What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

Let's use the pitfighter example, just to keep things streamlined. In our sandbox game you say to me I want to play a fighter who wants to be the best pit fighter in the realm. One of two things happen, I either have pitfighters written in somewhere and I can suggest that as a where you're from, or I don't and I can say hmm, well, these places all work, whaddya think? There's a third option of course, being this world doesn't have pitfighters, which is appropriate, but how often is that actually the case in a fantasy world? All of this is possible in a Gm notes/pure sandbox setting. The dramatic goal of becoming a renowned pitfighter will naturally emerge in play to the extent you as a player use it inform decisions and roleplay and I as a GM use that input to decide on consequences and frame future action. This is true no matter the setting.

Well, the pure OSR sandbox guys I know don't ask questions in the way you mean, not about the setting anyway, nor are players interested in answering them. In those games the sandbox setting is GM notes and random tables with zero player input or reworking based on said input (and that is the way they want it).

What you will tend to see in sandboxes is GMs answering questions based on fidelity to the world. But that IS NOT fidelity to the notes. If the players want to be ptfighters and I have no notes about pit fighters in my GM notes, I need to answer the question still. The pure sandbox approach most likely to answer that question based on whether they reasonably ought to exist. Bbut as Fenris points out how many fantasy worlds wouldn’t have that? It’s possible. The GM can decide sone things simply don’t exist (and these decisions can be important for maintaining the setting integrity).

These three quoted passages were posted as part of a discussion about satisfying PC dramatic needs in the context of sandbox play. I'm trying to make sense of them. I'm not 100% sure that I have, yet.

I'll keep running with the pitfighter example.

The GM implicitly or expressly invites the player to state a dramatic need for his/her PC. The player says I am - or I will be - the best pit fighter in the realm. The GM then either, based on notes, (1) tells the player where the PC is from; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (2) says "You could be from here, or here, or here - whaddya think?"; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (3) says "Sorry, there are no pitfighters in this world".

I'm still not clear how (2) is different from asking questions and building on the answers. The GM has asked a question - what's your dramatic need? And has got a reply, and then built on that with a further question - whaddya think about being from here, or here, or here? And then based on that answer, it is now established that either here, or here, or here, pitfighters are to be found.

If what happens is (1) or (3) instead, then we don't have asking questions and building on the answers. We have GM world building, and in a sense it is "coincidence" that the players PC idea does, or doesn't, fit into that. To the extent that it's not really coincidence because the GM has built the world having regard to anticipated and desired PC dramatic needs, then we seem to have an attempt to produce the same sort of outcome as asking questions and building on the answers but via anticipation rather than actual exchange. A variation would be moving the asking of questions and building on the answers to "session zero" rather than doing it during play.

The GMs logic and creativity are expected to play a role as well in answering a question like “is there a cultivation sect or sects in the city” or respond to actions like the players trying to negotiate with the prince for control of recently discovered salt deposits in the desert that they stumbled upon in a recent venture south. and even something like the salt deposits might not have bee. In notes or a map before hand. I usually do like to put down firm geography like that but often on a large scale. I may still have to answer a question specific to a smaller area like ‘are there any natural resources in this hill’ on the fly

there are always limits to a GMs knowledge of the world, he or she needs to at sone point make a creative decision about what exists exactly in this space that had just opened up due to player actions, questions, etc. in pure sandbox that is usually going to be informed by existing knowledge of the setting (not necessarily notes), may be shaped by random rolls, or simply decided based on what is interesting.

To me, this sounds like adding to or building on the GM's notes during play. The difference from asking questions and building on the answers seems to be that only the GM gets to reflect on the fiction so far and extrapolate to new fiction.

As some posters have said (eg @Maxperson, @Emerikol) they prefer to engage with fiction in this fashion. Rather than contributing directly to it themselves. And as @hawkeyefan has said, this seems to be an example of the players learning either (i) what is already in the GM's notes, or (ii) what the GM is extrapolating to and (literally or figuratively) adding to his/her notes.

 

[pemerton]

The way he described it was the players sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover." By the time they settle on something, any surprise and discovery is over with. They know the options and voted for the one they prefer most.

he later described the players just sitting around talking discussing what they would "discover"(In quotes, because it's not discovery if you are deciding it) from the barkeep. THAT is what I described as ruining the game.

In these posts, "he" refers to @innerdude. Maxperson also posts the following, as a paraphrase/reiteration of the above:

To discover something, it has to be unknown before you discover it. If you're sitting around with the group hashing out which of 8 things the innkeeper is going to have as information, none of those are unknowns. You may not know which of the knowns is going to be picked until the final decision is made, but you do know it will be among those choices.

