What is the point of GM's notes?

[prabe]

I'm not saying that GMs shouldn't have their fun, of course they should or no one would do the job. I just have my doubts about the idea of GM immersion, which sounds to me even more pie in the sky that player immersion as any kind of identifiable specific thing.

Yeah, agreed. I didn't think you were saying GMs shouldn't have fun (or even shouldn't have that fun). I was, I think, more trying to take any sting out of the "creative yayas" phrasing.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I'm telling you that it is the same. Yes it's harder, because of the other stuff I deal with. But it does happen with some of the NPCs. It's exactly the same as when I immerse as a player, except for the duration.

If you look at the requirements most people cite as necessary for immersion then you'd be wrong. Personally, I don't actually buy immersion like that as a thing anyway. I think that immersion into the game is a much more explicable phenomenon than the mythical immersion into character. The thing I'm talking about is very possible, and desirable for GMs.

 

[Maxperson]

If you look at the requirements most people cite as necessary for immersion then you'd be wrong. Personally, I don't actually buy immersion like that as a thing anyway. I think that immersion into the game is a much more explicable phenomenon than the mythical immersion into character. The thing I'm talking about is very possible, and desirable for GMs.

I don't give a flying fig what people list as "requirements." I know I immerse as both player and DM. Period. I can't be wrong on this. It's exactly the same except for duration. Maybe other people need more to get them there than I do. I don't know. We're all different.

Being different might explain why you don't buy into immersion. You might not be able to achieve it.

 

[Aldarc]

So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?

Much earlier (maybe midway) in the conversation, Bedrockgames and I had an exchange about the GM as both the computer and software for the game. This discussion included the idea of the GM as the game's chief filter. I can't remember if we talked about it there or not, but there was also vaguely this idea amidst all this computer game talk of "playing the GM" in order for them to generate more world content that the players could interact with.

 

[Fenris-77]

The GM is pretty obviously the vector of new things. Who else is doing that job, even in a player authoring game? Mostly the GM, that's who. Regardless of table expectations and style, the GM still does the heavy lifting, period. We talk about prep and off the cuff, but the weight doesn't change there.

 

[tetrasodium]

The GM is pretty obviously the vector of new things. Who else is doing that job, even in a player authoring game? Mostly the GM, that's who. Regardless of table expectations and style, the GM still does the heavy lifting, period. We talk about prep and off the cuff, but the weight doesn't change there.

I talked about gate earlier. Even in fate the GM has much more control and influence than the players and often has options they don't. The tm is still largely driving g things even if it's a passive uber type control.

 

[Fenris-77]

I talked about gate earlier. Even in fate the GM has much more control and influence than the players and often has options they don't. The tm is still largely driving g things even if it's a passive uber type control.

Sure, what we're talking about is the idea, or maybe even the possibility of something called GM immersion. I would submit its impossible based on descriptions of what people expect out of player immersion, but I also don't really believe that player immersion is a thing the way some people want it to be. I don't think you need nothing but non-meta (whatever that is) mechanics to be able to 'immerse'. I think immersion into the game in a thing, and sometimes that might verge on character immersion, but it's not the holy grail that sandbox zealots want it to be. YMMV, of course.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm watching Questing Beast host a discussion on YouTube with Sandy Petersen, John Wick, and Lindybeige about running sandbox games. At the section bookmarked in the video called "Providing Solutions," the guests talk about the issue of how players solve problems presented to them in sandbox games. In particular, Questing Beast talks about the annoyance he experienced in some games that "the goal is to guess what the game master is thinking. That they have come up with a solution and the goal is to figure out whatever it is they are imagining... and a lot of players have that mentality too..." and then they talk immediately after that about making stuff up on the spot as the GM (e.g., the guard the PCs knocked out having a key in their pocket).

Edit: This also just gets better because they are talking about players establishing facts in the world.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm watching Questing Beast host a discussion on YouTube with Sandy Petersen, John Wick, and Lindybeige about running sandbox games. At the section bookmarked in the video called "Providing Solutions," the guests talk about the issue of how players solve problems presented to them in sandbox games. In particular, Questing Beast talks about the annoyance he experienced in some games that "the goal is to guess what the game master is thinking. That they have come up with a solution and the goal is to figure out whatever it is they are imagining... and a lot of players have that mentality too..." and then they talk immediately after that about making stuff up on the spot as the GM (e.g., the guard the PCs knocked out having a key in their pocket).

Edit: This also just gets better because they are talking about players establishing facts in the world.

I run a D&D sandbox game. With regards to finding keys in the pocket of the guards
The methods I commonly use are say yes or roll a skill check or just make a luck roll (odds or evens, above 10).
There are ofcourse situations where I may say no to something, for instance if I'm using a map and there is no secret door in the place they are searching for one.

I do not think the above is establishing facts.
It is more, the player provides an idea and the GM runs with it, which is itself not revolutionary as GMs have often run off player ideas presented at the table, from the existence of keys, to the entire sessions, to massive-story arcs within campaigns (and this even in D&D).

 

[Emerikol]

LIVING WORLD TRAITS

• GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
• These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
• Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

I agree with this practically. I would nuance it a little bit. A sandbox is a contrivance to make the task of running a living world easier (possible?). Like I said, if you were a billionaire and hired a hundred people to keep the entire world detailed out to sandbox level, you would still have a living world. So a sandbox is not an absolute necessity though it may be a practical requirement due to the limitations of human DMs. This nuance though is probably sandblasting a soda cracker.

The word "gamist" currently has two different meanings in an rpg context. One derives from its use by the Forge in GNS theory, which was itself based on the Threefold Model which dates at least as far back as 1997. This refers to challenge-oriented play ie challenging the players.

The second meaning is, in my opinion, much more recent and means something like a dissociated mechanic or ludonarrative dissonance – a game mechanic that doesn’t refer to anything in the game world or is at odds with the 'reality' of the game world.

I think there is a third definition. When a regular word becomes a game term. For example, in D&D there is the concept of advantage. That means a specific thing in game and it is based upon the idea of the english word but it is far more limited and focused. I can have many advantages in D&D and not have "advantage" and thus advantage has become a gamist term.

I think in our discussions we have gotten into a lot of conflict when some people only know the English word and not the gamist term. Things like Living World, Protagonism, Fiction, and a host of other things have been gamified at times. And @hawkeyefan, I believe others have used a more limited usage of Fiction than you proposed earlier. So perhaps you have a broader view but not everyone on that side does.

I think as long as we can clarify things it's kind of pointless to keep belaboring these terms. If they are truly offensive I guess we could not use them but as long as we know "what is meant" then I think we are fine.