What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

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.

It's the same difference. If I've pre-determined something, it's established fiction, just like if you've come up with some piece of fiction on the fly and established it. So we're both starting from the same point. Established fiction. Now the players make declarations of actions or the equivalent. Happens in both styles of games. We're still paralleling. Now, the DM comes with an extrapolation based on the established fiction and the players actions and comes up with a result(fictional element).

The method is different, but the result seems anywhere from similar to the same to me.

 

[Campbell]

@Bedrockgames

I don't see different sorts of roleplaying game styles as platonic ideals anymore than I would see poker, spades, or euchre as some sort of platonic ideal. I find that most people if they are willing to give a game a real shot can enjoy a variety of different play experiences. I can't imagine always playing the same sort of game in the same sort of way with the same people. I honestly think the player type style analysis that pegs players into round little holes we expect them to always conform to does most players a great disservice.

For me personally some of my worst experiences in gaming have come from a GM attempting to make tonal and style shifts to please players (often me). I can enjoy most games even games I'm not super keen on, but nothing disrupts the experience for me like the game shifting from under me.

Furthermore when I read accounts of playing with people who all interested in these vastly different things it kind of puts me off because it seems like everyone is just there for their own kinks - not really playing a game together. I would much rather play a game that is less than ideal for me that is a shared experience than one built to fulfill individual player desires separately. What's fun for me is not fun if the other people at the table are not into it.

 

[innerdude]

It's the same difference. If I've pre-determined something, it's established fiction, just like if you've come up with some piece of fiction on the fly and established it. So we're both starting from the same point. Established fiction. Now the players make declarations of actions or the equivalent. Happens in both styles of games. We're still paralleling. Now, the DM comes with an extrapolation based on the established fiction and the players actions and comes up with a result(fictional element).

The method is different, but the result seems anywhere from similar to the same to me.

The big, massive, major difference---in Ironsworn, the GM's notes/prefabrications are not considered privileged, nor are the players expected to bend/shape proposed resolutions such that they fit in to the GM's notes/prefabrications (assuming there are any).

If a player's proposed change to the fiction state is fully consistent with the situation, framing, and mechanical outcome, and the group agrees that this change in the fiction is now true, there is no option for the GM to say, "Hey, whoah whoah whoah --- if what you've just said is true, it will completely invalidate Scene 24 [a smashing scene, in which there aren't any coconuts], will completely ruin what I had planned for NPC McDizzle, and it completely invalidates what was supposed to happen in the city of Cowstantinopleville."

To which Ironsworn's response (assuming a game system could anthropomorphically respond) is, shrug "Eh. Don't care. Play what's in front of you, and make your next move."

Ironsworn then points at the character sheets in front of the players---"See those Iron Vows the players have sworn? Those are what's important in play. Whatever is happening in the game, it's going to focus on those. Always. If what the players are doing doesn't intersect with or totally messes up Cowstantinopleville, that's Cowstantinopleville's problem, not mine."

 

[Maxperson]

The big, massive, major difference---in Ironsworn, the GM's notes/prefabrications are not considered privileged, nor are the players expected to bend/shape proposed resolutions such that they fit in to the GM's notes/prefabrications (assuming there are any).

What are the limits of the players' ability to do that? I assume that they can't just sit down and agree that aliens come and beam Cowstantinopleville off planet and then start a farm in the crater.

If a player's proposed change to the fiction state is fully consistent with the situation, framing, and mechanical outcome, and the group agrees that this change in the fiction is now true, there is no option for the GM to say, "Hey, whoah whoah whoah --- if what you've just said is true, it will completely invalidate Scene 24 [a smashing scene, in which there aren't any coconuts], will completely ruin what I had planned for NPC McDizzle, and it completely invalidates what was supposed to happen in the city of Cowstantinopleville."

So I get that there are major differences in the two styles. I'm not saying otherwise, but the parts I've bolded above don't happen in my playstyle, either. Not unless the DM is violating the social contract himself, which is not a playstyle issue. While the DM has the authority to do so, he just plain won't. If the PCs spoil McDizzle's plans, good on them. If they stop what was supposed to happen in Cowstantinopleville, then they've put their mark on the world and made it their own like I've been saying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, honestly, can you explain to me how the bolded part happens... without me ascribing to a playstyle agenda? The fact that you use the word grouping when I am approaching individual techniques seems to suggest that you are still approaching it from a play style perspective as opposed to a results driven perspective but I could be wrong.

The clock was going to be player facing, I didn't see a list of how they could affect it but I know me and I would have preferred to have presented that in fiction with clarification taking place OOC if needed. I would have left the things that could affect it open ended but I would have clearly telegraphed if an action would either through the fiction or again with an OOC offside note.

So, compatible techniques, or ones that serve a play goal, tend to cluster up in groups that are easily described by the playstyles. There's some blur, sure, but it's not a matter of the playstyles obscuring the tools, but that they're convenient labels for tools that work well together.

 

[innerdude]

I have to add, by the way --- a lot of people have been saying things like, "I wouldn't like your style of game."

This isn't "my" style of game. I'm not beholden to it. I'm trying out Ironsworn because I completely burned out on GM-led "setting tourism" as a player during a friend's Shaintar campaign two years ago.

And what else was I supposed to do other than try something different? Sure, I could have jumped back on the "sandbox" train, come up with some vastly detailed world again, and dropped my players into it. But at some point, I figured I needed to know if this whole player-facing thing actually worked or not. At least know if it was a viable option.

And what do you know, it was really different from what I've tried before. (That was kind of the point). And what do you know, it actually works.

