reasons, regardless of how much or little they are discovering notes that are purely the DM's and are not the co-authored notes.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think it is diminishing. I think it is one that can be used to equivocate and one that tends to get you lost in the metaphor of fiction (I'd rather get lost in the metaphor of living world )

Does Shared Imagined Space work better? For me personally (as someone who would rather not get lost in metaphor) the emphasis on our shared experience of play with all the mess that often entails is my primary concern in these conversations. Acknowledging the craft, the work, the art of it all is important so we can actually start doing the work of trying to understand our real differences in terms of agenda and play technique instead of just differences in our mental models.

Basically the important part of shared fiction is shared rather than fiction. Fiction just means it's imagined. Created through artifice. That it is shared by and owned by all of us together that is what matters most to me personally.

 

[pemerton]

The Players are active participants through their characters. We've covered this ground. Yes the GM's conception of his or her world is crucial. That much is obvious. But what makes this work is live players in the setting forcing the GM to think on his her or feet, forcing him to move the pieces around, think of how the NPCs would respond, and, very, very importantly, the dice and mechanics of the game helping to shape that interaction.

I've bolded the bit which does not contradict my assertion that a significant part of play is the players learning the GM's conception of the world that s/he is imagining.

It is that your description feels very reductive to us and you can't use that description to actually guide someone to run and prepare this sort of campaign. It doesn't really seem to serve any function

It's not intended to be a guide. It's intended to be a description. Like "story now" or "no myth". These don't tell anyone how to GM a session of BW or a PbtA game, but they are still useful descriptions of some important features of the play of those systems.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fine, use emerging diegesis if it makes you feel better, its the same thing though. These internecine arguments about word use arent moving us forward here.

 

[prabe]

Does Shared Imagined Space work better? For me personally (as someone who would rather not get lost in metaphor) the emphasis on our shared experience of play with all the mess that often entails is my primary concern in these conversations. Acknowledging the craft, the work, the art of it all is important so we can actually start doing the work of trying to understand our real differences in terms of agenda and play technique instead of just differences in our mental models.

Basically the important part of shared fiction is shared rather than fiction. Fiction just means it's imagined. Created through artifice. That it is shared by and owned by all of us together that is what matters most to me personally.

Yes. The game belongs to all the participants, not just the GM, and even if an element is authored by the GM, working as a co-author is different than working as an author. The parts of the setting I wrote before there were any campaigns in the world are purely out of my head, but the parts after I was running in the world, it seems, must have been shaped by prior play in that world: Either I wrote it because it seemed to be something the players would find fun/interesting/relevant, or it was something I wrote because I thought the players had put me in a position where the world needed it.

 

[pemerton]

Fiction in this context is not a metaphor. It's literal!

When I Google "define fiction" here are the first and second meanings that are given:

literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people.

something that is invented or untrue.​

The "worlds" of RPGs are invented or untrue; and the form they take is descriptions of imaginary events and people. We could add places to that. And in the current context of discussion the focus is on GM-authored descriptions.

This is why @Emerikol's comparison of a GM running a sandbox game to God "run[ning] a game in a real world that he'd create that allowed for magic" doesn't get off the ground. The GM hasn't created a real world. They've imagined a pretend one. The players have no cognitive access to what the GM has thought of except by the GM telling them. How is this still controversial over 100 pages in?

 

[pemerton]

On APs vs sandbox, I don't think it's my job to explain how they use different techniques: it's not a comparison or contrast I'm terribly interested in.

If I had to start I would say that a sandbox consists of events on a trajectory, like @Emerikol's example upthread of the murder, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that prompt the GM to change the trajectory.

Whereas an AP consists of events on a trajectory, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that conform to the established trajectory.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Does Shared Imagined Space work better?

yes because it centralizes setting and the stuff that happens rather than plot (which fiction can suggest)

 

[Imaro]

On APs vs sandbox, I don't think it's my job to explain how they use different techniques: it's not a comparison or contrast I'm terribly interested in.

If I had to start I would say that a sandbox consists of events on a trajectory, like @Emerikol's example upthread of the murder, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that prompt the GM to change the trajectory.

Whereas an AP consists of events on a trajectory, and the expectation of play is that the players will declare actions that conform to the established trajectory.

You totally side stepped the real question so maybe I wasn't clear, I'll try again... why is "Playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" an apt descriptor of sandbox play but not of AP play... and if it actually is an apt description of both then isn't it probably better to use a different descriptor for one, the other or both?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Fine, use emerging diegesis if it makes you feel better, its the same thing though. These internecine arguments about word use arent moving us forward here.

The words used to describe a style of play matter. There is a reason several posters have pushed back on a lot of this language. Like I said to Campbell ‘shared imaginary space’ sounds a lot more accurate to me than shared fiction