What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

I think that the whole "GM's notes" thing can be simplified a bit into just "GM decides." This mode of play is where the GM is the arbiter of what happens in the fiction, so play occurs according to the GM's understanding of the game world and the fiction.

Now, within this scope, there's shades of difference, one of which is very much dependent on the GM's notes, or, rather, that the GM has pre-established in a largely fixed way a large amount of the game fiction. The play is then to determine what is in the GM's pre-conception of the game fiction. This is where Skilled Play a la Moldvay dungeon crawls situates itself. It's still under the auspice of GM Decides, but it's a subset.

Another version of this is where the GM has few or almost no notes, but is still the source of how things come about in play. This is what's usually referred to as improv or ad-lib play by posters unfamiliar with systems built to generate content during play. This is what a D&D game with a "loosey-goosey" GM looks like.

I can see this. And if the topic of the thread is drifting in the direction you set out here, that's fine with me.

I had started the thread about GM's notes rather than GM decides because the two don't overlap completely (in logic, at least; if we surveyed actual play at actual tables the degree of overlap is probably quite high). The notes in a PbtA-ish system, for instance, provide a resource for GM moves in various contexts but I'm pretty sure you're not wanting to include those within the scope of GM decides. (And I would agree with you in that respect.)

The "loosey-goosey" GMing is what Lewis Pulsipher was pretty critical of back in the day. He distinguished "realism" RPGing (C&S was the example he pointed to; some approaches to RQ are probably similar; we might now call that process-simulations) from "wargame" RPGing (classic skilled-play D&D is the exemplar) from "lottery" RPGing (a lot of T&T can look like this) from "GM as novelist/storyteller" RPGing (his least favourite, I think, and what you're calling "loose goosey"). His reason for favouring wargame play is that it maximises the roll of player skill. When surveying the state of the art when he was writing, I think he was correct about the descriptive part of that claim, ie that player skill is of little importance in lottery and loose-goosey play, and of reduced importance in process-sim play because the processes take over.

I think there are innovations in RPG technique since the early 80s that change some of the parameters, though, as you point to in your post: as well as systems built to generate content during play I would mention closed-scene resolution, and also a richer understanding of how narration can be structured around action declaration both at the point of framing and when establishing consequences.

To contrast "GM Decides" you have systems where the GM is tightly constrained, usually by having no pre-conception of the fiction, only the fiction as introduced, and with rules that state that actions cannot be blocked, only allowed to succeed or be challenged with the mechanics. They also have mechanical systems that allow for both player and GM input, and tight constraints on the outcomes. These are the Burning Wheel, PbtA, FitD style games.

Yes.

Somewhere in the middle of both of these are systems that can swing either way, depending on the GM. FATE, despite my not grasping how it can be a GM decides game and work at all, is apparently one given play reports. D&D 4e is another. From how @pemerton describes Traveler, I'd say it fits as well.

I have no Fate experience, but on rpg.net I have seen discussions which say that it can be used for GM-curated play in a way that Burning Wheel just can't.

Classic Traveller is a very interesting design because it has the baroque subsystems one associates with process-sim, but mostly these end up being little pockets of closed scene resolution. It has resources for generating content via random rolls which - because of the closed scene features of the subsystems - can be used in real time during play and will work smoothly in a way that is trickier (in my experience) when doing Appendix A random dungeoneering. To try and give a simple explanation, Appendix A can fairly easily produce "Why did the Orcs in this room we just rolled not respond when we trashed the fire beetles in that room next door that we rolled up first, given that there is only a door and not even a corridor between the two rooms?" and similar sorts of oddities that push against the coherence of the fiction. Whereas the basic conceits of Traveller together with the ways its very subsystems unfold and interact mean that random content generation is (or at least seems, in my experience) not to produce very much of this.

A lot has been posted over the years about 4e D&D so I won't add anything to that here.

 

[pemerton]

Different avenues to the same notes.

