What is the point of GM's notes?

[Aldarc]

It seemed like quite a big distinction but maybe I can help you grasp it better with an example of said distinction...

DM NOTES: Hrothgar of the Howing winds is the leader of the Wolf Nomads

Playing to discover the DM's notes would be, through play, discovering said information perhaps by visiting the lands of the Wolf Nomads, or researching the lineage of the Wolf Nomad leaders or... well I think you get the picture.

However the minute I as a player... Usurp the leadership from Hrothgar of the Howling Winds, aid Hrothgar in also claiming the leadership of the Deer Clans, assassinate Hrothgar for his son to claim leadership or to destabilize the Wolf tribe so an invading army can wipe it out... or take any one of numerous actions through my character that changes/modifies or creates a difference in the world... I am no longer "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes".

It is this distinction that I believe @Bedrockgames is trying to make (please feel free to correct me if my take is incorrect). A descriptor of "Play to find out what's in the GM's notes" in no way takes into account the ability of players to change and/or create their own "notes" in accordance with the GM's, something that heavy prep style does not in and of itself preclude from happening... thus it is a mischaracterization of what actually happens in the playstyle. Is the distinction more clear now??

Edit: I appreciate your attempt to clarify matter.

Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process. This is why the distinction seems a bit arbitrary, if not a somewhat meaningless one, as the ability to simply create "new notes" in the game is basically a truism of TTRPGs through PC actions, whether we are playing sandboxes, no myth story games, or adventure paths. And "discovering what's in the GM's notes" doesn't seem terribly different from "discovering what's in the GM's authored world," regardless of whether they exist in notated form or not.

 

[Imaro]

The point, which you seem to be missing, is that these play goals can and do happen WITH DM notes. Your style isn't required for players to be able to assert their own goals and make the world their own play place.

I've been arguing this as well... it's the ability of one side to pre-define the necessary criteria for "protagonism" (basically that the GM must not heavy prep and the players must be able to co-author outside of their characters in-game influence for real "protagonism" to exist) that has made it hard and frustrating to have this discussion and why I semi-bowed out earlier. IMO, with the right approach a heavy prepped game can achieve protagonism in the sense of being about player goals and desires through being equally driven by player and GM desire.

 

[Imaro]

Edit: I appreciate your attempt to clarify matter.

Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process. This is why the distinction seems a bit arbitrary, if not a somewhat meaningless one, as the ability to simply create "new notes" in the game is basically a truism of TTRPGs through PC actions, whether we are playing sandboxes, no myth story games, or adventure paths. And "discovering what's in the GM's notes" doesn't seem terribly different from "discovering what's in the GM's authored world," regardless of whether they exist in notated form or not.

The fact that this is a truism pretty much explains why "play to find out what's in the GM's notes is mildly insulting and such a bad descriptor of the playstyle. Just saying.

EDIT: You're basically saying no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes... but you still think it's a good descriptor for a particular playstyle. Make it make sense please??

 

[Aldarc]

The fact that this is a truism pretty much explains why "play to find out what's in the GM's notes is mildly insulting and such a bad descriptor of the playstyle. Just saying.

I think you misunderstand me. Just saying.

 

[Imaro]

I think you misunderstand me. Just saying.

If so maybe you haven't expressed yourself well enough for me to grasp your point... are you going to expound further or....??

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process. This is why the distinction seems a bit arbitrary, if not a somewhat meaningless one, as the ability to simply create "new notes" in the game is basically a truism of TTRPGs through PC actions, whether we are playing sandboxes, no myth story games, or adventure paths. And "discovering what's in the GM's notes" doesn't seem terribly different from "discovering what's in the GM's authored world," regardless of whether they exist in notated form or not.

There are two big problems with the 'playing the discover the GM's notes" that go beyond description: it is insulting (which I think just about everyone on my side of the fence has agreed upon) and it is extremely reductive, and fails to capture the nuances of what is really going on. Sure you can simplify and reduce it to that explanation, but as I said, if you do so, and then try to run a game based on that as a principle: it isn't going to be the kind of game me, Maxperson, or virtually anyone whose game you are trying to run, typically run. I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand why folks object to having a style of play they know and enjoy, described as 'playing to discover the GM's notes' both inaccurate and objectionable. And it shouldn't surprise people using that term that they get push back. There was a video about sandbox play by Ron Edwards (who by the way, to be clear, I don't have a problem with at all, I actually like his persona even though I often find myself in strong disagreement with his ideas). He was being a bit facetious, and called it Kittybox. It was obviously meant in humor, I am not 'offended' that he used that language. But I also don't think that kind of terminology is a good way to understand a style objectively, and it is definitely doing to get pushback from people who like sandbox (just like if I called your style "latrine play" you might object to it). Playing to discover what is in the GM's notes is one step above that. It is something people invoke when they feel like they have no agency or real choice in a game session. It is not a description but a judgment.

