What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

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 - is 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."

That isn't what we are saying, though. We aren't saying, "I want to explore and interact with Blizzard's world of Azeroth." We are saying, "I want to forge the orcs into a great nation and then raze Stormwind to the ground." Are we interacting with Blizzard's world of Azeroth? Yep. That isn't the goal, though. The goal is to accomplish what I am setting out to do and the premade world of Azeroth is subservient to that goal and exists only to facilitate my attempt.

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.

No. It's like saying that "Play to discover what's in the DM's notes" doesn't apply, because "Play to discover what's in the DM's notes" is a purpose of play in and of itself, and if we have a different purpose, then not only is "Play to discover what's in the DM's notes" inaccurate, but it's also an insult to our real playstyle.

 

[Imaro]

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."

But you can't ever, no matter what you choose to do or try, enact fundamental and lasting change on Blizzard's world of Azeroth. I don't think this in any way supports your assertion since a player of WoW is never forcing change or adding to Blizzard's notes on Azeroth. If anything I think the difference between a playstyle where the world can actually change through the actions of the PC's and where they can work with their DM/GM to set and achieve their own personalized goals, desires and needs would highlight why the descriptor is such a mischaracterization.

 

[Aldarc]

But you can't ever, no matter what you choose to do or try, enact fundamental and lasting change on Blizzard's world of Azeroth. I don't think this in any way supports your assertion since a player of WoW is never forcing change or adding to Blizzard's notes on Azeroth. If anything I think the difference between a playstyle where the world can actually change through the actions of the PC's and where they can work with their DM/GM to set and achieve their own personalized goals, desires and needs would highlight why the descriptor is such a mischaracterization.

Of course, but the point of my example is not whether one can enact lasting change in Azeroth or not. The point of the example was to highlight a functional overlap between exploration and interaction in Azeroth and playing to discover of Blizzard's notes.

 

[Imaro]

Of course, but the point of my example is not whether one can enact lasting change in Azeroth or not. The point of the example was to highlight a functional overlap between exploration and interaction in Azeroth and playing to discover of Blizzard's notes.

But you're extrapolating from the methods of an MMO rpg (Which has different constraints & drivers than a single persons ttrpg campaign).

 

[Manbearcat]

The short, easy answer is that it's all there for me to use or ignore as I like. I didn't have to take that job.

The city exists for me to use for my goals. Whatever I decide, the city is a resource to help me achieve that. Whether it's simple outfitting, finding a contact, going to the library to research information I need/want, or whatever, the city is there for me(and the other players.)

The merchant and his story exist to give me options. I can opt to help him or not, make him a contact or not, purchase from him or not. It's my choice and his existence is there to facilitate my goals if he is capable or to ignore in that regard if he's not.

Equipment and hirelings are covered by the above as well.

Encounters, random or otherwise, serve as a challenge for my character and to help him grow in power to accomplish his goals.

The map and key I don't see in your story, so I'm not sure in what context they came to me. However, they are potential resources to help me achieve my goals. Perhaps I need money and/or goodwill to accomplish what I want to do in the world and they can help me.

What situation in the city when I return? Wanting to speak with the king? If so, that's my choice.

The conversation with the chamberlain is simply game play. Sometimes you succeed and sometimes you don't.

These are word games. All you are trying to do is take a common tool in pretty much any play and tie anything that happens to it to force this argument that players are playing to discover the GM's notes. Take the chamberlain rebuffing the players: that isn't in the GMs notes. The Chamberlain rebuffs the players is something that emerges naturally once the chamberlain is introduced (and the existence of a chamberlain may not even be in the GMs notes at all, that may be a figure who organically emerge's as the players interact with the palace and the GM has to think more clearly about who is there. And this exploration is a combination of the players making choices, deciding where to go, as they explore and push against the world the GM created. They are not playing to discover the GM's notes, they are playing to explore and interact with the GM's world, and the notes are just a tool for helping to track what he or she has created. Again, these are word games, in service to denying the value of play styles you don't like or that you think are lower than other types of play styles. This is extremely obvious and it is extremely questionable rhetoric.

@BRG

I'm just going to lead with this. Look at your post. That entire thing is challenging my integrity and impugning my motives. The entire thing.