I am not saying it is a small thing. I am pointing out it is in essence the same thing as the GM is doing, just distributed among the players. But that makes a big difference in how the game plays and feels. I just think it undermines the whole notion that the GM is simply running a game where the players are discovering what's in his or her notes.

If establishing the fiction is distributed, and even verging on symmetrically multilateral, then it makes no sense to say that anyone is discovering anyone else's notes.

What about when establishing the fiction is heavily concentrated in one participant, why a high degree of asymmetry verging on unilateral authorship? If you don't like to describe how the other participants gain cognitive access to the fiction as learning what is in the GM's notes, what alternative description would you suggest for this sort of scenario? One that adequately captures its asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character?

I pointed out the GM isn't always working from notes, the GM is often extrapolating, inventing whole cloth, even ignoring or rejecting note content, because the aim is what is imagined in the GM's mind as the world, not what is one the page in the notes. You maintained this is still just the notes. I am saying why is all this magically discovering the GM's notes, yet when players engage in these things, it is creating fiction? By the way I am not saying players aren't creating fiction when they do that. But I think it would be highly reductive to say players are discovering one another's notes, just as it is highly reductive to say players are discovering the GMs notes in the case of the sort of sandbox people are describing.

You seem to be focusing very heavily on the word notes. You seem to suppose that I am contrasting notes with fiction. I am not. I am using notes as a shorthand to do two things: (1) contrast with the shared fiction - the essence of GM's notes made in preparation is that they are not shared; and (2) emphasise the asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character of the process whereby what is imagined in the GM's mind becomes shared fiction.

If you want to suggest an alternative shorthand I'm all ears. But the shorthand would have to adequately convey both (1) and (2).

You pointed to games where players can contribute to the setting/fiction out of character as an alternative to 'discovering the GM's notes".

No I didn't. I actually posted explaining why it is an incorrect description of (say) Burning Wheel as I play it to say that the player contributes to the setting/fiction out of character.

I also want to emphasise something which I am not sure that you are aware of: it is possible to have players contributing to the setting/fiction in character in ways that do not require an asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral-from-the-GM process for establishing the shared fiction. Games that I'm aware of that illustrate this fact include Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller.

 

[pemerton]

This has been a point so often that it's often elided -- the only authority a typical D&D player has is over their character build and their action declarations, but even this is subject to GM veto or override. Build choices are constrained by what the GM will allow, and action declarations often are policed for "metagaming" in many typical D&D games, so even this is no where near absolute.

But, yes, the players are putting things into the fiction with PC action declarations. Of course they are.

Just a side point: I have seen some posters on this board assert that a player's action declaration does not establish anything in the fiction until the GM incorporates it. I would characterise play done this way as the player's making suggestions to the GM via the process of declaring actions, which the GM is at liberty to take up or decline as seems to fit the GM's conception of the fiction.

I've also seen posters on this board say things that imply the above even though it hasn't been outright asserted. Examples include "You wouldn't do that, would you? You're Lawful Good." (I can see it might be argued that breaking alignment is a type of metagaming and so perhaps is captured already in what you posted.) A weaker version, but one that I have noticed a fair bit, is "Make a INT check" or "Make a WIS check" with the result of the check being a trigger for the GM to soft-veto the action on the grounds of the adverse consequence it would produce.

 

[Maxperson]

If establishing the fiction is distributed, and even verging on symmetrically multilateral, then it makes no sense to say that anyone is discovering anyone else's notes.

It doesn't make any sense to call anything that isn't written down and pre-determined, notes. But you are doing it anyway. If made up on the fly = notes, then it applies to the players as well as the DM.

What about when establishing the fiction is heavily concentrated in one participant, why a high degree of asymmetry verging on unilateral authorship? If you don't like to describe how the other participants gain cognitive access to the fiction as learning what is in the GM's notes, what alternative description would you suggest for this sort of scenario? One that adequately captures its asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character?

Anything the DM does that builds off of player input(ie declarations, roleplay, etc.) isn't unilateral authorship. The players are contributing, even if it is unequal and/or the DM has final say.

