What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

So then why does it start..."Playing to find out..." Seems what we are really doing is defining the purpose of play not GM notes with the descriptor.

Why do what start? Not the OP -- those words aren't even in the OP. Which "it" are you talking about?

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok just to be clear... are you now stating that AP play and sandbox play are not different?? Just looking for clarification here.

Aren't we discussing the differences in these playstyles, so how does it serve clarity, understanding or foster conversation to use such a generic classification if the point is to discuss and analyze these different playstyles? It adds no value to the conversation and is fostering confusion and misunderstanding because it draws no appreciable distinction.

EDIT: And just to be clear I don't agree they are the same but even given that argument... using a descriptor that doesn't differentiate still serves no purpose in the conversation.

Look at the below exchange the other day in the "Culture Blog" thread. I think this should shed light on what @Ovinomancer is saying:

Do you think this sort of thing puts any pressure on the blogger's categories? Or is it more like someone who enjoys B/X but finds T&T a bit silly? That's probably not a reason to split the "Classic" category into two.

I don’t think so no.

In any taxonomic hierarchy you need to capture the most breadth at the top before your classifications narrow as you move down (eg Kingdom down to Species).

I think really what we’re seeing is that Story Now has more breadth (classification diversity beneath) than it’s likely given credit for and that it “plays nice” with Classic and OSR and can encompass many varieties of Skilled Play priorities (contrast 4e with Torchbearer).

---

Put another way, at the highest level of the taxonomical hierarchy, (compare to Kingdom) might be "play to find out what's in the GM notes/to discover the GM's prepared material". However, Sandbox and AP would then diverge in a number of significant ways as you move down the hierarchy. For instance, at Phylum, they might diverge with "dynamic setting primacy" vs "metaplot primacy."

 

[prabe]

No, that's fine. I don't think that you should tailor your view on AP style play to match the opinion of others. It should reflect your opinion. If you feel that such adventures are largely railroads, you shoudl say so. If others feel differently, then they should explain how APs are not railroads, not ask you to stop using the term railroad and instead use "sequential scenario depiction" just so they feel better about themselves.

I think there's a difference in responsiveness between "APs aren't railroads" and "I don't like the word railroad." I also think that if I'm discussing AP-style play, it probably serves discussion better if I'm up-front about how I feel about it before I launch into any analysis. It's the same reason why when reading an opinion piece in a newspaper I skip down to the author bio to see if there's an obvious agenda there.

Perhaps. My point is that there isn't really a problem. You will have made your opinion known. I can now engage with it and discuss my opinion, and we can compare and contrast.

Or I can question your use of one specific phrase for dozens of pages.

I prefer the former. There have been some bright spots in this discussion. None of them have been about the challenge of that phrase.

I agree.

I don't think anyone took "GM's Notes" to be all done before play and then never added to or revised based on play. It's an ongoing process.

I think @pemerton changed the phrasing to something like "discovering the GM's conception of the world" as an allowance for something more improvised but still coming from the GM's mind.

I think you've described your play as never prepping more than one session ahead. I largely do that myself when I run 5E D&D; I have a good idea of what will be next, and I make sure I'm ready for that. Those are how I use notes to help run the game.

Do my players sometimes surprise me? Do they sometimes end one session with a plan "here's what we'll do next week" and then we get to next week and they scrap that idea and go with something else entirely? Of course.

It doesn't change the fact that a large part of play is about what I as GM have crafted, right?

I think that what has happened at the table is something we around the table have crafted. I have brought the setting and whatever obstacles/antagonists seem fitting; the players have brought their characters and described their actions. The fiction isn't complete if it's just me.

 

[Imaro]

Why do what start? Not the OP -- those words aren't even in the OP. Which "it" are you talking about?

I'm not talking about the OP.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why do what start? Not the OP -- those words aren't even in the OP. Which "it" are you talking about?

@Imaro, @hawkeyefan's post provided the antecedent to the "it", or at least I think it does. You're asking about the "play to find out what's in the GM's notes/conception/head" bit, and thinking this is a sole or primary definition of a style. It's not. We play for many reasons. In my 5e AP game right now, players are playing to find out what's in the notes, playing to see if they can skillfully defeat challenges, playing to explore their character builds, and playing to have fun. There's nothing in the formulation that exclusive of any other play goal.

EDIT: however, a given play goal might be exclusive to other play goals -- the formulation "playing to" is not exclusive to any, though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, like I said, whatever works. I was just pointing out that the baggage carried by 'fiction' is mostly an accretion of opinion and improper use, not anything inherent to the actual word.

This really boils down to preference and comfort level on the part of the GM. Having a "vast and detailed knowledge" of a fictional world does not in and of itself enhance verisimilitude. It may for a specific GM, and that is fine.

But for others, it can be the opposite. Being free to establish details as needed or desired rather than as predetermined, or as how they may be shaped by predetermined events, can also add to verisimilitude.

It really just boils down to what works for the GM and players. I used to think that I needed to have as much information as possible to do the job of a GM and that the world would seem made up if I didn't do all that work beforehand. But then I realized that running an RPG is not the same as writing a novel, and that when it comes to the moment of play, a detail that is made up on the spot is very often just as good as one that is prepared ahead of time.