And that bolded bit is why "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" doesn't really work as a tool of description for any RPG style. This is why I said even adventure paths are not playing to discover what's in the GMs notes. There is always a more living element in play to varying degrees, there are always going to be things coming that weren't in the notes nor were addressed by the notes. The notes themselves are just a tool, not the purpose of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play.

This is why 'living' is an important term here. A lot of GMs avoid putting monsters in specific rooms because that seems highly artificial (and if they do this is often understood to be a 'snapshot'). That orc can move freely. He might not even be a concrete detail, he could be a possibility arising from a random table. grWhatever the case, once the players interact with it, then the point of play really begins. And the GM might be discovering what that orc is all about as the players do. If I roll on a wandering monster table and an orc enters the picture, then I am going to be figuring out why he is there on the spot. If the players do something unexpected (like try to befriend it) I will likely be going beyond notes and figuring out its motivations. If they then hit it off with the orc and decide to leave the dungeon and go rob a bank with the orc, we are in territory that is clearly not 'playing to discover the GM's notes'. And reducing this kind of play to that, misses the essence of what is going on.

 

[Maxperson]

Edit: I appreciate your attempt to clarify matter.

Sure, and the moment that you kill an orc in Room 1 of the dungeon through your own actions, the orc that previously existed in the GM's notes, no longer exists, but this would still largely describe "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" in terms of the general process of play. The difference between the usurpation of the Hrothgar's leadership and the orc is primarily a difference of scale rather than process.

No. The difference is who is setting the goals. If you are passive and just follow the DM's leads into a dungeon and kill an orc, you are just playing to discover things that the DM is putting before you. If you are initiating your own plans and shaping the world to your desires, forcing the DM to react to your actions, you are not.

 

[Aldarc]

EDIT: You're basically saying no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes... but you still think it's a good descriptor for a particular playstyle. Make it make sense please??

If so maybe you haven't expressed yourself well enough for me to grasp your point... are you going to expound further or....??

I can try. I'm not saying that no one actually plays just to find out what's in a GM's notes. I'm saying that playing to explore and interact with the world is often - but not always, depending upon the style of game - a distinction without a difference as playing to discover what's in the GM's notes. "I want to explore and interact with Blizzard's world of Azeroth" isn't terribly different, from where I'm standing with, "I want to discover what's in Blizzard's notes about Azeroth." One just lends itself to more romantic notions of exploration, discovery, and character agency than the more frank version that points out the fundamental process that involves the "man behind the curtain."

Furthermore, the ability to generate "new notes" or game states of the in-game fiction doesn't somehow nullify or debunk "play to discover the GM's notes" as a descriptor for the fundamental "behind-the-scenes" play processes that are transpiring in certain game styles. It's about like saying, "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" can't possibly apply as a descriptor to my game styles on the counter-claim that "I play to roleplay a character." The fact that I am roleplaying a character in a TTRPG is a fairly obvious point. The fact that my character can make an orc from the GM's notes dead is an equally meaningless point as the ability to usurp the leadership of a NPC that existed in the GM's notes. The ability to create "new notes," so to speak, basically just says that you can interact with the pre-existing notes in the fiction, but it doesn't really rebuke the central feedback loop of play.

 

[Scott Christian]

The skills need to prevent flaws are predicated on the ones to find flaws. If I'm preventing flaws, its because I can already recognize them. You cannot prevent flaws (effectively) if you cannot find them.

There is nothing about this statement that I disagree with. But, in all of my examples, flaws do not present themselves until gameplay occurs. That is the case for most games I know; the GM thinks something is good, but winds up being so-so or blah. And the reverse can also happen, one the GM thought would be blasé turns out really fun. And then the majority turn out as expected.

It is those unexpected events that occur during play that can help a GM stretch or relearn some skills. And many of those occur running an AP as opposed to one's own material. One's own material generally doesn't have as many unexpected situations.

There are two things going on here. Firstly, the ability to recognize flaws that need to be fixed isn't something that is special to APs. You've introduced that APs are special because they have more(?) chances of being flawed and therefore a GM learns more about recognizing flaws. This isn't clear because work done by a GM for their own games has already done this pass -- there are fewer flaws to recognize in play because the GM has already done most of this work in design. There's nothing unique about APs, except maybe the higher likelihood of poor design for a given GM's game.

Secondly, you're advocating for APs as teaching new tools. This is flawed because you must already be good enough at GMing to recognize when an AP is doing something clever and worth learning and when it's doing something badly than needs correction. The skill to recognize these things is not taught by APs, it's actually harmed by them, because there's the assumption that the AP is actually well-designed and so emulating all of it is something you should do. And, perhaps it is, for a given table, but there's nothing in the AP that teaches this especially over things generated by a GM. What I mean here is that it's just as likely for a GM to learn that things do or don't work with their own material as it is with an AP.

All of this falls under the assumption that the GM is omniscient and can accurately predict everything. Which a quick glance through any of these posts on this site often proves otherwise.

If you don't accept the premise that an AP might have more circumstances in game than an event/notes/campaign written by the GM running the table, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because my entire claim rests on this idea.

I do appreciate your viewpoint though. Thank you.