What is the point of GM's notes?

[Campbell]

Here's what I can tell you about my experiences with playing Blades in the Dark : it was one of the most deeply immersive roleplaying experiences I have ever had. Getting to sit inside Candros Slane's head intermittently for 6 months and really get to know the rest of the Thorns of the Rose felt being another person to me who lives in a very different world. The way flashbacks, gathering information, equipment, stress, trauma, and downtime all came together really helped me experience a character who was quite different from me cognitively and emotionally. Where I experience the world intuitively and just like to be present in the moment (in my body) Candros was patient, prepared, and always thinking laterally.

That's what I personally value the most in roleplaying games as a player - the ability to step into the shoes of characters who do not see the world as I see it, who do not process information in the same way, who deal with different social pressures than I do. Apocalypse World lets me step into the shoes of someone who has a casual comfort with violence and is at heart a survivor. Blades asks me to step into the shoes of a master criminal who lives and dies by their next job. They are prepared, daring, and beaten down by the harshness of life.

The issue with more traditional play practices (in my opinion) from a character immersion perspective is that there is a narrower range where like on a cognitive, social and emotional level the characters we play have to be much closer to our own perspectives. I don't really ever get to play a character more cautious or prepared then I really am. I have to stay within a range that's more similar to me than even works in theater. Roleplaying than becomes more restrained (rather than less) restrained than acting.

 

[pemerton]

The experience of drinking the coffee is established after the experience of being asked the question. Just as in a flashback, the experience of having primed the safe to blow when I give the signal is established after the experience of giving the signal.

The establishment of the experience is not the experience. What you experience around the table is that the existence of the coffee is established, then the drinking of the coffee is established--neither of those is the experience of drinking the coffee. To the extent that you are experiencing what your character is, sitting around the breakfast fire, what you are experiencing is your character remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing.

And I gotta say that I'd probably have problems with any fiction that established what would happen on a given cue after showing that cue--it'd seem more graceful to put the flashback before showing the signal, don'tcha think?

I don't understand.

For my part, I can say that the drinking of the coffee and the priming of the safe are things that take place in the fiction. That they take place in the fiction is established at the table. In the examples being given - of a player having to decide whether or not his/her PC drank coffee because another character asks about it; of a player deciding that his/her PC primed the safe because now s/he wants to give the signal - something is being established at the table which in the fiction comes later but at the table is established first.

In the coffee case, at the table it is first established that there is a truth about whether or not my PC drank the coffee - because the other character asks me a question about it. Only then is there established a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the asking of the question - namely, did my character drink the coffee. This is not uncommon in RPGing, as @Manbearcat has already pointed out.

In the safe case, at the table it is first established that my character is giving the signal - I am declaring that as an action for my PC. I don't know exactly how BitD sets out the flashback mechanic, but my assumption is that as part of my declaring of the signal-giving action I am entitled to expend the appropriate resource (stress?) to then establish a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the giving of the signal - namely, the priming of the safe. (If for some reason you think that the flashback has to be established prior to actually giving the signal then in the preceding two sentences substitute, for giving the signal, thinking about giving the signal. The sentences remain true with that substitution and make exactly the same point.)

Someone may or may not enjoy that mechanic: @Campbell has explained how it helped him inhabit a character; @Emerikol has explained how it is at odds with prep-than-act skilled play.

But I don't think the way that it approaches the relationship between time at the table and time in the fiction is particularly remarkable.

 

[prabe]

I don't understand.

It's possible that I don't understand, either. Let me try again, please.

For my part, I can say that the drinking of the coffee and the priming of the safe are things that take place in the fiction. That they take place in the fiction is established at the table. In the examples being given - of a player having to decide whether or not his/her PC drank coffee because another character asks about it; of a player deciding that his/her PC primed the safe because now s/he wants to give the signal - something is being established at the table which in the fiction comes later but at the table is established first.

I think we're establishing something happened earlier in the fiction, so something else can draw on it, either in the present or in the near future. Essentially, we're establishing that the gun has been on the mantelpiece the whole time, so we can take it down and fire it. In one case the metaphorical gun is a pot of coffee; in the other, it's an explosive device on a safe. Yes?

In the coffee case, at the table it is first established that there is a truth about whether or not my PC drank the coffee - because the other character asks me a question about it. Only then is there established a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the asking of the question - namely, did my character drink the coffee. This is not uncommon in RPGing, as @Manbearcat has already pointed out.

My point is that the people around the table are experiencing those things being established in the fiction--in the order they're established around the table. In the fiction, your character is remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing as drinking the coffee. There is no non-linearity here.