You get to a point in these conversations where you and I nearly always arrive here. I don't do this to you (I don't recall ever doing it actually) but you seem to very often arrive here with me and this is just more de ja vu. Just please throttle it back.

Alright, onto talking about TTRPGs.

I've puzzled a bit on what the disconnect is here. Why there is this inability to communicate and these hard feelings. Here is what I've come up with.

"Play to find out what happens" is (a) not the exclusive priority of play in Dogs, x World games, and Forged in the Dark games.

"Play to find out what happens" (b) could trivially be taken offense at. For instance:

"Oh so I'm just beholden here to whatever happens with no agency? I'm just strapped in as a passive audience member with no input into 'what happens'? I'm just watching stuff unfold...just finding out? Is that it? Is that what you think is happening in my games?

No buddy. I'm MAKING STUFF HAPPEN. And I don't appreciate your disingenuous rhetoric!"

So, to address (a) as it pertains to our discussion on GM notes:

Obviously "finding out what is in the GM notes/prep" is just the inversion of "playing to find out what happens." Put another way:

"This game is prep-intensive with pre-established, high-resolution setting, adventuring sites, NPCs, puzzles, mysteries...this stuff exists before play...this is the significant bulk of content generation in this game (before play, between sessions, not at the table during play)...uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting it is the primary point of play."

Contrast with "play to find out what happens":

"This game is so prep light that it nears no prep territory. The setting, adventuring sites, NPCS, puzzles, mysteries emerge in the course of play. Almost all of the content generated happens during play...discovering it > orienting it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it is the primary point of play."

So a few differences here:

• When content is generated.
• How content is generated.
• Prep-intensity.
• The track as it pertains to content. Discover vs uncover (everyone at the table is discovering it simultaneously in the latter form of play) + REorient at the end of play in the first with orient at the beginning of play in the latter (because there is an orientation already established in the first while the 2nd has no orientation up front and must be oriented during play).

Just one quick example and then I'm tapping out and someone else can respond/run with this for awhile (I'll be back on tonight most likely):

In the first, that chamberlain (yes, back to the chamberlain of yore!) is uncovered. He has already been derived as a piece of content. He already has an orientation.

In the second, that chamberlain is discovered. He surely exists (kings have chamberlains of course) but he has to yet to be derived as a piece of content. He has to be oriented right now.

 

[Aldarc]

But you're extrapolating from the methods of an MMO rpg (Which has different constraints & drivers than a single persons ttrpg campaign).

I'm not extrapolating from an MMORPG. I'm extrapolating from my own experiences running different styles of tabletop roleplaying games. The MMORPG exists as an analogic point of reference. I will admit that it's not a perfect analogy, but I swear that once I accomplish the task of writing the perfect analogy that works in all cases as a point of reference, including those that are neither relevant nor pertinent to the analogy, then I will alert you to that perfect analogy as soon as humanly possible.

 

[prabe]

@Manbearcat

You can reply to this as you have time, if you want, but your descriptions of the priorities of play in the two styles--especially your use of "orient"--reminded me of the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop, which I usually see applied strictly to combat (both strategic and tactical) but it seems as though at least considering it more broadly as applied to player/character goals might be helpful as a GM (seems less likely to be helpful as a player).

 

[Imaro]

I'm not extrapolating from an MMORPG. I'm extrapolating from my own experiences running different styles of tabletop roleplaying games. The MMORPG exists as an analogic point of reference. I will admit that it's not a perfect analogy, but I swear that once I accomplish the task of writing the perfect analogy that works in all cases as a point of reference, including those that are neither relevant nor pertinent to the analogy, then I will alert you to that perfect analogy as soon as humanly possible.

I'm not asking for perfect. I'm saying the inherent constraints a videogame and even moreso an mmorpg face are exactly what we are arguing don't exist in our games and are what at least I would consider major factors in pushing the agenda of a game towards the goal of "Play to Find out Whats in the DM's Notes". Thus its problematic as an analogy.

 

[Maxperson]

@BRG

I'm just going to lead with this. Look at your post. That entire thing is challenging my integrity and impugning my motives. The entire thing.

You get to a point in these conversations where you and I nearly always arrive here. I don't do this to you (I don't recall ever doing it actually) but you seem to very often arrive here with me and this is just more de ja vu. Just please throttle it back.