Here is what innerdude actually posted:

thinking of even a basic interaction between a barkeep and a PC---obviously everything the GM says as coming out of the barkeep's mouth is now part of the fiction, right? That's all "improv," in the moment fiction generation.

And it happens all the time in RPG play. Like, practically non-stop.

But I think it goes back to the whole concept of when an actual game mechanics loop initiates. When do players usually indicate they want to invoke the game mechanics? When they want something, and there's some debate as to how to determine if what they want ends up being true or false.

A simple improv conversation between a barkeep and the party can establish dozens upon dozens of fictional "truths," none of which the party disagrees with or takes issue with. In fact, some of the established truths may provide hooks or spin-offs for the party to grab on to.

But as soon as a character says, "Does this barkeep know anything interesting?"

In traditional play, that's 100% the call of the GM. Maybe the GM's notes say, "This barkeep has no useful information related to the party's quest."

Maybe the GM notes say, "The barkeep may provide information about X, Y, or Z, depending on reaction rolls."

Maybe the GM has no notes written at all, but says, "Oh yeah! He totally knows something! Blah blah blah MacGuffin treasure blah blah."

Or you take something like Ironsworn, which says that you make a check, and based on the level of success, the bartender may provide 2 bits of highly useful information, 1 bit of moderately useful information that also contains a potential obstacle, or zero bits of useful information and some other complications arise.

This completely takes the result out of the GM's hands. Even if the GM then narrates something (s)he hadn't prefabricated, it was a result of the rule being invoked, and all participants agreeing to abide by the stated rule structure.

But what's really happening is that Ironsworn is going out of its way to bypass all of the "sussing out what's in the GM's notes" bit.

In Ironsworn, this [ie that the "notes" are in fact the sole property of the GM] would never be the baseline assumption.

The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves. While the rules do suggest that in "guided"/GM-led play that the GM has the final word, everything in the rules suggests these points of resolution should be collaborative. Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place.

Participants are told to consider the fiction and situation to appropriately create the information gathered. Moreover, on a strong success, the rules suggest that the information should be useful, relevant, and immediately actionable. In other words, even if the GM is the sole generator of the "notes" in question (again, this is NOT the baseline assumption), (s)he is constrained by the rules to provide a specific type of information. Any level of "plot blocking" by the GM, for whatever agenda, is prohibited by rule in the case of a strong success.

Whereas with D&D, Savage Worlds, WoD, GURPS, whatever trad system you like, there are no codified constraints on what the GM must provide as the successful result of a check. (S)he is free to provide as much or as little information as (s)he likes, along whatever fictional thread (s)he deems relevant.

In Ironsworn, the baseline assumption is not, "The GM's job and role is to create the fictional stuff."

<snip>

*Edit---in retrospect, I don't know if I properly emphasized---in Ironsworn, the rules constrain the type, value, and relevance of the information gathered in ways that are simply not present in D&D. Even if the GM is forced to create something "off the cuff" (again, not even the baseline assumption for Ironsworn), the nature of the "notes" must fall in line with the rule as presented, or (s)he is just as guilty of breaking the rules as a player would be for adding an extra, unwarranted +1 to every combat roll.

So notice that @innerdude doesn't say either of the things that @Maxperson attributes to him.

There is no reference to voting for known options. Nor is there any reference to sitting around discussing what sorts of things to "discover." What innerdude describes is completely standard PbtA-type stuff: there are action resolution mechanics that establish obligations to narrate new fiction under certain sorts of constraints (eg 2 pieces of useful information).

What innerdude refers to absolutely permits discovery. "Fifteen or twenty times over 3 sessions I've watched players invoke a move, see the results, and said, "Wow, cool. So what just happened?" And I end up genuinely surprised by what takes place." That's discovery! By GM and players. It is the result of applying standard PbtA techniques: all the participants bouncing off the existing fiction to establish new fiction having regard to the constraints that the mechanics establish.

You can do similar things in other systems - eg Classic Traveller or Prince Valiant, just to nominate two I'm familiar with at the moment - although they don't have quite as robust a framework for this as PbtA games.

EDIT: We can also talk about what features of a system permit this sort of thing. There has to be an absence of resolution frameworks that dictate outcomes that get in the way of the PbtA-ish back-and-forth: Rolemaster, with its many interacting components that make tracking ingame time crucial and that require rolls to be made for a large number of somewhat mundane actions undertaken by characters, would be an example of a system that does have frameworks that get in the way.

The game also has to be robust in play without all the fiction being pinned down, precisely so that the back-and-forth can be used to achieve that pinning down. Classic Traveller and Prince Valiant both work very well in this respect (with one exception for Traveller: onworld exploration); contrast Moldvay Basic, which in most of its action resolution rules (movement, exploration, etc) relies upon very detailed fiction already being established (secretly, by the referee) so that it can feed into those action resolution processes.