You seem to be focusing very heavily on the word notes. You seem to suppose that I am contrasting notes with fiction. I am not. I am using notes as a shorthand to do two things: (1) contrast with the shared fiction - the essence of GM's notes made in preparation is that they are not shared; and (2) emphasise the asymmetric-verging-on-unilateral character of the process whereby what is imagined in the GM's mind becomes shared fiction.

As far as (1) goes, improv is not preparation, though, and you are still calling those notes. As far as (2) goes, it's not what is imagined in the DM's mined that becomes shared fiction. It's what is imagined the DM and player(s) minds that becomes shared fiction. Player imagined input in the form of actions and roleplay are part of that shared fiction being created. The DM simply has a greater amount of input and/or final say.

If you want to suggest an alternative shorthand I'm all ears. But the shorthand would have to adequately convey both (1) and (2).

Both (1) and (2) are not accurate, though.

 

[pemerton]

You can't "explore the world" in a RPG anymore than you can "conquer the world" in Risk; it's merely a fictional conceit that overlays what the players are actually doing at the table, which is declaring actions and rolling dice to see how they turn out. The GM merely acts as an arbiter to allow for a wider declaration of possible actions. A module or a pre-defined setting is a tool that many DMs use to help them arbitrate these choices.

To elaborate a bit on this (and I think also pick up on an earlier discussion in this thread), consider two ways a map can be used at a RPG table:

(1) The map is secret to the GM and used to adjudicate action declarations made by the players for their PCs. The players don't have access to the geography and/or architecture as input into their action declarations until it has been told to them by the GM as the output of a prior action declaration (which might include things like "We go up to the corner and look around" as well as more elaborate things like "We lift the rug and search the floor for secret trapdoors").

(2) The map is public information at the table which the GM and players use together to frame checks, and to establish who is where and able to do what. When the checks are resolved, the constraints imposed by the imagined geography and architecture are already factored in by everyone at the table.​

I think that (2) is pretty different from (1) even if the GM is the one who provides the map.

Recently I've used a couple of old Traveller scenarios in my Classic Traveller game: Annic Nova, and Shadows, both from Double Adventure 1. Both have maps. In both cases I've laid the map out, and pointed to it to tell the players where they (ie their PCs) are. In the case of Annic Nova, the interest was not in the map per se but the Aliens (capitalisation intended) on board: the players didn't know their disposition or precise number. Having the map to make it visually very clear how the PCs were separated from one another over the four decks of the starship they were exploring seemed to me to enhance play, and also make it easier to adjudicate in a fair and transparent way who could get where to help whom in time.

In the case of Shadows, what was interesting was the contents of some of the rooms, and piecing together the puzzle they revealed about the fate of the alien civilisation that had built the complex 2 billion years earlier.

In both cases, there were various moments at which the players had more information than their PCs did about the architecture of the places they were in. This didn't seem to have any significant consequences for play, because (as I've already said) the focus was on the content of the places and not the architecture per se.

 

[pemerton]

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames

Here is a paragraph from Paul Czege and another one from Eero Tuovinen that helps explain my use of the word notes:

although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​

​

Dungeons & Dragons involves clear and strong backstory authority as a crucial part of the game: the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play, the GM refers to his notes or imagination and decides what should be in the chest.​

Those unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about, the GMs notes and imagination, are what I'm referring to.

Now supposed instead of notes I used the word conception - and hence referred to playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction, would that satisfy you? The key feature of the GM's conception of the shared fiction is that it is asymmetrical and close to unilateral. For instance, if in the GM's conception of the shared fiction there is no secret trapdoor under the rug, then the PC will not find one know matter how confidently the player declares that his/her PC is searching. That is a very typical illustration of the asymmetry-verging-on-unilateralism that I am pointing to when I use the phrase playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction.

Anything the DM does that builds off of player input(ie declarations, roleplay, etc.) isn't unilateral authorship. The players are contributing, even if it is unequal and/or the DM has final say.

