What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

I've posted a lot of stuff in this thread, but I'm pretty confident this was another thing I posted about.

There are multiple forms of Adventure Path or Metaplot-driven play.

Two of those forms are, in fact, Railroads. The point of play is for it to be a Railroad. We (the cultural "we" here) would do ourselves a service if we just admitted what it is and that (a) its not a degenerate form of play in and of itself (its only degenerate if its represented as something else and/or the participants are expecting a different form of play), (b) therefore calling it a "Railroad" is not pernicious, (c) it is (in fact) desirable for a large number of players, (d) so therefore it would behoove us to talk plainly about it so GMs can improve their craft.

One of those two forms is basically a passive, theatrical experience for the players where funneled play triggers prescripted exposition dumps. In this case, GMs need to be good at (i) funneling toward that prescription, (ii) knowing when the prescripted exposition dump is triggered, and (iii) theatrically delivering the triggered exposition dump.

The second of those two forms is Adventure Path as Skilled Play (similar to Gloomhaven or a CRPG). Teams play through the AP in basically a "keep score" fashion (even if they're just "keeping score" with their expectation of self). In this form of play the GM needs to be good at (i) - (iii) above though the expectation of theatricality is comparatively muted. Less important than theatricality in exposition is (iv) the ability to deliver the puzzle/obstacle information sufficiently (revealing enough but not leading in a way that impacts Skilled Play) and (v) play "Team NPC" aggressively but fairly. (iv) and (v) become even more important if this is a tourney-esque scenario (like at a Hobby Shop) where you're going to run multiple Teams through it and they can compare and contrast their success (their "Score").


These are two discrete forms of play that are very "reveal what is in the GM's notes"-intensive.

Not all notes are like this or for this...but these two forms of play are orthodox D&D (there are other forms of D&D, but these aren't remotely deviant forms of D&D...they're everywhere).

I feel we covered this ground in other conversations. My point is I think your analysis and mine are biased here. When we frame this in terms of degenerate play (a term I really despise), railroading, as playing to find out what’s in the GMs notes, especially when we are trying to analyze playstyles we don’t like (I don’t care for adventure paths and metaplot) it is a belittling label that I suspect most adherents of said styles would reject (even those practicing ‘degenerate play’ within those styles: will not be using this term again in this thread but invoking it so you are clear on what I am saying). I just think it is a little convenient that these kinds of labels tend fall conveniently around the parameters of ones own playstyle. I think a better term for metaphor and adventure path is linear structure and event based. Railroad can happen in ANY structure if the GM blocks choices or forces players to go a given direction. Even in a metaphor (EDIT: metaplot) driven adventure, the sham (EDIT: GM) can respect player agency and shape metaphor (EDIT: metaplot) around their choices (to honestly reflect their choices). Then it wouldn’t be a railroad.

 

[Aldarc]

The lead post wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about the first post I responded to here, where it looked like the same old "gaming to discover what's in the GMs notes" critique Pemerton always leverages at people who play things like a more traditional sandbox or living world (it is a simplistic and reductive criticism: and it is a playstyle attack disguised as inquiry IMO).

I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes." And I do believe, though you may likely feel differently, that pemerton and others have sufficiently explained and justified how this descriptor applies to said procedures. I don't think that this play procedure under discussion is necessarily limited to your own preferred "traditional sandbox or living world" style games either, since this could also apply to AP play. And I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, as I am someone who also regularly plays and runs games where "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" would be an apt description, including traditional sandbox games. I also know that I'm not the only one who runs games on "both sides of the fence," so to speak. I'm not sure why I should be offended by pemerton's characterization of these games, though perhaps you can shed light on why I should be offended or I should construe this as a playstyle attack.

My experience is when people coin a term to describe a playtstyle they dislike or don't want to engage in, their analysis of said playstyle is usually the thing that isn't very deep

My experience is that passive-aggressive barbs like this do more harm than benefit for discussions. So I would suggest that the best way to move forward is to instead help with digging deeper in regards to the analysis rather than fishing for new ways to be offended by imaginary slights against your preferred playstyle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes."

