What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

It sounds as though you're saying his notes are there so y'all can change what's in them.

He is saying the note is just describing details in the world as a snapshot. Once you play begins everything is moving. One of the places where I first encountered this idea, though I know it existed prior, is Feast of Goblyns. I called this idea Living Adventure (they called it a wandering major encounter in FoG---but you can see how that leads to all kinds of other things if you explore it). This is one of the reasons it is a little frustrating to see these kinds of details described as playing to find out what is in the GMs notes. The GM might not even know what's in his notes once play starts and NPCs take on a life of their own:

 

[prabe]

He is saying the note is just describing details in the world as a snapshot. Once you play begins everything is moving. One of the places where I first encountered this idea, though I know it existed prior, is Feast of Goblyns. I called this idea Living Adventure (they called it a wandering major encounter in FoG---but you can see how that leads to all kinds of other things if you explore it). This is one of the reasons it is a little frustrating to see these kinds of details described as playing to find out what is in the GMs notes. The GM might not even know what's in his notes once play starts and NPCs take on a life of their own:

View attachment 134748
View attachment 134749

Well, yes. There's a reasonable argument that the reason stuff exists in the setting is for the PCs to interact with it, and (probably) change it. There's also a reasonable argument that before the PCs can change something they have to find it, or find out it exists. I think the difference between those arguments is the difference between some people saying the point of a given game is to find out what's in the GM's notes, and other people saying the first people are missing the point.

I'm not surprised that elements of this argument go way, way back. Seems as though most of the major arguments in TRPGs do.

 

[Aldarc]

@Bedrockgames is merely pointing out its existence.

Nah. That's not what he was doing at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, yes. There's a reasonable argument that the reason stuff exists in the setting is for the PCs to interact with it, and (probably) change it.

More than that, the stuff on the page can change before the players interact with it because this stuff can all be living, moving elements in the setting

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nah. That's not what he was doing at all.

I believe that is what I was doing.

 

[Aldarc]

I believe that is what I was doing.

Through snide passive aggressive insults and some veiled personal attacks? How noble of you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Through snide passive aggressive insults and some veiled personal attacks? How noble of you.

I was very direct in critiquing the OP. There is nothing passive aggressive here. I am describing what I have seen play out in these threads around the concept of "playing to discover what is in the GM's notes".

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm still at the point that you're strongly recommending GMs learn from APs because they're more likely to find flaws in the AP.

That aside, your argument is still pretty flawed. The skills needed to prevent flaws are the same ones you're recommending people learn. You use more tools if you're ahead of the curve, not less.

I think I see the error here. (It might be my communication.) The skills needed to prevent flaws are different than the ones used on the fly when finding flaws. At least, that is my take.

The skills were used and practiced -- in the encounter design. You're discounting good design work on the one hand, and then saying that doing good design work when fixing bad designs is how you use and practice good GMing. You can't have it both ways -- either design is important or it is not. Why you engage in that design work doesn't increase the skill involved.

Maybe you are misunderstanding. I am not dissing design work at all. I am saying, that when a GM uses an AP, they use and sometimes practice different skills that they would not use in adventures of their own design. Hence, my original claim, that APs can teach young and experienced GMs alike. It can create new tools and/or remind a GM of tools they haven't used in a long time.

Right, the only way you'd know is if the GM tells you. Even if you ask, the changes aren't necessarily going to come up. When I do a design, it's often an iterative process, where I try things until I find the right setup. Often, though, I can short circuit this because I've done it before and have a handy set of guidelines I can use to quickly create an exciting scene. This means little change is needed, but not because I'm not practicing my skills but because I've already done that practice, and I'm using the results to not have to do so much work.

This is exactly my point. The difference between your creation and an AP is different, and sometimes those differences use different skill sets. So the experienced GM that has used their own material for twenty years might experience something brand new (or relived or re-experienced) when running an AP as is.

 

[Scott Christian]

If this were true, authors would not need editors. And, by all that is holy, authors do need editors.

How does what I said mean authors do not need editors? That makes zero sense.

What I said is people who write, and are confident in their abilities, believe they need fewer editorial adjustments. And this can be found in a multitude of authors throughout every genre and and every style. And it can definitely be found in a GM that wrote something for their players and their table, versus a traditional published piece.

To restate the piece I was discussing: Ovinomancer believed his written adventure needed fewer adjustments than a traditional AP that has been published.

 

[Maxperson]

This is something I have tried to find words for in these discussions about playing to discover the GM's notes. And what is more, the GM is going to be responding by playing the NPCs and factions. They are not dead words on a page

Yeah. Done right, the playstyle is the DM entirely reacting to what the players are doing, but doing so with the prepped game world. The DM is not leading the players, the players are leading the DM.