What is the point of GM's notes?

[billd91]

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.

I don't think he's saying little-e exploring, rather a character being [dramatic fanfare]an Explorer! [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare]. I mean, what qualifies as a "dramatic need" and why can't being [dramatic fanfare]an Explorer! [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare] qualify?

 

[Emerikol]

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.

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.

I also thought this was an interesting point. It's definitely not player choice driven but it is protagonistic it seems. In fact, I'd say AP's in general are highly party spotlight. Spotlight is a term I hear all the time as a way to describe campaigns. The reality is though that the spotlight is either 100% the party or it's 85% the party.

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.

I want to disagree here but not be disagreeable about it. I think again you are inferring something. Yes the world is a DM known quantity and what the PCs can theoretically do is limited to that setting. They can't fight Zeus for example if Zeus is not a god in that campaign.

I like to think that my campaigns are similar to how people approach the real world if the real world was a fantasy world and they were the adventurous sort. That means exploration could very well be a motive and when you say exploration I assume you mean discovery in general as well. But as the world moves all sorts of other motivations crop up. Revenge, love, greed, all come into play. It's what a living world produces. You have people doing things and those things are noticed by the PCs and the PCs are sometimes motivated by those things. On occasion the PCs do things that causes the world to take notice. So I think exploration is an oversimplification of my style. I do agree exploration being fun is usually a given for people who like the style.

 

[Umbran]

Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need. No drama.

Define how you are using "drama" please. The idea that drama and exploration are mutually exclusive seems... a pretty narrow view of drama, and I don't want to be talking past each other here.

This isn't a competition to say that you have protagonism

Stop trying to cast my discussion as such, please and thank you, as your mind-reading abilities to tell what I am trying to do are... very bad. Really. Just awful.

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.

I think of it as setting myself up for success. There's a bazillion dramatic needs I, the player, could set my character up for that would be enjoyable for me. If it is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, why not choose the ones that will be less work for the GM? Do I, the player, have to be willfully difficult for it to be protagonism?

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.

Where I come from, "dramatic needs" includes pacing and dramatic beats - these are major parts of how drama is expressed. If that drama is supposed to be focused on the character, it needs to land in a time and way that is appropriate for the character, doesn't it?

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.

So, again, your ability to read minds is not serving you well, as I am not of that school in the slightest.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think he's saying little-e exploring, rather a character being [dramatic fanfare]an Explorer! [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare]. I mean, what qualifies as a "dramatic need" and why can't being [dramatic fanfare]an Explorer! [puff out chest][/dramatic fanfare] qualify?

Exactly If the player has taken Indiana Jones as a character, places to explore that they don't know about are necessary components of their dramatic needs, no?

And, to come back around to the point of notes - if the PC is Indiana Jones, isn't the GM having prepared notes on various things to explore really setting themselves up to serve those needs?

 

[Imaro]

My prep notes usually involve the following (Note this is for D&D play)...

1. General facts about people places and things the players may or may not encounter.
2. Suggestions for what the result may be for certain decisions or actions the players/PC's may or may not make during gameplay.
3. Includes maps for geography and/or structures I expect the players/PC's to encounter and interact with.
4. Contains stats for monsters & NPC's I expect the players/PC's to encounter and/or initiate combat with.
5. Generic stats based around level for improvising unexpected combat encounters.
6. Various tables for random generation of things such as neighborhoods in a city, weather during travel, random encounters, etc. Depending on what direction I expect the game session to go in.
7. Names for people & places for use on the fly.

I tend to run a game that is a mix between GM driven and player driven. If there is something the players wish to explore, attain or some aspect of their character they wish to delve into then that is what will drive the session. However if the players just want to explore and adventure amongst my creations they can also do that within the agreed upon paradigms of the campaign.