 

[Maxperson]

So notice that @innerdude doesn't say either of the things that @Maxperson attributes to him.

In one of the posts you quoted...

"The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves."

So yes, the players are sitting around hashing out what the information will be. I mean seriously man, people can read.

 

[Maxperson]

As some posters have said (eg @Maxperson, @Emerikol) they prefer to engage with fiction in this fashion. Rather than contributing directly to it themselves. And as @hawkeyefan has said, this seems to be an example of the players learning either (i) what is already in the GM's notes, or (ii) what the GM is extrapolating to and (literally or figuratively) adding to his/her notes.

Sure, but 1) The bolded portion means improvising = DM notes, so improv games also involve the DM adding to his notes, and 2) that does not equate to, "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes."

 

[Bedrockgames]

These three quoted passages were posted as part of a discussion about satisfying PC dramatic needs in the context of sandbox play. I'm trying to make sense of them. I'm not 100% sure that I have, yet.

I'll keep running with the pitfighter example.

The GM implicitly or expressly invites the player to state a dramatic need for his/her PC. The player says I am - or I will be - the best pit fighter in the realm. The GM then either, based on notes, (1) tells the player where the PC is from; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (2) says "You could be from here, or here, or here - whaddya think?"; or the GM, extrapolating from notes, (3) says "Sorry, there are no pitfighters in this world".

I'm still not clear how (2) is different from asking questions and building on the answers. The GM has asked a question - what's your dramatic need? And has got a reply, and then built on that with a further question - whaddya think about being from here, or here, or here? And then based on that answer, it is now established that either here, or here, or here, pitfighters are to be found.

If what happens is (1) or (3) instead, then we don't have asking questions and building on the answers. We have GM world building, and in a sense it is "coincidence" that the players PC idea does, or doesn't, fit into that. To the extent that it's not really coincidence because the GM has built the world having regard to anticipated and desired PC dramatic needs, then we seem to have an attempt to produce the same sort of outcome as asking questions and building on the answers but via anticipation rather than actual exchange. A variation would be moving the asking of questions and building on the answers to "session zero" rather than doing it during play.

Part of it is this isn't as black and white as 'referencing the notes or not referencing the notes'. I think if you are simply saying there are two types of games: ones where the players can contribute to the setting out of character and one where they cannot contribute to the setting out of character. Then I Suppose this is accurate. I don't know that calling it referencing the notes makes sense to me. But I would also point out this is a very limited example. We are talking about the character creation phase. In my experience almost every sandbox GM handles that part of the game differently. Some insult on using pure randomness to generate characters, some allow for back and forth, some allow for mild amounts of setting creation (for example it would be over the line I think in most typical sandboxes for the player to propose a kingdom and for that to now exist in the setting: but proposing a wealthy family of merchants that come from a city in the north, or proposing a neighborhood in one of the GMs cities where the children fought for copper coins in the streets and as a result it has produced a number of skilled pit fighters, those latter examples would probably be okay in a lot of sandbox campaigns, not everyone but a lot). Again this is a pretty organic, group dependent part of the game. I think no matter what style you are playing it is really going to vary. But once play begins, my point about the pit fighters is the players do get to shape the setting through their character, and the focus of play is largely around that energy that arises when the players take initiative. I wouldn't describe that as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. Notes may be relevant and important. But a lot of it is going to be the GM having to come up with and extrapolate answers on the fly in response to the players prodding in different directions (and that is very different from referencing the notes alone because if you were just referencing the notes, your answer would be 'no you don't find anything like that' to anything that doesn't seem to have an answer in the notes. A living world sandbox GM is more likely to be taking the position of "let me think and decide if that is reasonable or fits with the world or campaign concept". Generally the world is coming from the GM, and that is an important distinction in most pure sandboxes. But the you can't just ignore the talk of 'living world' and the world being alive because that is so important to this playstyle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There are techniques/tools (like Clocks) that are absolutely style-independent (they work as a framework for the Skilled Play of Moldvay Basic, they work for Story Now scene/conflict resolution like Skill Challenges, they work for Sandbox offscreen Faction resolution like in Blades).

However, there are also techniques that are absolutely style-dependent and style-anathema.

Consider our past conversations where you were certain that the implications of Fail Forward on certain forms of Skilled Play led to incoherency of play priorities. Fail Forward is fantastic for the Story Now usage of Clocks (eg 4e Skill Challenges). However, if you put Fail Forward into the Skilled Play imperatives of exploratory Dungeon Delving (therefore you MUST integrate it with the Wandering Monster/Rest Clock)...Houston...we've got a problem. The Skilled Play priority becomes perturbed, and therefore, diminished.

