What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

This is a fairly false distinction. The GM is special because you've assumed that special role, largely because it works well with some systems, not because GM has some kind of inherent specialness. Once we get to the point that the specialness is assigned, and understand this, we can then actually look at how that works rather than stopping at "GMs are special." They really aren't, they're still players in the game, albeit with differentiate roles. And those roles don't tell us anything about the difference in the fiction created except who creates them, which, as I just covered, isn't something inherent.

And, as for actor stance, the players in the secret door example I gave were entirely within actor stance. Saying, "I search for a secret door," is right there in actor stance -- the PC is really hoping to find a secret door to escape the guards and is trying to do so. The difference is the outcome of this, which, for the player, is still largely the same -- the system is engaged and the result says whether or not you find a secret door. The real difference here is that, in the first example, that system is "the GM decides according to what they think it should be" and the second in "the mechanics decide." The players don't step outside their characters in either.

To be blunt, again -- given you've no experience with other modes of play, what you feel is true is largely irrelevant. People with that experience and who still use both approaches are telling you that this is not correct, but you persist, arguing from ignorance with assurance.

And, to be blunt again -- it's perfectly cool to never, ever get that experience. It's perfectly cool to be super happy with how you play and not want to bother with another system or think that you wouldn't like it anyway. 100% hunky-dory. It's the claims that your method produces a specific result that other methods cannot that's the issue -- you've zero evidence or experience to make this claim, but persist in the face of people that do have both saying otherwise.

It's not like writing a novel together at all. It's a completely different thing.

But, you are denying my experience. Just a few pages ago you were broaching the question if my experience even counts as an RPG! Meanwhile, I have 100% been consistently saying that you have a 100% valid way to play, a fun way to play, that I've both played that way and will probably do so again (feeling a hankering for a hexcrawl starting to lurk), and that there's zero wrong with playing this way. The only denying is coming from one direction, and it's not pointed at you.

When you say that my own opinion that X is not immersive is wrong then you are denying my perspective and experience.

I'm not denying your experience. I'm saying that when you say that your approach gives you X, and you can't get that any other way, that's incorrect. If you say that your approach gives you X in a way you prefer, I'll applaud that you've found the right way for you to play to maximize fun! And, I'll still talk about how games work.

This is where you are dead wrong. My approach gives me X and I can't get it playing the other ways. At least where X is immersive, a feeling of verisimilitude. It is ridiculous that you are denying how I feel about something. A person who is not immersed due to X where X is absolutely anything in the universe is someone who is not immersed due to X. Immersion is a personal thing. You can't seem to get that.

I'm had Bedrockgames on ignore for some time, largely because I got tired of the constant accusations of attacking him, personally, while he's busy attacking others, personally. So, no, thank you.

That your approach has value to you and yours is beyond question, and I've never questioned it.

We aren't debating approaches having merit in general. If people are enjoying an approach then it has merit for THEIR games. That is true of anything. Use what you like and discard what you don't.

I have tried over and over to explain to you WHY I FEEL AS I DO. I am not saying anything about how YOU FEEL AS YOU DO. I have repeated this a lot so you should just repeatedly read the previous sentence until you get it.

 

[Emerikol]

Yep, you have to try the minimal/no prep style. It can feel counter-intuitive, but it does work really well. You may dislike it, but it can't be really understood without giving it a whirl. It can't be inconsistent, shallow, non immersive, etc. or the style would not have so many adherents.

Two things....

Do people play roleplaying games that are not immersive in the first place. Sure. But, the main point is the idea of immersion is subjective. You may be immersed. If people who value immersion are playing in your style then they are immersed. That doesn't mean I would be immersed nor would it mean any number of others would be immersed. Since you like to talk about groups, isn't it something to consider that many who oppose author stance approaches often cite immersion as their objection? Whereas others don't care and don't have an issue.

Millions of people love chocolate cream pie. I don't care for it and would never waste the calories on it. Could I eat it? Oh I could and would if it was necessary to be polite. I would never choose it over apple or peach pie if given the choice though. Yet millions love chocolate cream pie.

 

[Cadence]

I get the distinction somewhat though. Obviously how radical you get at authoring as a player would dictate how outrageous this might seem. And minor authorings like knowing a barkeep etc... might not seem so bad to many people who would balk at you conjuring a city into existence out of nothing. So there are I suppose extremes.