This is why I use the qualifying phrase verging on.

For instance, and to allude to the quote from Tuovinen: the GM may not have thought about what is in the chest, or what is under the rug, until a player declares that his/her PC has a look. If the GM at that point decides there is nothing in the chest or there is nothing under the rug then it is true that the GM is building off the player's input (ie the action declaration) but this is very obviously not an example of the sort of thing that @innerdude described upthread, that I subsequently elaborated on.

The contrast is in fact quite striking.

If you don't like the words that I use to describe the contrast please supply me with some that meet with your approval. But please don't imply that the contrast doesn't obtain. It does. I know about it. @Emerikol knows about it. @TwoSix and @innerdude know about it. @Ovinomancer knows about it. And I'm pretty sure from your posts that you know about it too.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames

Here is a paragraph from Paul Czege and another one from Eero Tuovinen that helps explain my use of the word notes:

although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​

​

Dungeons & Dragons involves clear and strong backstory authority as a crucial part of the game: the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play, the GM refers to his notes or imagination and decides what should be in the chest.​

Those unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about, the GMs notes and imagination, are what I'm referring to.

Now supposed instead of notes I used the word conception - and hence referred to playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction, would that satisfy you? The key feature of the GM's conception of the shared fiction is that it is asymmetrical and close to unilateral. For instance, if in the GM's conception of the shared fiction there is no secret trapdoor under the rug, then the PC will not find one know matter how confidently the player declares that his/her PC is searching. That is a very typical illustration of the asymmetry-verging-on-unilateralism that I am pointing to when I use the phrase playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction.

I would call it the GM's fictional world. But they don't even use just the term notes in that paragraph. They say "notes or imagination" it is clearly pointing to a much larger idea than just notes (and our objection to calling it playing to discover the GM's notes is it is reductive because it leaves out elements like the GM's imagination, like the role of synergy between players pushing on the setting, NPCs pushing back, and things organically developing).

No one is contesting there is an asymmetry of power in that the GM ultimately gets to decide what is and is not in the setting (though he or she often has to bow to the dice and other external factors). But again, I think you are painting an extremely simplistic picture that overlooks and undervalues the role of PCs pushing against the setting, asking questions about it, etc. They might not have the power to invent things whole cloth but they have the power to force the GM to invent, and to work using the power of their characters to exert will on the setting and shape it through their characters actions, interactions, etc; often leaving a fairly important legacy in the setting itself. And this isn't something the GM can simply deny them on a whim. The promise of sandbox is if you want to try it, I have to fairly adjudicate it.

In terms of what's in the treasure chest, sure in some instances there is going to be something the GM has conceived of, and the contents of that thing will be set down in advance (sometimes in notes, sometimes as a firm decision the GM makes when the chest is introduced, etc). That is an important part of creating a sense of a world external to the characters. I do this even when I am improvising (make very clear decisions in my head about 'what's in the box' so there is a consistent world and so their choices matter----and sometimes I will note these things down and show them to the players after just to make clear a choice they made mattered and dispel any possibility of illusionism). At the same time, there are all kinds of instances where, even if the players don't have narrative power, their ability to question and prod is going to still help shape things. It certainly isn't the same as some of the stuff you have been advocating, and I wouldn't argue otherwise (especially since a typical sandbox is built on the premise of discovering a world and doing so through your character). But it isn't just dead notes on a page. Players being able to suddenly veer off in some direction or decide to pay off the local constables to arrest the guy who hired them for the adventure so they can take over his fighter pits, this is the sort of synergy that people were pointing to. And extrapolation from the notes on this is important and different from notes themselves. I may have notes on the fighter pits (possibly though they were introduced as improvised setting details during play), but once the players pull a move like that, a whole host of questions I have probably not asked about them need to be answered, and I need to start having NPCs reacting in believable, logical and human ways to what they are doing. I don't see that as notes. I see that as the 'living' part of living world.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames

Here is a paragraph from Paul Czege and another one from Eero Tuovinen that helps explain my use of the word notes:

although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​

​

Dungeons & Dragons involves clear and strong backstory authority as a crucial part of the game: the GM not only should prepare a dungeon ahead of time for the game, but he is also allowed to amend and expand on his preparatory work during play on the premise that his task is to present the game world as fully as necessary for the players: there is no ambiguity about who gets to decide what is inside a treasure chest: unless somebody changed its contents during play, the GM refers to his notes or imagination and decides what should be in the chest.​

Those unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about, the GMs notes and imagination, are what I'm referring to.