In the safe case, at the table it is first established that my character is giving the signal - I am declaring that as an action for my PC. I don't know exactly how BitD sets out the flashback mechanic, but my assumption is that as part of my declaring of the signal-giving action I am entitled to expend the appropriate resource (stress?) to then establish a truth which is, in the fiction, prior to the giving of the signal - namely, the priming of the safe. (If for some reason you think that the flashback has to be established prior to actually giving the signal then in the preceding two sentences substitute, for giving the signal, thinking about giving the signal. The sentences remain true with that substitution and make exactly the same point.)

I don't remember how the mechanics work in Blades, but in any authored fiction I'd strongly expect to see the explosive and the cue established before showing the cue in the main narrative timeline. Even here, I think it's worth remembering that the experience around the table--and the narrative structure applied--is not exactly what the characters are experiencing. The non-linearity is entirely in the narrative, not in the character's experience--and this disjunction, I think, is at the heart of some people's aesthetic dislike for it, especially if those people don't find themselves drifting into thousands of words of narrative if the aroma of a pastry wafts across their face.

Someone may or may not enjoy that mechanic: @Campbell has explained how it helped him inhabit a character; @Emerikol has explained how it is at odds with prep-than-act skilled play.

But I don't think the way that it approaches the relationship between time at the table and time in the fiction is particularly remarkable.

I concur that the big disconnect is probably for people who feel that the Flashback mechanic (among others) detracts from the pleasure/s they want out of their TRPGs. As you (I think) imply, most of those pleasures are going to be better-served by plan-then-act play.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's possible that I don't understand, either. Let me try again, please.

I think we're establishing something happened earlier in the fiction, so something else can draw on it, either in the present or in the near future. Essentially, we're establishing that the gun has been on the mantelpiece the whole time, so we can take it down and fire it. In one case the metaphorical gun is a pot of coffee; in the other, it's an explosive device on a safe. Yes?

My point is that the people around the table are experiencing those things being established in the fiction--in the order they're established around the table. In the fiction, your character is remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing as drinking the coffee. There is no non-linearity here.

I don't remember how the mechanics work in Blades, but in any authored fiction I'd strongly expect to see the explosive and the cue established before showing the cue in the main narrative timeline. Even here, I think it's worth remembering that the experience around the table--and the narrative structure applied--is not exactly what the characters are experiencing. The non-linearity is entirely in the narrative, not in the character's experience--and this disjunction, I think, is at the heart of some people's aesthetic dislike for it, especially if those people don't find themselves drifting into thousands of words of narrative if the aroma of a pastry wafts across their face.

I concur that the big disconnect is probably for people who feel that the Flashback mechanic (among others) detracts from the pleasure/s they want out of their TRPGs. As you (I think) imply, most of those pleasures are going to be better-served by plan-then-act play.

The formulation is the following:

* All TTRPGs elide a significant amount of what would otherwise be experienced temporal continuity (and the events which unfold within those elided intervals) as a matter of course.

* Hence, no TTRPG character actually experiences temporal continuity.

* A satire/farce could be made out of this akin to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead trying to suss out the nature of the contrivances and the lapses of time/events of their lives (because, as we know, their lives are contrivances riddled with lapses just like PCs).

* There is no conceptual difference between the backfilling of elided PC time whether it’s recalling/recounting something as inconsequential as drinking (or not) coffee this morning or as consequential as paying off the maitre d’ to stash a mini revolver in the kettle on the kitchen stove this morning.

Both happened this morning.

Both involve kettles.

Both involve other characters.

Both involve an action in the “present” engaging with the contrivance of a prior elided interval of time which fundamentally demonstrates temporal continuity does not exist in the shared imagined space.

 

[prabe]

* All TTRPGs elide a significant amount of what would otherwise be experienced temporal continuity (and the events which unfold within those elided intervals) as a matter of course.

* Hence, no TTRPG character actually experiences temporal continuity.

* A satire/farce could be made out of this akin to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead trying to suss out the nature of the contrivances and the lapses of time/events of their lives (because, as we know, their lives are contrivances riddled with lapses just like PCs).

By that formulation, practically no fictional character (I'm sure someone can point out an exception) experiences temporal continuity. Because narrative structures play games with time, I think it's at least as reasonable to say that the audiences of fictional stories don't see those elided intervals because the authors choose not to show them; but what happens in those elided intervals happens whether it's observed or not (quantum theory be damned). Otherwise, I think you end up with Rosencrantz and/or Guildenstern, or something more modern like Dan Simmons' The Fifth Heart, wherein Sherlock Holmes has figured out he's a fictional character.

* There is no conceptual difference between the backfilling of elided PC time whether it’s recalling/recounting something as inconsequential as drinking (or not) coffee this morning or as consequential as paying off the maitre d’ to stash a mini revolver in the kettle on the kitchen stove this morning.

Both happened this morning.

Both involve kettles.

Both involve other characters.

Both involve an action in the “present” engaging with the contrivance of a prior elided interval of time which fundamentally demonstrates temporal continuity does not exist in the shared imagined space.