My point is it isn't accurate. It is pejorative. I think you think you are describing something accurately but not seeing how your bias is shaping your analysis. A term like "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes' is not only dismissive, it is going to miss any nuance or variety going on in that style. Even the most heavy handed adventure path, which I am no fan of, is going to be more than just discovering what the GM has on the page because there is going to be life breathed into the scenario by the players. Again, I don't care for that style myself, I like sessions that are designed to go in all kinds of directions, but I understand from having played them and talking to people who do play them, the point isn't simply to find out what's in the notes. It is also a really weird way to describe the world building that the prep is doing. The bottom line to me is this: if your method of analysis is always just reassuring you that you style isn't something like simply 'playing to discover the GM's notes', you are probably not being objective as you think you are. It is such a sneering description of a playstyle

 

[Bedrockgames]

My experience is that passive-aggressive barbs like this do more harm than benefit for discussions. So I would suggest that the best way to move forward is to instead help with digging deeper in regards to the analysis rather than fishing for new ways to be offended by imaginary slights against your preferred playstyle.

This isn't passive aggressive this is a direct criticism of the discussion. And I think these kinds of playstyle attacks couched as analysis do deserve to be called out for what they are. And I am not even defending my playstyle. So far we've been talking about two playstyels I don't even like. I just don't think 'playing to discover the GM's notes' is a fair description of them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes." And I do believe, though you may likely feel differently, that pemerton and others have sufficiently explained and justified how this descriptor applies to said procedures. I don't think that this play procedure under discussion is necessarily limited to your own preferred "traditional sandbox or living world" style games either, since this could also apply to AP play. And I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, as I am someone who also regularly plays and runs games where "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" would be an apt description, including traditional sandbox games.

I wouldn't describe any three of these styles as playing to discover the GM's notes. And I've been in enough of these threads to understand it is a critique of the style from Pemerton (and many other posters). There are plenty of alternative adventure structures out there. Labeling them, analyzing them, and figuring out how to prepare for them is valuable. Whether you are talking event based, situation based, player driven, character driven, sandbox, linear adventure paths, etc understanding what they are actually trying to do and how to do them is useful. Finding dismissive terms for them isn't (especially when those terms totally miss the mark on what they are about). I could easily come up with similar terms for your preferred style, but I don't because it isn't really about accuracy or understanding when you do that, it is about shading a style with a bit of shame and making it sound less lofty. Period.

 

[Aldarc]

My point is it isn't accurate. It is pejorative. I think you think you are describing something accurately but not seeing how your bias is shaping your analysis. A term like "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes' is not only dismissive, it is going to miss any nuance or variety going on in that style. Even the most heavy handed adventure path, which I am no fan of, is going to be more than just discovering what the GM has on the page because there is going to be life breathed into the scenario by the players. Again, I don't care for that style myself, I like sessions that are designed to go in all kinds of directions, but I understand from having played them and talking to people who do play them, the point isn't simply to find out what's in the notes. It is also a really weird way to describe the world building that the prep is doing. The bottom line to me is this: if your method of analysis is always just reassuring you that you style isn't something like simply 'playing to discover the GM's notes', you are probably not being objective as you think you are. It is such a sneering description of a playstyle

Your point was that you felt offended by pemerton's characterization of your preferred playstyle as "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes" and as such felt obligated to make that offense known through a passive aggressive remark against pemerton by implying that this analysis is shallow. It was hardly a deeper point than that. That said, if you don't think that your own biases are equally at play here, Bedrockgames, then I think you are sorely mistaken and also worth reflecting on.

This isn't passive aggressive this is a direct criticism of the discussion. And I think these kinds of playstyle attacks couched as analysis do deserve to be called out for what they are. And I am not even defending my playstyle. So far we've been talking about two playstyels I don't even like. I just don't think 'playing to discover the GM's notes' is a fair description of them.

Hmmm... or maybe you think you are describing something accurately as a "direct criticism of the discussion," but not seeing how your own bias is shaping the passive aggressive tone of your remarks. If you don't think something is a fair description, then I would suggest offering up with a fair description rather than making passive aggressive barbs and refusing to recognize them for what they were.

 

[Aldarc]

I wouldn't describe any three of these styles as playing to discover the GM's notes.

How would you describe them with greater accuracy then? If you then it's a pejorative, then please give them a suitably positive aphoristic term.

And I've been in enough of these threads to understand it is a critique of the style from Pemerton (and many other posters).

If you've been in enough of these threads as you claim, then I would have hoped that you knew by now how to navigate them with more grace without raising Cain anytime there is a perceived slight against your preferred playstyle or making passive aggressive barbs. If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't repeatedly choose to engage these threads and should rather voluntarily avoid them as you are able. Period.

