What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

I think it is fine to state that such and such a game style is not immersive for you. I have no problem with Pemerton saying his style immerses him. Who can argue what someone else is feeling? To the degree we try to make it some absolute is when we get in trouble. I know his style will not be immersive to me and it won't satisfy my roleplaying itch. I don't need to suffer through many sessions of it to determine that. I know I do not like 5e due to certain rules they adopted and I don't need to play it to determine that.

I have no problem with him not liking the style. I have a problem with him imposing his experience on those of us who don't have the same reaction

 

[pemerton]

I understand how you do it. Each player, including the GM, at various times asserts some truth about the fiction and it is built up from that. I am not in the dark about your style.

This statement is basically wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I think we all agree that the players' "exploration" of the GM's world isn't happening via telepathic processes, and that the GM is not creating the sense of a real world via any means other than speaking and perhaps making the occasional sketch? So would you agree that the actual social process whereby these things - the players' exploration and the GM's creation of a sense of a real world - occur is that the GM tells things to the players, either in the process of framing or in the process of action resolution?

no i don't agree with this

I'm assuming your disagreement is not in respect of telepathy.

So if there is no telepathy, and if the GM is not telling things to the players, then how do the players "explore" the world? What method is the GM using if not speaking and the occasional sketch?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm assuming your disagreement is not in respect of telepathy.

So if there is no telepathy, and if the GM is not telling things to the players, then how do the players "explore" the world? What method is the GM using if not speaking and the occasional sketch?

Again I think this is reductive. Speaking is part of it, maybe drawing a sketch is part of it. But so is the players asking questions, taking actions to see what result they produce, etc. It can also take place in the form of handouts between sessions. I am not denying the role of the exchange at the table in the exploration. I am just saying there are two distinct things going on: the creation of the world in the GMs mind, then the exploration of that world. I am also saying it isn't simply the GM telling them what is in his or her head, there is a dynamic exchange between the GM and the players at the table, the GM often doesn't know what is in his or her head on a particular aspect of the setting until the players start pushing on it at the table. An important like in that video by Justin Alexander is that a well run sandbox eventually runs itself. And this is due to the living world--synergy aspect of play, which eventually puts players in greater and greater control of what is happening. Sometimes that takes many sessions to get to because there is a process of initially learning about the world. But then as things are established, and the players become more familiar they do start to behave more like natural residents of a real place and I find the focus at that point often shifts more to relationships between different characters and groups.

Again Pemerton my main issue here is in your description of 'playing to discover the GM's notes' and in your oversimplification of the whole process.

 

[pemerton]

This is what I mean by lawyerly. It just never feels like a real conversation with you Pemerton. It just feels like you are simply looking for opportunities to bend my words to your point. Again, ultimately what we are debating is the terminology of 'playing to discover the GM's notes'. I reject this terminology and I find it insulting and reductive. Whatever other points are made along the way, what ever other statements people make you choose to dissect over a 46 page thread, this is the point of disagreement. No amount of 'Bedrock games has repeatedly' is going to force me to adopt your vocabulary or your framework for understanding RPGs.

I'm sorry that you are insulted. But you refuse to offer any literal terminology to discuss how RPGing works. All you will use is the metaphor of the PCs exploring the GM's world. As if there's no difference between a group of people wandering around Paris checking out the sights and a group of people sitting around a table talking to one another. Surely you can see that it is impossible to take such a contention seriously?

 

[pemerton]

It isn't simply learning. Discovering suggests much more active exploration. Learning sounds as if they are simply being told what is the in the GMs head

How do they discover? Other than by prompting or provoking the GM to tell them things?

 

[pemerton]

I have no problem with him not liking the style. I have a problem with him imposing his experience on those of us who don't have the same reaction

I don't even understand what the second sentence means. I haven't imposed anything on you. I've posted a few words on a message board in response to your posts - which as I understand it is the point of the medium.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm sorry that you are insulted. But you refuse to offer any literal terminology to discuss how RPGing works. All you will use is the metaphor of the PCs exploring the GM's world. As if there's no difference between a group of people wandering around Paris checking out the sights and a group of people sitting around a table talking to one another. Surely you can see that it is impossible to take such a contention seriously?

since the Gzm notes is also non literal I don’t see why my terminology is so horrible. But living world is the terminology I have always used. If you want to call it an imagined world or the GMs world (with imagined being assumed in the description) that seems accurate enough for me and it doesn’t confuse exploring an imagined location with exploring a real world city. No one is saying those are identical experiences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How do they discover? Other than by prompting or provoking the GM to tell them things?

by saying what they want to do, where they go, what they say, by asking the GM questions, etc.

 

[pemerton]

You've caricatured my own world by your own bad experience.

I've not said anything about you world. I've asked you to post actual play - but you haven't pointed me to any. You have said that my game would be shallow for you. I've invited you to read my actual play posts but you've declined.

I really just think we are probably talking about something at least slightly different and maybe somewhat different when we talk of immersion. I mean we may write the same definition down but the actual feeling or experience seems a bit different.

When I talk about RPGing being deep (cf shallow) or meaningful (cf trite) I have in mind the same sorts of things that would inform my judgements of other media.

Do the situations express and evoke human passions? Are the characters engaging and intriguing? Do the events of play surprise, amuse, even upset?

I think for clarification. The campaign setting is mostly constructed in advance. The GM then becomes to the best of his or her ability a neutral arbiter from then on out. When you say something like "The GM decides if a secret do is present" the implication is that the GM is allowed to improv but the players are not. That is not the case at least in my games. The door is either there or not there per the campaign world. If it is not there then of course it cannot be found. If it is there and the roll is made it will certainly be found and if the roll is not made it will certainly not be found.

So the GM does two jobs. To the degree he can separate them that is good.

One is constructing the setting which he does before the campaign for the most part but also between sessions for things like advancing a calendar or reactions to PC actions that are not immediate. He takes care to dice for probabilities and not just choose and to be neutral.

The second is adjudicating what is happening in the setting during the play session. At that time the GM is not doing very much fictional creation. He is adhering to the campaign setting as much as possible. His goal is to be a neutral arbiter and purveyor of what the PCs are interacting with.

Emerikol, I am very familiar with the approach to play that you describe. The last time that I used it was a couple of years ago running an AD&D one-off of X2 Castle Amber.

It is not the same as what @Maxperson and @Bedrockgames are describing, because they both do contemplate the GM engaging in fictional creation during the play session. Maxperson especially. (This is why I keep getting confused by their repeated use of "we" and "our".)

In the style you are describing, when the players move their PCs from square to square of the map, and ask questions about what they see and are told things by the GM, they are very much learning what is in the GM's notes. In X2, for instance, the players learn about the different members of the Amber family, they find the portal to Averoigne, they find the ingredients they need to recover Stephen Amber's tomb, etc. There can't be any "exploration" without the GM telling them about these things.

Suppose a GM purchased a really detailed setting. Suppose one exists to purchase even if none is on the market right now. If the GM purchases it and then adhered to it with great fidelity, would the GM still be creating that fiction? He is just relaying the information from the store bought setting as the PCs interact with it.

When I GMed X2, I wasn't using notes that I authored myself. Tom Moldvay wrote them. I don't think that has a very big impact on the process of play.

Also, you refer to the PCs interacting with the information that the GM relays. But people don't "interact" with information. They learn it. Or they convey it. Other salient verbs are listen, tell, etc.