What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

It's not dependency, it's just demographics. Way more people play APs than do OSR style sandboxes.

I know there is no dependency. My criticism was that he made the connection when there is not one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, the way he stated it was that "skilled play" games are typically railroaded APs. It's fine to say that railroaded APs often use skilled play as a payoff. But skilled play does not necessarily lead to any style of game besides skilled play. You can have a deep immersive world with skilled play or you can have a fully railroaded AP. It's an independent variable. I was taking issue with his wording indicating it was a dependent variable.

No, dude, I said APs are typically railroads. Sheesh.

As far as roleplaying goes, we do that in spades, pretty much in any game we play. My group plays Gloomhaven, most recently the early access digital version due to COVID, but even there we roleplay. Skilled play is not the enemy of roleplaying, in any way I understand, although you can absolutely approach it that way.

As for protagonism, it may be that you're not following what is meant by this. Protagonism is where the dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play. This doesn't mesh well with your previously stated goals of prep of having a world independent of the characters and having things that happen independent of them, nor that goal that they discover things to do in your setting. And none of this a dig -- protagonism is a specific play goal, and not a fixed good. The AP I'm running lacks all protagonism in it's design, and has to, because it cannot anticipate the dramatic needs of any given PC, and so must center the needs of the villains and the NPCs. It's a perfectly valid approach (clearly I don't have a problem with it). Now, I've worked with the players to find dramatic needs that fit alongside the already detailed needs, and so have 3/4 PCs that have dramatic needs that will feature at times in the game, which is going past the AP and specifically including material that does so. From what you've said, you don't do this (write campaign material specifically tailored to the PCs). If you do, then there's some protagonism there. If you don't, there's not, and there's nothing at all wrong with this. Protaganism doesn't mean "good game" and it's lessening does not mean "bad game" -- it's a label for talking about how the game is structured.

 

[Emerikol]

It's not dependency, it's just demographics. Way more people play APs than do OSR style sandboxes.

And to be honest, this was probably true in Gygax's day as much as it is today. So it's not a game system issue. It's a time and commitment issue. Some just don't have the time and/or committment.

 

[Emerikol]

As for protagonism, it may be that you're not following what is meant by this. Protagonism is where the dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play. This doesn't mesh well with your previously stated goals of prep of having a world independent of the characters and having things that happen independent of them, nor that goal that they discover things to do in your setting. And none of this a dig -- protagonism is a specific play goal, and not a fixed good. The AP I'm running lacks all protagonism in it's design, and has to, because it cannot anticipate the dramatic needs of any given PC, and so must center the needs of the villains and the NPCs. It's a perfectly valid approach (clearly I don't have a problem with it). Now, I've worked with the players to find dramatic needs that fit alongside the already detailed needs, and so have 3/4 PCs that have dramatic needs that will feature at times in the game, which is going past the AP and specifically including material that does so. From what you've said, you don't do this (write campaign material specifically tailored to the PCs). If you do, then there's some protagonism there. If you don't, there's not, and there's nothing at all wrong with this. Protaganism doesn't mean "good game" and it's lessening does not mean "bad game" -- it's a label for talking about how the game is structured.

I guess I was thinking the players would be free in a sandbox to pursue whatever goals they wanted. They are of course constrained by what exists in the sandbox. This may be another one of those game terms that I've not heard that much about until now. And I didn't mean to imply that protagonism meant good. I guess I was thinking player agency vs what you are calling protagonism.

I guess as you describe protagonism the world reshapes itself to fit the players desires and not what would be their characters desires in game? For example if a player expresses the fact he always wanted to save a princess from a dragon then whatever the world was like before it now has a dragon holding a princess who needs rescued? Is that what you mean?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess I was thinking the players would be free in a sandbox to pursue whatever goals they wanted. They are of course constrained by what exists in the sandbox. This may be another one of those game terms that I've not heard that much about until now. And I didn't mean to imply that protagonism meant good. I guess I was thinking player agency vs what you are calling protagonism.

I guess as you describe protagonism the world reshapes itself to fit the players desires and not what would be their characters desires in game? For example if a player expresses the fact he always wanted to save a princess from a dragon then whatever the world was like before it now has a dragon holding a princess who needs rescued? Is that what you mean?

No, I wouldn't describe it as such. I'd say that the game focuses on the PC's dramatic needs. This seems to be headed back towards our disagreement on when fiction is malleable -- I can't see any change in the GM's notes to be a reshaping of the world, just a changing of the mind prior to introduction in play, but this is really not the case either. The case is that the GM isn't creating material that doesn't address the dramatic needs of the PCs to begin with.

And, it's not really "the player expresses a desire" so much, because the concept requires that the player be advocating for their PC, which means that saving a princess from a dragon has to be baked into the PC, not a passing player whim for fun. Protagonism is about the needs of the PC, not the wants of the player.

 

[Umbran]

Once your crew have finished it, it'd be interesting to know whether the DM is running it stock or has mixed things up a little for variety.

She says she's running it stock.

I've been in games where it's been a sticking point for me - "It points back to this guy again? Can we just go nuke him already?".

I mean, the whole region is cursed in darkness, so it isn't like we can really ignore the issue. And no, we can't "just go nuke them" - we are second level. We aren't "nuking" much of anything.

And that another reason to change things up: some characters or classes are simply stronger or weaker in some adventure types than others. Changing up the adventure types gives everyone a chance to shine and-or be less effective for a while, and ideally it all more or less evens out in the end.