 

[Manbearcat]

I feel we covered this ground in other conversations. My point is I think your analysis and mine are biased here. When we frame this in terms of degenerate play (a term I really despise), railroading, as playing to find out what’s in the GMs notes, especially when we are trying to analyze playstyles we don’t like (I don’t care for adventure paths and metaplot) it is a belittling label that I suspect most adherents of said styles would reject (even those practicing ‘degenerate play’ within those styles: will not be using this term again in this thread but invoking it so you are clear on what I am saying). I just think it is a little convenient that these kinds of labels tend fall conveniently around the parameters of ones own playstyle. I think a better term for metaphor and adventure path is linear structure and event based. Railroad can happen in ANY structure if the GM blocks choices or forces players to go a given direction. Even in a metaphor (EDIT: metaplot) driven adventure, the sham (EDIT: GM) can respect player agency and shape metaphor (EDIT: metaplot) around their choices (to honestly reflect their choices). Then it wouldn’t be a railroad.

You need to read what I wrote again if this was your takeaway.

I mean...you could aptly describe what I wrote as:

“IN DEFENSE OF RAILROADS”

Framing degenerate play as it was used above wasn’t something to anchor a screed. It was used to defend purposeful, transparent Railroads from being included in the “Railroad as Epithet” bin (eg play specifically advertised as something else but actually being an undesired Railroad).

I mean, the inverse is also true:

Player sits down expecting a Railroad (as advertised)

< GM proceeds to run a Story Now game >

That is definitely degenerate play. It’s basically The Pea and Shell game or 3 Card Monty as RPGing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Your point was that you felt offended by pemerton's characterization of your preferred playstyle as "playing to discover what's in the gm's notes" and as such felt obligated to make that offense known through a passive aggressive remark against pemerton by implying that this analysis is shallow. It was hardly a deeper point than that. That said, if you don't think that your own biases are equally at play here, Bedrockgames, then I think you are sorely mistaken and also worth reflecting on.

No, my point wasn't that. I do indeed also disagree with characterizing sandboxes and living worlds as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. But my point was in response to labeling adventure paths and meta plot campaigns as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. And it isn't a passive aggressive remark, I am being very clear and direct in what I mean. Calling it discovering GMs notes is a pejorative, it isn't a label that accurately reflects anything, it is a critique. And I know it is because I've used it myself to describe adventure paths when I had been critical of them. However it is also a very shallow critique, reflecting subjective bad experiences with the playstyle. I've mentioned many times in the early 2000s, I was pretty tired of the whole structure of adventures being based around a series of encounters with EL's designed to get a certain pace. And my remark was I felt, I might as well just hand my players my notes because that is all this feels like. That was an honest sincere reaction to how I felt at the time. But it wasn't an analysis. You can't take that subjective feeling that I was just waiting for players to discover what is in my notes, and use it to create principles for a good adventure path, because for people who like adventure paths, for people who play them and enjoy them, people who run them, that isn't really the point. The notes are a tool, they are not an end unto itself. And I've talked enough with people who run these kinds of games to get that there is more going on in them than that. I even have to acknowledge back when I felt that way, what I was describing was only one aspect of the game that frustrated me. There were still a lot of areas of play where it wasn't like that at all.

In terms of my own biases, absolutely I have them. Everyone has biases. That is why I have been trying more and more to not characterize play styles that aren't mine, without first understanding them from within and how people who play them and like them see them. This is why I am asking you guys for mechanics all the time (and I will point out I almost never get a response in these threads when I ask for a useful narrative mechanic or scene framing mechanic to use in my own campaign). It is also why in the past six months I've bought tons of RPGS, including many that have been mentioned in these threads (like Blades in the Dark), during debates about playstyle. It is also why I've moved more and more away from things like definitional arguments (where to take things from the other point of view, people promoting my preferred playstyle often define RPGs strictly in order to exclude more story focused play).

 

[Bedrockgames]

How would you describe them with greater accuracy then? If you then it's a pejorative, then please give them a suitably positive aphoristic term.

Terms already exist: event based adventure, linear adventure, adventure path, sandbox, etc. All something like "Playing to discover what's in the GM's notes does" is add judgment on top of something we already have labels for