Truthfully, this thread has actually spurred a desire to start building another detailed campaign world, just so I can try out a "sandbox" style game and compare the results when we're done with Ironsworn next year. I'm actually quite impressed with the level of fervor posited by those who play GM-led sandboxes, because it makes me want to see if maybe I missed something the last time around, or if it could be done better than what I've either run or played in the past.

My expositions in this thread are mostly to demonstrate my own experience, and to show that a GM who at one time was highly skeptical that a player-facing style of game would work at all is now saying, "Huh, it does work, and it works pretty damn well to boot."

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames

I don't see different sorts of roleplaying game styles as platonic ideals anymore than I would see poker, spades, or euchre as some sort of platonic ideal. I find that most people if they are willing to give a game a real shot can enjoy a variety of different play experiences. I can't imagine always playing the same sort of game in the same sort of way with the same people. I honestly think the player type style analysis that pegs players into round little holes we expect them to always conform to does most players a great disservice.

For me personally some of my worst experiences in gaming have come from a GM attempting to make tonal and style shifts to please players (often me). I can enjoy most games even games I'm not super keen on, but nothing disrupts the experience for me like the game shifting from under me.

Furthermore when I read accounts of playing with people who all interested in these vastly different things it kind of puts me off because it seems like everyone is just there for their own kinks - not really playing a game together. I would much rather play a game that is less than ideal for me that is a shared experience than one built to fulfill individual player desires separately. What's fun for me is not fun if the other people at the table are not into it.

In some ways we are saying the same thing: the point of having a preference isn't to ruin other peoples' enjoyment. One way to accommodate other peoples preferences is on the player side, with people willing to engage a style that is outside their normal preference, and I see nothing wrong with this. I do that myself a lot. But I also can say from experience play styles can be like straight jackets. I know there is a purity philosophy that can sometimes take hold in a sandbox, and its fine if you happen to have five players who all want a pure sandbox. But my experience is most groups just are not that homogenous and you need to adapt to the needs of the group. Obviously how you adapt is always a potential issue (I can ruin the game for three players by adapting it for one). My point is just, the GM really ought to focus what is happening in real life, at the table, not on some ideal in their head about play styles. There are a lot of ideas that work great in internet discussions and fit neatly into boxes in online dialogue that can break down at a real table.

Also my preference tends to be for long campaigns with the same group of players. So there may be a difference there (when I play one shots using a hyper focused playstyle, I am a lot less worried about things breaking down because it is a one shot).

 

[Maxperson]

I have to add, by the way --- a lot of people have been saying things like, "I wouldn't like your style of game."

This isn't "my" style of game. I'm not beholden to it. I'm trying out Ironsworn because I completely burned out on GM-led "setting tourism" as a player during a friend's Shaintar campaign two years ago.

And what else was I supposed to do other than try something different? Sure, I could have jumped back on the "sandbox" train, come up with some vastly detailed world again, and dropped my players into it. But at some point, I figured I needed to know if this whole player-facing thing actually worked or not. At least know if it was a viable option.

And what do you know, it was really different from what I've tried before. (That was kind of the point). And what do you know, it actually works.

Truthfully, this thread has actually spurred a desire to start building another detailed campaign world, just so I can try out a "sandbox" style game and compare the results when we're done with Ironsworn next year. I'm actually quite impressed with the level of fervor posited by those who play GM-led sandboxes, because it makes me want to see if maybe I missed something the last time around, or if it could be done better than what I've either run or played in the past.

My expositions in this thread are mostly to demonstrate my own experience, and to show that a GM who at one time was highly skeptical that a player-facing style of game would work at all is now saying, "Huh, it does work, and it works pretty damn well to boot."

That was a very good post. The only think that stands out to me is "Setting tourism." That smacks of a DM who is too tight on the reigns and that leads to bad experiences.

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton Given that what I was trying to illustrate is the very possibility of protagonist play in a solely GM-built world I don't find your reading odd. My point about the world is that it doesn't need to be built with the players dramatic needs in mind, or at least that dramatic needs can be present and lead to protagonist play even when that isn't the case. Sure, some of that, depending on prep, is very much asking questions and building on answers. However, that pit fighter player doesn't have to have any authorial control over where pit fighting happens, or anything pitfighter-related in terms of world building, in order to take on that dramatic need and have it resolved in play.

Something to keep at the forefront here is that most GM built worlds don't have enough granularity to really get in the way of this anyway. Pit fighting, for example, is something that could be present in some fashion just about anywhere, and in those cases GM creativity will find a home for it. A 'pure sandbox' isn't any different in this regard. My actual point about dramatic needs and protagonist play is that the primary tool needed to have it in a game is Gm-player agreement and some attention to bringing it to the fore in terms of roleplaying and framing (respectively). Here is where asking questions and building on the answers is indeed a primary tool. However, those questions and answers to not have to be in terms of authorial control over setting details in order to work. This can work in a 'GM notes only' world just fine. In this case they will work at the level of driving character actions, both in terms of individual (call it tactical) action declaration and also in terms of the characters broader interactions with the diegetic frame.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That was a very good post. The only think that stands out to me is "Setting tourism." That smacks of a DM who is too tight on the reigns and that leads to bad experiences.

Setting tourism is definitely something I feel I strive to avoid (just like I threw my hands up and said "might as well just hand the players my notes" when I got sick of linear adventures, this would be a similar exclamation of frustration I think for a sandbox that isn't really doing what it should). The synergy in a sandbox really is at the core of it and if you aren't having players actively engaging and helping the shape the direction of things through their characters then it is a sandbox with no fuel and it probably can just start to become setting tourism