On that point, we agree.

 

[uzirath]

Did the bolded bit happen because you (the GM) told them something that was in your notes?

Yes. In that episode, Orm was basically a complication that I could drop in at any point. Once introduced, the players could move the story in a variety of different directions.

 

[Umbran]

As for protagonism, it may be that you're not following what is meant by this. Protagonism is where the dramatic needs of the PCs are the primary focus of play. This doesn't mesh well with your previously stated goals of prep of having a world independent of the characters and having things that happen independent of them, nor that goal that they discover things to do in your setting.

Well, that would depend entirely on the dramatic needs of the PCs, now wouldn't it? It isn't like a GM cannot predict a lot of the dramatic needs ahead of time, and prepare for them. If the PCs are positioned as explorers or investigators, then their dramatic needs will commonly be discovering things, for example.

In addition, for something like an AP, there does not need to be a lack of protagonism in play, if everyone is on board. I'm playing through Rime of the Frostmaiden right now. Knowing a small bit about it, I created a character that is by nature positioned to play well into the likely elements of the adventure. I set myself up to succeed, so that what's happening in the adventure automatically plays to my needs.

A lot of the dramatic needs of protagonism are of the moment - what is happening in one session in terms of pacing and dramatic beats, which is not strongly linked to what's in the world, in a general sense.

 

[jmartkdr2]

OK, so what is the process for determining when the PCs encounter them?

Suppose the GM has a note which channels some mix of the Odyssey and REH Conan and reads: The temple of Olath is of predominantly black marble with the occasional lurid green mottling. The high priest is pleasant enough company, but at his core as cruel as his divine master. He may try to trap unsuspecting travellers to sacrifice them on Olath's profane altar! And then maybe there's a map and key to the temple, and a stat block for the evil high priest.

There are very many ways that such a note could be used in play. Just as a handful of examples:

* it could be used to frame a situation (After many days lost at sea, you are able to anchor your galley in a sheltered bay. The beach slopes up quite steeply, and above the beach is a hill. At the top of the hill sits what looks like a temple that glistens black in the sunlight.);​

​

* it could be used to establish a consequence of a failed check (eg an orienteering check, or teleportation roll, or similar sort of manoeuvre is failed, and the GM narrates Instead of arriving safely at the destination you had hoped, you find yourself lost in the swamp - but through the mists you can see a building all of black that looks like a temple . . .);​

​

* it could be used to determine an outcome of an action declaration (one of the PCs has been captured by the high priest of Olath, and the player of another PC declares I want to sneak in and rescue my friend. I believe temples of Olath often have a concealed way in and out. Can I find one here? The GM might then consult the previously-drawn map, note the absence of any concealed way drawn on that map, and answer "No").​

There are other ways, too, and each of the above has "sub-ways" - eg a GM might use notes (like a "world map" or "region map") to decide what are the possible suite of consequences for a failed orienteering check, and this might help the GM decide whether or not the Temple of Olath is a possible narration on this particular occasion of failure.

The thing is, from that note (not that mine look like that - they're much less wordy) I could do any of those things. The Temple is in a place. If the pc's are close enough, they can see it and choose to go there or not. The priest has motivations and resources, and so would be doing things to make that happen (not in these notes but would be in mine). This creates rumor the pc's might hear, which they can follow up on or not. A teleport mishap might lad them there, though IME players go out of their way to never have mishaps if those are in any way avoidable.

The map would guide any attempt to do things at the Temple - if there's a back way or not, etc. (Although depending on my mood I might add one if it makes sense that it would be there but isn't on my map.)


I don't have a plan for how to use the notes beyond "if it comes up." I'm not super-consistent about it, since they're just a bunch of ideas for me to use if I think they would be useful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, that would depend entirely on the dramatic needs of the PCs, now wouldn't it? It isn't like a GM cannot predict a lot of the dramatic needs ahead of time, and prepare for them. If the PCs are positioned as explorers or investigators, then their dramatic needs will commonly be discovering things, for example.

Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need. No drama. This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism -- it's not a thing that having makes your game better. It makes it different.

In addition, for something like an AP, there does not need to be a lack of protagonism in play, if everyone is on board. I'm playing through Rime of the Frostmaiden right now. Knowing a small bit about it, I created a character that is by nature positioned to play well into the likely elements of the adventure. I set myself up to succeed, so that what's happening in the adventure automatically plays to my needs.

This is an interesting point -- is your choice to embrace the known elements of the AP, which are fixed ahead of time and known to you, a form of protagonism? Is the game now about your PC's dramatic needs, in some way, or have you just adopted the dramatic cues available to you so as to borrow them for yourself? It's an interesting point.

A lot of the dramatic needs of protagonism are of the moment - what is happening in one session in terms of pacing and dramatic beats, which is not strongly linked to what's in the world, in a general sense.

Protagonism isn't about pacing and dramatic beats. These usually focus on non-protagonist play, where the GM is driving a fun story using pacing and beats to engage the players. Protagonism is when the game is about the PCs, first and foremost.

I see this argument coming from the same place that says that the GM's notes are the world, even if they haven't been entered into play. If this is the case, then the game is clearly not about protagonism, it's about discovering the GM's notes. This is a fine way to play -- I'm playing this way right now -- but it's not about protagonism.

And, again, this is fine. Protagonism isn't about something you should have in your games. It's just a descriptor that describes a certain approach -- one where play is about the PCs dramatic needs. This isn't a positional good, it's just a way to play.