So here is the process that happens....
1. GM says you enter a tavern in the shady part of town
2. Bob the player of the rogue character decides as the player that his character knows the barkeep and thus puts that thought into his characters head.
3. The rogue character then says "Hey I know this barkeep let's see if she knows anything"

Now, the #2 part is not spoken. It's a thought in Bob's head.
In my style here is how it might go...
1. GM says you enter a tavern in the shady part of town
2. Bob asks what his rogue sees. What are the rogues eyes taking in....
3. GM consults notes and sees that the barkeep is someone the character knows.
4. GM says "You see Blondy the Barkeep an old friend of yours. She smiles and waves."

This makes me curious about what other styles are out there...

2. Bob the player says he's probably been in this part of town a lot, and says his rogue looks around for anyone he knows - the barkeep (?)
3. The GM makes a decision based on things like whether they already had planned who the barkeep was in a story important way, or if there was someone there getting ready to sidetrack the players, or if this is a great time to see where the player wants to head with their character.

 

[Emerikol]

The game you played in isn't the games I run or play in. Suggesting that that is the case is .... pretty odd. Your taste is yours, same with everyone, but your experience, slight as is it is, isn't definitive in any kind of way.

So you believe unless I try a game exactly as you play it, I can't say I wouldn't like it based solely on elements in that game?

A good example. I am certain bet my life that there is no roleplaying game with dissociative mechanics, live with it I understand what it is as I see it, that I am going to enjoy. I have NEVER played D&D 5e. Not even one session. I never bought the books. I saw the way they handled the fighter and healing and I knew I would never enjoy playing it. I didn't need to play it to know that.

The same is true for player author stance. The second I realize in a game that there is nothing really there around the corner and that it will only come into existence when I round the corner, I will lose interest.

 

[Fenris-77]

When you say that my own opinion that X is not immersive is wrong then you are denying my perspective and experience.

You have this on backward. You're using your own slight experience to tell whole swathes of the hobby that what they do isn't immersive. Someone telling you that isn't the case isn't denying your experience, just the application of that experience to anyone's game but your own as something that is in any way definitional or definitive.

 

[Emerikol]

This makes me curious about what other styles are out there...

2. Bob the player says he's probably been in this part of town a lot, and says his rogue looks around for anyone he knows - the barkeep (?)
3. The GM makes a decision based on things like whether they already had planned who the barkeep was in a story important way, or if there was someone there getting ready to sidetrack the players, or if this is a great time to see where the player wants to head with their character.

I definitely think it would be fine if a player said "Do I see anybody I know given I'm from this area or I know this area well?"

At that moment, I'd know the answer to that question and give it to him. If it were in an area where people are moving in and out and it's not a fixed location, I'd roll for a chance and if successful I'd say yes. If not I'd say no.

 

[Emerikol]

You have this on backward. You're using your own slight experience to tell whole swathes of the hobby that what they do isn't immersive. Someone telling you that isn't the case isn't denying your experience, just the application of that experience to anyone's game but your own as something that is in any way definitional or definitive.

No. I'm saying IT IS NOT IMMERSIVE FOR ME. Please read the previous sentence until you get it. Immersion is subjective in case you were wondering. And I never said my game was the only game I could be immersed by. I've said though what gives me immersion and what does not. So I guess you might say "my approach".

 

[Fenris-77]

So you believe unless I try a game exactly as you play it, I can't say I wouldn't like it based solely on elements in that game?

Nope, we all get to have on opinion. But at the same time a complete lack of experience with game X isn't a great platform to base criticism on either.

 

[Fenris-77]

No. I'm saying IT IS NOT IMMERSIVE FOR ME. Please read the previous sentence until you get it. Immersion is subjective in case you were wondering. And I never said my game was the only game I could be immersed by. I've said though what gives me immersion and what does not. So I guess you might say "my approach".

If this is your position then I feel like you should maybe take a scroll back through your posts in this thread to figure out why everyone else seems to think something different than this. I'd never suggest that I know better than someone else what's immersive for them, that's silly sauce.

 

[Emerikol]

If this is your position then I feel like you should maybe take a scroll back through your posts in this thread to figure out why everyone else seems to think something different than this. I'd never suggest that I know better than someone else what's immersive for them, that's silly sauce.

Not everyone. Plenty immediately understand. Amazingly it's those people viewing it from my perspective. I can only write the words on the page. Did you read them? Or did you just think what you wanted to think in a caricature of my views. I've repeated often on here that immersion is subjective and that these things break my immersion. Yes I don't decorate every single solitary sentence with a half dozen qualifiers.

If I said to you that cherry pie tastes terrible would you think I was asserting something universal or giving my opinion? Isn't the fact taste is subject a factor in your consideration? If I said Mr X. was a liar then that would not be an opinion. He either lied or he didn't lie. Immersion though is subjective. Just like taste.