Alright, onto talking about TTRPGs.

I've puzzled a bit on what the disconnect is here. Why there is this inability to communicate and these hard feelings. Here is what I've come up with.

"Play to find out what happens" is (a) not the exclusive priority of play in Dogs, x World games, and Forged in the Dark games.

"Play to find out what happens" (b) could trivially be taken offense at. For instance:

"Oh so I'm just beholden here to whatever happens with no agency? I'm just strapped in as a passive audience member with no input into 'what happens'? I'm just watching stuff unfold...just finding out? Is that it? Is that what you think is happening in my games?

No buddy. I'm MAKING STUFF HAPPEN. And I don't appreciate your disingenuous rhetoric!"

So, to address (a) as it pertains to our discussion on GM notes:

I'm not saying this about you, but there is at least one poster here who comes across like, "My playstyle is awesomesauce, because it's protagonistic and has lots of agency, you're playstyle is just playing to find out what's in the DM's notes." Whether that's intentional or not, it comes across as both arrogant and dismissive, which of course gets the other side's dander up. The phrase itself is also somewhat pejorative in and of itself.

Obviously "finding out what is in the GM notes/prep" is just the inversion of "playing to find out what happens." Put another way:

I disagree with this. When you "Play to...." anything, that's the purpose of your play. If the purpose of our play is not finding out what's in the DM's notes, but rather to accomplish the goals we set for our characters, then "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes." is wrong. Finding out what is in the DM's note, though, can be and is incidental to the purpose of our play. It's not a true inversion.

"This game is prep-intensive with pre-established, high-resolution setting, adventuring sites, NPCs, puzzles, mysteries...this stuff exists before play...this is the significant bulk of content generation in this game (before play, between sessions, not at the table during play)...uncovering it > engaging it > resolving it > defeating it > reorienting it is the primary point of play."

Again I'm going to disagree. You can play that way, where you are just running around defeating the pre-set challenges as the primary point of play. OR the primary point of play can be accomplishing player set goals within the pre-set world. That breaks your chain anywhere from discovering to resolving, depending on what's going on in the world and what the PCs goals are.

When a lot of prep is done on a world or you are using a world like the Forgotten Realms where a lot of prep has already been done for you, the players are going to have a lot of information given to them before even the first session of play. With that information, I will often formulate goals for my PC before the first session ever happens. There may not even be "discovering" as a primary point of my play, let alone the rest of that chain. Or, I may as a player incorporate portions of that chain as a part of my personal goals.

Suppose my goal was to become a god by killing one and taking his place. I don't need to uncover who the gods are, but I do need to select one or perhaps a few as potential targets. I'd then need to gain a lot of power and probably true artifacts, so I might as part of my personal goal incorporate some "Discovering -> engaging, etc." as part of my personal goal of gaining power to kill that god.

At no point, though, is that chain the primary point of my game play, and I might have personal goals that require even less of that sort of thing. We are not playing to "Discover what is in the DM's notes."

So a few differences here:

• When content is generated.
• How content is generated.
• Prep-intensity.
• The track as it pertains to content. Discover vs uncover (everyone at the table is discovering it simultaneously in the latter form of play) + REorient at the end of play in the first with orient at the beginning of play in the latter (because there is an orientation already established in the first while the 2nd has no orientation up front and must be oriented during play).

Just one quick example and then I'm tapping out and someone else can respond/run with this for awhile (I'll be back on tonight most likely):

In the first, that chamberlain (yes, back to the chamberlain of yore!) is uncovered. He has already been derived as a piece of content. He already has an orientation.

In the second, that chamberlain is discovered. He surely exists (kings have chamberlains of course) but he has to yet to be derived as a piece of content. He has to be oriented right now.

I understand the differences. The objection comes mainly from the mischaracterization that is inherent in "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes." We know that there are significant differences and prefer our style of play over the other for various reasons.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not asking for perfect. I'm saying the inherent constraints a videogame and even moreso an mmorpg face are exactly what we are arguing don't exist in our games and are what at least I would consider major factors in pushing the agenda of a game towards the goal of "Play to Find out Whats in the DM's Notes". Thus its problematic as an analogy.

I have repeatedly found that exceptionalism as a principle rarely, if ever, holds up to serious scrutiny.