What is the point of GM's notes?

[Lanefan]

What is the relationship between "derived" (the verb you use) and decided?

In most RPGs the GM has to decide what a NPC does having reference to the PCs' words and approach: this is true of Classic Traveller, Moldvay Basic, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Prince Valiant, and numerous other games.

A big part of what differentiates some of these games, in this respect, is the basis for the decision. Glossing this as "with or without the aid of any game mechanics" without considering the nature of those mechanics, who gets to decide whether they're invoked, in what way they take "words and approach" as input, and in what way they constrain the GM decision as output, seems to be overlooking the substance of the discussion.

For instance, just to set up three possibilities:

* The GM has no default disposition in mind for the Chamberlain, and decides how the Chamberlain responds by calling for a reaction roll by the player of the PC who approaches the Chamberlain;​

​

* The GM has a note, or at the moment of play creates a (perhaps literal, perhaps mental) note that the Chamberlain is ill-disposed to the PC, and hence will accede to any request only if a particularly difficult social check is made;​

​

* As the previous dot point, but the GM decides to "inhabit" the mindset of the ill-disposed Chamberlain and hence will have the Chamberlain accede to any request only if s/he feels that the player of the PC has made a sufficiently persuasive case.​

Each of these is an example of how the chamberlain responds to the PCs being derived in the moment - with or without the aid of any game mechanics - based on the PCs' words and approach. But I think it's obvious that they are very different approaches to adjudication.

Bolded bit is to point out that in my example the only "GM notes" are that the chamberlain exists at all; the part you added in your reply doesn't apply here.

The chamberlain's reaction or attitude isn't pre-determined in this example. That the point: it's left open, to better allow the PCs to be the authors of their own success or failure, whether such comes via dice-roll mechanics or via the GM simply roleplaying the chamberlain as being a typical, rational person reacting to what's being said to him.

Hence, my saying it's done via a combination of GM notes and in-the-moment (not necessarily mechanical) resolution.

 

[Lanefan]

I think, no matter what the game is or what the situation is or what character I'm playing, that the next time a PC of mine encounters a chamberlain I'm going to start proceedings by shooting it dead, just on principle.

 

[Aldarc]

I think, no matter what the game is or what the situation is or what character I'm playing, that the next time a PC of mine encounters a chamberlain I'm going to start proceedings by shooting it dead, just on principle.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I think one of the problems is the appropriation of words by some game designers. Protagonism in plain English does not demand what you have made of it. I realize over time that words do become game designer speak and mean different things. I am not criticising that necessarily.

So here is the confusion. If God created a real fantasy world with real magic, took you and dropped you into it would you have protagonism or not? I think you'd say no by the standards of game design. I think for the people on the other side their eyes would bug out because how could you not have protagonism as you'd be a real living person in a real fantasy world. The reality is that as a real person in a real fantasy world you would have no authorial ability. You'd just be able to do whatever you as a human could do in that world. For us that is the very essence of protagonism in its purest english language sense before game designers redefined the term.

Again, I am not criticising game designers creating their own meta-language but when you come on these boards you shouldn't assume that we know game designer speak. It would be like be talking about objects and design patterns in the field of programming. You might respond, "I know what an object is..." but you don't in terms of my redefinition of the term. And yes you'd be using the original usage. Object existed as a word before programming. So I'd need to be careful when talking to a non-programmer.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

But this is what TTRPG is giving you. It's giving you the ability to have an Azeroth and change it. You can overthrow the king (in theory). You can mutate the world by your actions in the very same way we mutate the real world with our actions.

 

[Emerikol]

So let me throw something out there....

A living world is designed by the GM and is designed to change. The events plotted out for the future though are very much able to be impacted by the PCs. I usually plot out the moves of the NPCs for a good distance in the future and I revisit every so often to adjust. For most NPCs the PCs don't affect them that much. For some though it's major changes because the PCs have directly impacted their plans. Most people's lives in a medieval type setting don't change that much over time.

I like though to have what I call plot threads running all the time. Villains of various sorts are up to no good. The PCs may not ever encounter them and they may succeed. Or the PCs will take note and stop them.

So if a PC suddenly said they wanted to achieve something in game that would not be possible in that world, yes they are constrained by what I'd call the world's reality. Just like we are constrained by our reality. The difference is that the fantasy world has magic so many dreams are more possible than in ours of course. I don't view protagonism as the ability to change the world that exists. It is the freedom to do within that world as you will. Now that may run counter to you concept of protagonism in game designer speak for some of these modern games. It fits the english language definition fairly well though.

 

[Emerikol]

Thanks. I would say it was already very clear.

I am glad you understand but it seemed others did not from their posts so I was clarifying.

It seems obvious to me that there is always more than one player payoff when playing a game.

 

[Imaro]

But this is what TTRPG is giving you. It's giving you the ability to have an Azeroth and change it. You can overthrow the king (in theory). You can mutate the world by your actions in the very same way we mutate the real world with our actions.

I think our thoughts are pretty much aligned on this.

 

[Emerikol]

I think our thoughts are pretty much aligned on this.

I wasn't sure as I don't know all your preferences as well as some of the others on here.

I think these two things are not the same though for clarification
1. Mutate the world in a way that someone living in a world that really existed could mutate it given the rulesset as the guiding principles on the physics.

2. Mutate the world from the viewpoint of a creator (author) so that their character fulfills challenges and achieves goals in a way that is pleasing to the player.

The big debate, I think, is that some say #2 is the only sort of thing that gives true protagonism. I think in plain english that is hogwash. I will though say that in terms some game designers use that it is obviously true because they've used the term but redefined it. They needed a word that fit a valid playstyle outcome and they chose protagonism.

 

[Imaro]

Another distinction is that the first is literal and the second is metaphor. Are you able to give a non-metaphorical version of the second?

Can I ask why this distinction matters?

EDIT: And the first is not literal since, as so many of us have posted in this thread and you seem to be choosing to continuously ignore, it does not accurately describe the playstyle only a single facet of it. Do you "Play to discover what can be generated by the improv skills of your group"? That's literal and describes what you must as part of the fabricated definition of "protagonism", some in this thread are using, do. Why instead do you call your playstyle "Play to find out what happens"? Isn't that literally what we are all doing to some point or another in numerous playstyles??