I bolded the important part of that. He is differentiating between notes and imagination(improv), while you are trying to merge them and are getting a lot of trouble for it. They aren't the same thing and one word isn't going to be accurate for both.

Now supposed instead of notes I used the word conception - and hence referred to playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction, would that satisfy you? The key feature of the GM's conception of the shared fiction is that it is asymmetrical and close to unilateral. For instance, if in the GM's conception of the shared fiction there is no secret trapdoor under the rug, then the PC will not find one know matter how confidently the player declares that his/her PC is searching. That is a very typical illustration of the asymmetry-verging-on-unilateralism that I am pointing to when I use the phrase playing to learn the content of the GM's conception of the fiction.

So no, it is still not an accurate portrayal as we've been telling and demonstrating to you for pages and pages now. The goal of play is still not focused on the DM's concepts. Also, there are multiple ways to play a Sandbox, some of which don't involve knowing all the details of every dungeon like that. Sometimes the DM may not have considered that and may just give it a random roll to see if a secret door is there.

You're trying to force several different ways of playing a Sandbox into one narrow, incorrect phrase.

This is why I use the qualifying phrase verging on.

For instance, and to allude to the quote from Tuovinen: the GM may not have thought about what is in the chest, or what is under the rug, until a player declares that his/her PC has a look. If the GM at that point decides there is nothing in the chest or there is nothing under the rug then it is true that the GM is building off the player's input (ie the action declaration) but this is very obviously not an example of the sort of thing that @innerdude described upthread, that I subsequently elaborated on.

In that one example sure, but by and large the players have considerably more input. "Verging" is very much an incorrect portrayal of the overall disparity. The vast majority of inputs are along the lines of, "I go up to the bartender and punch him in the face," followed by the DM declaring in the fiction something that responds to that. Or perhaps, "I rifle through the Baron's desk looking for the missing deed," followed by the DM declaring something in the fiction that responds to that. Many times, the response is less than the player input, even though the DM does have final say.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the percentage was somewhere in the neighborhood of 60/40 or 65/35 in favor of the DM. Still significant, but hardly "verging on."

 

[pemerton]

@Maxperson, @Bedrockgames.

I don't really follow your replies. You say that the GM is in charge, but you also say that the players "have input" and "help shape things". But they don't have "narrative power" (whatever that means - narrative power sounds like the power to shape the fiction, so if players don't have that then I'm not sure what their input and shaping consist in, so maybe it means something else?).

Do you agree that there is an approach to RPG play in which the GM is empowered to determine the outcomes of action resolutions based on a prior conception of the fiction (whether that is sourced in notes or imagination)? And do you agree that there is an approach to play in which the answer to a player's question what do I see or what do I find or what do I know about <this gameworld element the GM has just introduced> is typically provided by the GM making a decision based on his/her prior conception of the fiction, perhaps relying on a Knowledge check (or INT check or whatever the system dictates) to determine how much of his/her prior conception to share?

 

[Aldarc]

A weaker version, but one that I have noticed a fair bit, is "Make a INT check" or "Make a WIS check" with the result of the check being a trigger for the GM to soft-veto the action on the grounds of the adverse consequence it would produce.

However, I think that this is often used almost as a "mulligan" by the GM when they realize that they haven't adequately framed/telegraphed the fiction and the pertinent stakes to the players. So the "check" is meant to empower the GM to author additional fiction or scene framing. It's a bit silly, but I don't think that it's always about vetoing players.