EDIT: I find it weird how often these discussions force GM driven and player driven campaigns into an either/or situation. I think both the GM and the players should be allowed to direct the game at times, and the most enjoyable games I've run have never been either/or.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I'm going to agree with @Umbran in 118, the gm can predict the dramatic needs of exploring. If you assume that your PCs are proactive competent & dramatic individuals living a life or engaging in an exploration of something* with those elements it's easy even. It helps if your players also view their characters that way as they are more likely to charge in dramatically when your are describing some dramatic person place thing or event even though Ackbar is screaming about traps in the background. IME you can encourage them to engage in the dramatic rather than tomb of horrors style poke every square first by rewarding it with meaningful results. You can do things like make "traps" that aren't a simple die roll & let the players devise a solution organically to add some drama & excitment to things when you feel like exploring needs something to add spice & shake things up. That extends to any kind of exploring, traps can be an npc with a problem a magical ward with enough power that you feel it 20feet away or anything.

* plot, ancient ruins, the bbeg's scheme, cult temple, haunted house, whatever.

 

[Lanefan]

She says she's running it stock.

Sounds cool. I should give it a look sometime.

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.

Fair enough - I was speaking in more general terms and of situations that spanned more levels than just two.

 

[Lanefan]

Um, no, exploring is not a dramatic need. No drama.

Interesting take. Maybe this, if commonly held, explains why exploration for its own sake doesn't seem big among the story-now types.

Thing is, though: exploration is dramatic - or certainly can be. What danger lurks around the next corner? How are we going to approach it? Are we going to approach it at all or has fear finally stopped us from moving forward?

Hell, much of the horror genre is built around exploring where you shouldn't, and the resulting fear and-or actualization of bad results when you do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Define how you are using "drama" please. The idea that drama and exploration are mutually exclusive seems... a pretty narrow view of drama, and I don't want to be talking past each other here.

The alternative is that anything is drama. If "exploring" is a dramatic need, then so is "fighting" and "resting" and pretty much anything else.

No, a dramatic need is something much deeper. The need to be the best explorer ever is a dramatic need, or the need to be the best fighter ever is a dramatic need. These involve exploration or fighting, but are not satisfied by just that -- instead it's deeper and more meaningful.

"I have exploring, and it's dramatic" speaks to a need that's not the characters -- the drama here belongs to the player, not the character.

Stop trying to cast my discussion as such, please and thank you, as your mind-reading abilities to tell what I am trying to do are... very bad. Really. Just awful.

Roll eyes. Trying to foreclose a line whereby it seems I'm claiming protagonism is a need isn't trying to read your mind. You trying to assume that's what I was doing is as bad. Quite often you're quick to accuse others of behavior you engage in, although you have some pretty nice top cover to avoid being called on it.

I think of it as setting myself up for success. There's a bazillion dramatic needs I, the player, could set my character up for that would be enjoyable for me. If it is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, why not choose the ones that will be less work for the GM? Do I, the player, have to be willfully difficult for it to be protagonism?

What are you even talking about? Being willfully difficult? This is only a concept if the game is about what the GM says it's about, and you the player have to adapt to it. If the GM is setting themes and conditions, then the game's not really about your PCs, even if you bend to this and make a PC that's about the GM's game.

Where I come from, "dramatic needs" includes pacing and dramatic beats - these are major parts of how drama is expressed. If that drama is supposed to be focused on the character, it needs to land in a time and way that is appropriate for the character, doesn't it?

Sorry, then, that there's a disconnect in your understanding due to your place of origin. Pacing and dramatic beats are not about dramatic needs -- these are very different things. Pacing and dramatic beats are about how the GM is presenting story, not what story is being presented. Dramatic needs are about what the story is about.

So, again, your ability to read minds is not serving you well, as I am not of that school in the slightest.

Are you sure? Many of your arguments, including the one immediately above about picking character goals that align with the GM's game being contrasted by being "difficult." If you intend something else, I'm all ears - and it would be a boon to conversation if you actually explained instead of just pouting. I thought you often caution people about engaging in discussion to just win points? What else is this about?

 

[billd91]

No, a dramatic need is something much deeper. The need to be the best explorer ever is a dramatic need, or the need to be the best fighter ever is a dramatic need. These involve exploration or fighting, but are not satisfied by just that -- instead it's deeper and more meaningful.

"I have exploring, and it's dramatic" speaks to a need that's not the characters -- the drama here belongs to the player, not the character.

How much deeper? What does deeper mean here? Right now, "dramatic need" seems fuzzier than Potter Stewart's comment on porn because I'm not even sure I'd know it when I see it. At least not in any way you'd define it.