I don't think I disagree with you on this. The difference is not a matter of concept but one of consequence. I think I've said the consequential sort are about a different sort of pleasure than some people want out of their heist stories. I think some people are going to get kicked out a narrative if it jumps around in time, which might be different in different media (book versus movie versus TRPG).

 

[Manbearcat]

By that formulation, practically no fictional character (I'm sure someone can point out an exception) experiences temporal continuity. Because narrative structures play games with time, I think it's at least as reasonable to say that the audiences of fictional stories don't see those elided intervals because the authors choose not to show them; but what happens in those elided intervals happens whether it's observed or not (quantum theory be damned). Otherwise, I think you end up with Rosencrantz and/or Guildenstern, or something more modern like Dan Simmons' The Fifth Heart, wherein Sherlock Holmes has figured out he's a fictional character.

I don't think I disagree with you on this. The difference is not a matter of concept but one of consequence. I think I've said the consequential sort are about a different sort of pleasure than some people want out of their heist stories. I think some people are going to get kicked out a narrative if it jumps around in time, which might be different in different media (book versus movie versus TRPG).

On the first paragraph:

Yes, no fictional character experiences temporal continuity. Their “lives” and the imagined space that those “lives” occupy are meta-contrivances, given purpose by our hand/mind (to render an allegory, invest a story with dramatic arc, test an idea, play a game).

They don’t know this because they’re incapable of interacting with the “4th wall” ( unlike Bugs Bunny, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or Deadpool) because the only volition and persistence they posses is that which we invest them with (and it ceases when we elide intervals of their “lives”).

On the second paragraph:

This exactly! This is my point above about this being a proxy (whether intended or not) for Skilled Play priorities (some like Plan Now Act Later because of the strategic element being paramount vs Act Now Plan Later where the tactical element is paramount).

To bring another great satire into this, sub “Communism” for “temporal continuity” (even if it’s not intentionally a red herring):

 

[pemerton]

It's possible that I don't understand, either. Let me try again, please.

<snip>

In the fiction, your character is remembering drinking the coffee, which is not the same thing as drinking the coffee. There is no non-linearity here.

I think you're missing the point.

In order for my PC to remember that X, it has to be the case that X. (Otherwise it's a delusion, not a memory.)

So the fact that I narrate some recollection on my PC's part - of drinking, or not, the coffee - also establishes something prior ie that my PC did or didn't drink the coffee. And this happens at the table after I am prompted to by another character asking the question of my PC. So at the table we have (1) (a) Question asked which establishes, in the fiction (b) that my PC was asked a question about what s/he did earlier that morning and then (2) (a) My narration of my PC's answer, which may also include a recollection, but which - crucially for present purposes - establishes (b) that my PC drank, or didn't drink, some coffee earlier that morning.

At the table, the (2)(a) event comes after the (1)(a) event. In the fiction, the (2)(b) event (drinking, or not, the coffee) comes before the (1)(b) event (being asked the question).

That is my point, and as far as I can tell is also @Manbearcat's point.

Notice that if we change coffee to potion of longevity and we change the situation from after-breakfast free roleplaying to an encounter with an AD&D ghost, nothing changes about either the (a) sequence or the (b) sequence, but that @Emerikol and @Lanefan would insist that the player can't "retroactively" change the fictional past to make it the case that his/her PC drank the potion to get younger and hence build up a buffer against the ghost's aging power.

That is why I assert, and as far as I can tell @Manbearcat agrees, that what is at stake in relation to BitD flashback is not temporal sequence but rather a rule about when important stuff has to be established as part of a "plan than act" play priority (best elaborated, I think, by Gygax in the pages of his PHB just prior to the Appendices).

The non-linearity is entirely in the narrative, not in the character's experience--and this disjunction, I think, is at the heart of some people's aesthetic dislike for it

Exactly the same "non-linearity" is present in the coffee example - first we establish, in the narrative, that the character is asked an after-breakfast question about what happened at breakfast, and then we establish, as a component of the fiction, that something-or-other took place at breakfast.

If we imagine a film with this particular coffee example, there are (at least) two ways it could be done: the character is asked the question by X, and then narrates an answer; or, the character is asked the question by X, and then we have a flashback scene (perhaps in B/W or sepia or vaseline lens to make it clear) of the breakfast event taking place. But the use of either expository technique doesn't change the fact that the events of the fiction are being revealed in a sequence that differs from that in which they occurred in the fiction.

I don't know BitD, but I doubt that the Flashback mechanic cares whether a player narrates it as his/her PC recollecting his/her prior cunning planning, or narrates it in a somewhat impersonal past tense (as might happen in an omniscient narrator novel) or narrates it with a vivid sense of having been there (a RPG approximation to the cinematic flashback scene). What is fundamental is that the events of the fiction are established, and hence revealed, in a sequence that differs from that in which they occurred in the fiction.