One problem I've encountered anytime we talk about styles in gaming (and it honestly doesn't matter if one is coming from the perspective of things like story now or pure sandbox) is most groups don't have a style. Just like most groups of diners don't have a shared palate. GMing, in my opinion is like preparing a red sauce for a family of five: you are going to either have to force feed them your idea of what red sauce should be or you are going to have to adjust the recipe to fit everyone (if Michael doesn't like onions, you might have to lower the amount of onion; if Alexa doesn't like the bitter taste of tomato paste in the sauce, you might have to use no or little tomato paste or balance it out with sugar, honey or shredded carrot, etc). It is great to talk about styles in their platonic ideal. But my experience at the table is a lot of heartache can arise trying to take platonic ideals acquired in forums and bring them to a table of five people with very different tastes. For me, I always adapt to the group I have. If two players really want adventures with structure to them, even though this is a sandbox campaign that doesn't normally feature those, I am going to bring them in to help balance things out. I will say one thing I do like about sandbox in this respect, is it is often a great baseline for a mixed group which you can evolve as you go. By the same token if I have players who desperately love having dramatic things going on with their characters and NPCs, I can accommodate that. It isn't going to kill me to do these things, and I don't think it is wise to get too precious about the underlying structure when different needs are emerging at the table. In terms of how well one has to understand the tools one is using: sure probably. But a lot of this is stuff people do without having a language for and just grasp intuitively at the table. You an learn music theory to make music, but it isn't the only way (and I don't think gaming has anything close to music theory)

 

[pemerton]

In relation to prepare situations, not plots:

When the players, via their PCs, confront a situation - (i) how is it decided what is at stake? (ii) how is it decided what will be the consequences of the players' declared actions for their PCs? (iii) how is it decided when the situation is "resolved"?

Different games answer this differently. These different answers, pretty naturally, produce different play experiences.

Here's an example, from Classic Traveller (Book 1, p 16 of the 1977 edition):

The individual [with Vacc Suit skill] has been trained, and has experience, in the use of standard vacuum suits (space suits), including armoured battle dress and suits for use on various planetary surfaces in the presence of exotic, corrosive or insidious atmospheres.

Non-breathable atmospheres or hostile environments can be easily overcome by use of protective equipment, but the danger of minor mishaps becoming fatal is great. A basic throw of 10+ to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual while wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc). DM: +4 per level of expertise.

When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+. DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: −4.​

So if the situation includes that the PC is in some sort of vacuum or non-breathable atmosphere, and the player's response is to have his/her PC perform a non-ordinary manoeuvre, then we have a procedure to follow: first, check to see if a dangerous situation arises; if it does, then second, check to see if the incident is able to be remedied. The details of the dangerous situation (in my experience, at least) will typically be established by the GM and player reflecting on the details of the current fictional circumstances, and what the player is having his/her PC try and do, and then thinking up something that makes sense.

This particular little sequence of play is somewhat comparable to a PbtA-type move.

It can be contrasted with the same sort of fictional situation adjudicated using Space Master. Space Master (1988 edition) has no vacc suit (or similar) skill in its Player Book. There are skills that might be relevant for some of those non-ordinary manoeuvres (Climbing, Hiding, Acrobatics, etc) and there are rules for the affect of various suits on these skills (Manoeuvring in Armour skill is the relevant subystem) but there is no mechanical framework that says how to call for skill checks, how to determine if a failed check causes a possibly life-threatening situation in a vacuum or hostile atmosphere, how such an incident might be remedied, etc. In Space Master this all depends on GM decision-making. A very different play experience results.

 

[pemerton]

In one of the posts you quoted...

"The baseline assumption is that the group collectively determines what those pieces of information are, possibly even rolling on an "oracles" table if there's not a full agreement or if the group wants to be surprised themselves."

So yes, the players are sitting around hashing out what the information will be. I mean seriously man, people can read.

Maxperson, have you played these games? Do you know how those decisions are made? What extent of the discussion is in character or out of character? Whether or not voting - a word you used - is relevant?

 

[pemerton]

Sure, but 1) The bolded portion means improvising = DM notes, so improv games also involve the DM adding to his notes, and 2) that does not equate to, "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes."

No. There is an obvious difference between a GM extrapolating from his/her notes to create more "virtual" notes and a player extrapolating from the established fiction at the table to posit a new fictional element. As @innerdude already posted.

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson, have you played these games? Do you know how those decisions are made? What extent of the discussion is in character or out of character? Whether or not voting - a word you used - is relevant?

I know what "collectively determines" means. The exact method may vary, but it's still the group figuring it out, so there is no real discovery going on. He also mentioned random rolls on charts, but that isn't the group determining anything.