The question really is about all that time spent preparing and if memorizing a vast and detailed knowledge of a fictional setting is the best way to spend that time.



Is this not objectionable to those who enjoy AP style play? Which, based on trends, would seem to be a significant amount of people who participate in the hobby.

Don't get me wrong.....it's fine that you don't enjoy that style of play. But do you think you should have to pretend it appeals to you because there are people who do enjoy it? Should you not describe that style in a way that seems accurate to you?

I've played plenty of AP games. I've run them, too. They absolutely can be fun. I don't take offense that you have criticisms of that play style, nor do I think your criticisms are without merit. I am able to look at that kind of game and see what is actually happening, and then approach the discussion accordingly. And if we're going to discuss that style, I can do so without you needing to tip toe around my feelings.

I honestly think that a lot of the conflict in this discussion is that "learning what's in the GM's notes" is a pretty accurate description of any RPG that has the GM as the primary source of the fiction. I mean, how could it not be? It's kind of baked in, no?




The idea that the term "fiction" which simply means "make believe" and which absolutely applies to what happens in an RPG, could somehow be seen as a more nebulous term than "living world" is part of why I struggle with your view. Fiction is not a metaphor. It's literally what's happening when we play. We are making believe.

You point out a lot how you do not like equivocation, and that's understandable, but then you prefer vague words over specific ones.

Fiction works perfectly. From what I can see, it's the fear that gaming is about "making a story" which is the source of dislike of the term fiction. But fiction and story are not exact synonyms.

Fiction can mean ‘made up’ but it can also mean ‘a story’ or ‘a novel’. The problem of equivocation with this term is very real in these discussions

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, @hawkeyefan's post provided the antecedent to the "it", or at least I think it does. You're asking about the "play to find out what's in the GM's notes/conception/head" bit, and thinking this is a sole or primary definition of a style. It's not. We play for many reasons. In my 5e AP game right now, players are playing to find out what's in the notes, playing to see if they can skillfully defeat challenges, playing to explore their character builds, and playing to have fun. There's nothing in the formulation that exclusive of any other play goal.

EDIT: however, a given play goal might be exclusive to other play goals -- the formulation "playing to" is not exclusive to any, though.

And my point is that it has been used (IMO incorrectly) in this discussion as a primary definition of a style... that is why there has been such pushback by many.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think there's a difference in responsiveness between "APs aren't railroads" and "I don't like the word railroad." I also think that if I'm discussing AP-style play, it probably serves discussion better if I'm up-front about how I feel about it before I launch into any analysis. It's the same reason why when reading an opinion piece in a newspaper I skip down to the author bio to see if there's an obvious agenda there.

Yes, I agree. I think in this case, pemerton gave his idea of what this style of play seems to be. This is a conclusion, I expect, that he's come to as a result of playing that kind of game. He's boiling it down to it's basic parts and looking at it, and saying "this is how this seems to me".

The thread topic is about GM notes and the purpose they serve. We know what purpose pemerton seems to think they serve in games that have been describd as sandbox. To be honest, it still seems pretty accurate in my book, although I agree that yes, there is more to it.

I agree.

I think @pemerton changed the phrasing to something like "discovering the GM's conception of the world" as an allowance for something more improvised but still coming from the GM's mind.

Sure. Isn't that largely what the players, via their characters, do? In my 5E D&D game, it simply is. Is there more to it? Yes, of course.....my notes (as they are) consist of lots of input from the players. So it's not solely my creation. But I am the one that acts as the kind of filter for everything. It all comes through me, for the most part. The players in D&D are not really free to establish details in play or the thrust of play without me making it so.

I think that what has happened at the table is something we around the table have crafted. I have brought the setting and whatever obstacles/antagonists seem fitting; the players have brought their characters and described their actions. The fiction isn't complete if it's just me.

Yes, I absolutely agree. But the GM is absolutely vital to the process more so than any individual player. Again, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Many games have the GM as the primary source of the fiction, with the players only contributing through the actions they declare for their characters, and how those may influence the GM's ideas.

The kicker to me seems to be that the folks who balk at permerton's idea of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes are also folks who will acknowledge that the GM is the primary contributor to the fiction. Or the imagined shared idea space.

These two things seem to largely be the same thing, to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fiction can mean ‘made up’ but it can also mean ‘a story’ or ‘a novel’. The problem of equivocation with this term is very real in these discussions

It can mean a lie, too. Or anything that is made up. Fiction does have multiple definitions, this is true, but that doesn't make it somehow impossible to understand what people mean when they use it in gaming.

Living world is far more open to interpretation and therefore equivocation.

I mean, when asked to define how I mean fiction, I can reply with "make believe", right? Pretty clear and no attempt at equivocation.

Give me your equally concise description of Living World. Hell, I'd say take an entire sentence rather than two words.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And my point is that it has been used (IMO incorrectly) in this discussion as a primary definition of a style... that is why there has been such pushback by many.

And, again, I assure you it has not. It has been used primarily in the context of how GM Notes are used, because that's the topic of the thread.

You're imagining a slight that doesn't actually exist.