What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

There are tons of ways, but let me pluck the low hanging fruit. First, in a game with the authorial permission we're talking about a player can, for example, speak in character about new facts related to their background. So a fighter might say the gladiatorial schools in Omnia are brutal, especially the House of Grinnell, they whip their slaves with a barbed lash if that fact is something that the character might know even in cases where the GM had nothing written about those schools or their character. This kind of thing often happens by GM invitation in games where it's common, with phrases like tell me how your character might know this.

Second, and perhaps more important for your understanding of how these games work, is that much of this talk actually happens out of character. RPGs focus in and out of full in-character play and this kind of new fact often gets discussed during what we might broadly call downtime, where the focus zooms out a little and the players (and GM) talk about the game but only partially or even not at all in character.

I totally get that these sorts of things can be mixed in together in various ways. If you don't care that much about what I prioritize then mixing and matching to the degree you care makes sense. My limit is I try to establish non-character decisions by the player to pre-campaign. So I work with them to create a backstory that fits the world. So if he has an abstract idea about being the lost orphan of a famous pirate, I check my world for places pirates exist and go from there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Even sandbox gaming does not own the idea of GM created in game reality. People doing APs for example so sure there are a group if concepts I hold dear to my gaming. I listed them off. They aren't interconnected necessarily. I do though think when you allow players to introduce new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character that at least temporarily you are stepping out of the character viewpoint.

The example here was the character asking a bartender for information. Whether or not that bartender has information, or what information the bartender has, isn't generated by the player, so the player isn't asked to step out of their character at all. What's happening is that the player declares an action for their character, and play follows that to see what happens. Recall, there's a chance that asking the bartended ends up badly for the character, with not information gained, or that they do get some info but there's an unwanted complication. Regardless, the player isn't doing any of these things -- they're having their character ask the bartender for information.

The only difference between the Blades example of play I gave and the one I think you have in mind is how the result of this action declaration is determined. You clearly like to look at your prep, either because this is already prepped or that prep will provide you a structure for answering. This is perfectly cromulent. But, doing this doesn't increase or decrease players playing in character over the Blades approach.

I've listed these before but I will again for reference.
1. Sandbox world. GM provides a lot of detailed areas and the PCs do as they will inside the sandbox.

2. Skilled Play. Meaning prep, strategy, and tactics matter. My players have often spent time discussing the equipment they will take on a particular journey. They also plot strategy against certain really tough monsters especially if defeated on their first encounter. If you don't search for a secret door, you may not get what's behind the door and if your search skill is not good enough you may not get it.

3. Character Viewpoint - Some might call this Actor stance and they may be right but I don't want to defend every aspect of it if I've misjudged it's usage. I'm leery of loaded terms with you guys. Basically you can only do what your character could do. You perceive the world via description from the GM.

4. DM neutrality and fairness in adjudication. Let the dice fall where they fall.

All of the above are things I consider pretty important.

Cool. No issues.

I do think though that those wanting a character viewpoint will of necessity want a GM based reality world. The reverse is not necessarily true.

Nope, and this statement is part of what comes across as very uninformed when you say things like this. What you presented as "character view" above is exactly how it works in Blades in the Dark. The example I gave was exactly in line with this -- your only objection was to how the GM-side played, not the PC side.

 

[TwoSix]

Nope, and this statement is part of what comes across as very uninformed when you say things like this. What you presented as "character view" above is exactly how it works in Blades in the Dark. The example I gave was exactly in line with this -- your only objection was to how the GM-side played, not the PC side.

This. @Emirikol seems to be saying that player authorship is fundamentally incompatible with immersion. I don't really agree with that, but let's accept it as a premise.

Even accepting that, player authorship isn't required for the GM to frame a note-free, full-improv world that responds to player declaration and resolution mechanics only. The players can stay totally in character, only framing situations that they know in-character to be likely (no making up cities or geography or anything). And the GM responds to that, taking responsibility to frame necessary situational information as becomes relevant.

Whether or not the GM has a 450 page binder full of notes for every hex on their map, or is making it up all on the fly is a significant play style difference to the GM, but will be invisible to the players unless the players are actively evaluating the GM's process of generation and trying to gauge if the GM is actually making stuff up. It seems to be a pretty important aesthetic criterion for a lot of people(!), but doesn't say anything about the validity of various styles, merely in people's reaction to that style.

Ultimately, if you're judging the GM for not prepping enough despite the fact the game runs perfectly fine, that's on you for deciding that extra burden on the GM is a necessary condition of play.