Hence the identity of structure to the coffee example. And hence the assertion - given the ubiquity of stuff like the coffee example in RPGing - that the objection to the flashback mechanic must be grounded in something other than general aesthetic preference.

EDIT: I saw this in reply to @Manbearcat:

I don't think I disagree with you on this. The difference is not a matter of concept but one of consequence.

If this means what I think it means, then I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me and arguing that the coffee example exhibits a different relationship of real-world narrative events to imagined in-fiction events from a BitD flashback.

 

[Emerikol]

The only thing unique I see about Flashbacks is how they intersect with a particular variety of Skilled Play that is invested/interested in “Plan Now, Act Later” instead of “Act Now, Plan Later.” That is a perfectly reasonable preference for a particular Skilled Play experience that very interestingly dovetails with the Skilled Play priority of “I prefer Combat as War” (vs Sport). While both priorities feature tactical and strategic decision-making, overhead, and consequences, War is more about planning and strategy while Sport is more about acting and tactics.

I think this factors into it no doubt. So it would be a major objection on it's own merits alone.

I think though the version of skilled play we are discussing here is very much the natural outcome of character viewpoint play. That is what you would do if you were that character. You'd plan because if you don't you might die. There is no stepping back.

Also, any time the player manufactures additional facts about reality on the fly, this to me is stepping out of character because I don't do that in real life. I already know what I know. You see the character already knew about the flashback. So the player is learning about what the character supposedly already knows. The problem though is that clashes directly with the idea that the player is the character and knows what the character knows.

Now your examples about minor details could go exactly as you say and most people just don't care about those things. It would not though be out of bounds if the player asked the DM what it tasted like and would he like it. It's not important so it's glossed over. Fact is I don't think my characters would ever ask that question. So if asked, I imagine my characters would ask about what the coffee was like flavor wise or they'd just handwave it and say "fine". If the guy has a super high cooking skill maybe they'd say it was "good".

So let's suppose we were talking pizza and the campaign is moderns. It might be a background fact that you are from NY and it might be that NY style pizza just fits your character identity. That would be fine. When the guy from Chicago offers you his style of pizza you might reply "eh nice pizza flavored casserole but I thought you were making pizza?" (I hope my own preference isn't too obvious ;-)).

 

[Emerikol]

I wouldn't say the flashback mechanic is the sole reason Blades would not be a game I'd want to play in a big campaign. It's just one of many all based upon a common premise.

When the player's time sequence differs from the character's that is bad in my approach to the game. I am trying to be in my characters shoes, seeing through my characters eyes, and being my character. Experience time like my character does. That to me is character immersion.

I do find the following to be my experience on these and other boards.

me: I don't like game Z because I can't achieve X

others: Oh I achieve X all the time. (Then proceeds to redefine X to not mean X as I've used it for 30 years.)

It can be frustrating because the terms keep moving under your feet and you can't really even have a conversation because whatever term you use someone will quickly redefine it.

The only other place I've seen this commonly is in theological discussions and I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a connection there.

 

[darkbard]

I think though the version of skilled play we are discussing here is very much the natural outcome of character viewpoint play. That is what you would do if you were that character. You'd plan because if you don't you might die. There is no stepping back.

Also, any time the player manufactures additional facts about reality on the fly, this to me is stepping out of character because I don't do that in real life. I already know what I know. You see the character already knew about the flashback. So the player is learning about what the character supposedly already knows. The problem though is that clashes directly with the idea that the player is the character and knows what the character knows.

What do you mean by natural, above? Something like the inevitable consequence of play without interfering artifice? But if so, that suggests One True Wayism, doesn't it?

Further, and I don't know how to say this more clearly, you are never your character. Willing suspension of disbelief to experience the game (mostly in brief flashes) as if you were your character is a fine goal, but you, the player do not understand how to manipulate magical energy fields to conjure a ball of fire, call upon your deity to produce a miracle lifting a plague that devastates a village, have the physical strength and dexterity to flip and somersault across a room wherein vicious monsters threaten your life at every turn, or have the experience of a criminal mastermind in planning an infiltration heist into a high security vault. (I speak in the aggregate here; there may be some specific exceptions in some readers to some proposed examples.) There are many, many things your character knows but you do not, as has been pointed out in countless threads across the years. You gloss over things you, the player, don't actually know or experience in play all the time. But you don't suppose your character doesn't know the things they are expert in!

Why is it so hard for you to believe someone can experience the game through "character viewpoint" only by supposing that their mastermind criminal would know something the player does not and plan accordingly but that this might manifest through the use of flashbacks because the player only now realizes something their character would have known or done? I fully understand why this would spoil your enjoyment of the game, but why you think it cannot be a "natural outcome" of seeing the world through the character's viewpoint is frustrating, to say the least.