 

[Imaro]

The example here was the character asking a bartender for information. Whether or not that bartender has information, or what information the bartender has, isn't generated by the player, so the player isn't asked to step out of their character at all. What's happening is that the player declares an action for their character, and play follows that to see what happens. Recall, there's a chance that asking the bartended ends up badly for the character, with not information gained, or that they do get some info but there's an unwanted complication. Regardless, the player isn't doing any of these things -- they're having their character ask the bartender for information.

So... is the player authoring anything in this context? And if so, what exactly?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So... is the player authoring anything in this context? And if so, what exactly?

Yup. They authored that they asked the barkeep for ale and info, and provided 10 gold coins as a sweetner.

 

[Imaro]

Yup. They authored that they asked the barkeep for ale and info, and provided 10 gold coins as a sweetner.

So action declarations are authoring fiction?

 

[pemerton]

The point is that notes are being created and used in both playstyles

There does seem to be a flaw in the logic of it is GMs notes when the GM in all these instances. I mean why is it GMs notes when the GM improvises and ads something new, but if players are allowed to do that, it becomes something other than notes

These two things are pretty different:

* the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​

​

* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​

I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So action declarations are authoring fiction?

Did these things happen in the game or not? I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at.

 

[innerdude]

So action declarations are authoring fiction?

By definition, yes. The only determining factor is if the "truthiness" of the declaration is in dispute.

If so, consult the rules and adjudicate, or consult whatever alternative table authority has the power to decide if it's true or not.

 

[pemerton]

@Emerikol

Your last two posts show a deep ignorance of the games you're describing. Like, fundamentally deep. It's verging on not even wrong.

You can dislike these games all you want -- no issues, no problems. But, your description of them in these last two posts is laughably incorrect.

There is some truth to this claim.

It's baffles me then how a player can create fiction and also be acting in character. The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.

I know what you mean but in both games the PCs are contributing to the fiction in the sense they are changing the world.

@Emerikol, in the second of these quoted passages you say that in your preferred sandbox game the PCs change the world. Now changing the world is a metaphor - what is literally happening is that fiction is being created. You even describe it yourself as contributing to the fiction.

Who is playing the PCs? Presumably the players. So you have the players authoring fiction. Creating fiction. Contributing to the fiction. Yet presumably, in your sandbox game, they are doing this while also acting in character.

I do though think when you allow players to introduce new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character that at least temporarily you are stepping out of the character viewpoint.

There are two things here:

* introducing new stuff that isn't in the purview of a character is not a synonym for the player authoring/creating/contributing to the shared fiction;

* there are many parts of a setting that are within the purview of a character, assuming the character has the normal sensory and cognitive capacities of a person.​

@Fenris-77 has given an example that illustrates the second point: a character will know where s/he came from, who his/her family are, etc and so the player playing in character and talking about that stuff does not fall outside of the purview of the character.

I've always thought roleplaying was playing a role which of necessity means you aren't doing anything else because being in character means you aren't making out of character decisions.

<snip>

I've very much in the "you are the character" viewpoint mode.

One big facet of my style is character viewpoint and decision making. Roleplaying to me to becoming your character. You make decisions like you are that character. You seek knowledge from the world the same way I would seek knowledge in this world.

I suspect you first sentence in the first of these two quotes is exaggerated - I'd be really surprised if in your sandbox game you've never filled out character inventory simply by reference to equipment lists in the PHB and gold piece tallies on the PC sheet, without actually playing your character as a shopper purchasing goods from vendors played by the GM.

The rest of these quotes - you are the character - describes my preferred approach to play. The most visceral game I personally know of for this sort of RPGing is Burning Wheel.

We don't want to cooperatively write a story with someone else which is more what your style of play seems to be to me.

This is not an accurate description of any RPG that I GM. If you want to know how they play, I'd encourage you to read some of my actual play posts.

@Ovinomancer's description of action declaration and action resolution from BitD play is also close enough to my play experience. Notice how there is no hint of cooperatively writing a story. What there is is resolution of action declarations using processes that DO NOT take GM's pre-prepared notes as an input.

I've listed these before but I will again for reference.
Character Viewpoint - Some might call this Actor stance and they may be right but I don't want to defend every aspect of it if I've misjudged it's usage. I'm leery of loaded terms with you guys. Basically you can only do what your character could do. You perceive the world via description from the GM.

I don't agree with your description, here, of character viewpoint. Having all my character's cognitive access to his/her life, his/her knowledge, his/her world mediated via GM description is radically non-immersive. Just to give a really clear example: my PC is in his/her home town. The GM narrates a NPC. If I have to ask the GM things like Do I know this person? Do I love this person? Did we part on good or bad terms last time we met? that is not immersive to me. It actually creates a radical dissociation from the fiction, and makes me feel like my PC is a space alien or visitor from another world.