What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

"Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.

The concept of a living world and how that is achieved has been explained. But if you will only accept answers where the players are doing things like taking on GM powers, I don' think we can have a fruitful discussion because then it is clearly just a style debate, and not really about understanding what we are doing at the table. Also there seems to be this weird paradox where if we answer the question literally (i.e. showing example of not literally going to the notes) we are reprimanded for taking him literally, yet if we answer in a non-literal way, we are told to be more literal. I think we've both answered in terms of higher concept and in terms of nitty gritty what we literally do

 

[Emerikol]

Ovid, I only accuse you of being the newly converted when you attack so hard my own style of gaming. I have no problem if you like your style.


For the purposes of discussion, let's get back to discussing the playstyles and away from terms wars.

There is something about starting out in a world that seems to operate independent of the character. It increases my own sense of verisimilitude when I play. My play agenda is to make my way in a hostile world using my fantasy powers to overcome challenges and prosper. Perhaps to feel heroic and get a good feeling about advancing the cause of justice and good along the way. The satisfaction for me comes from knowing I and my party met real challenges and overcame them.

I think in a game where the world tends to bend and flow with the PCs is one where that feeling is a lot harder to get. So the payoff is not there for me. Now, there may be other payoffs you enjoy and that these games provide. Personally I've always been skeptical of players who really just want to look heroic without really meeting any challenge for real. It would give me no satisfaction. Genuinely outsmarting my opponents vs having everything ultimately catered to my heroic needs is really important to me.

So not every game is for every person. It is true that some people do not try the game they ultimately will love the best. Try different games. I'm all for it. It's not true though that a particular style is fun for everyone or that once tried that a particular style of play will be enjoyable for everyone. I believe I know my own preferences better than I think most people know theirs.

Hey it may be a bell curve. Some of you may be in the middle of the curve and like a variety of styles. Others may be further one way or the other and don't like the opposing style very much. It's all taste. Hard to dispute. When I say that something doesn't give me a certain payoff like verisimilitude or immersion, you may argue it should in your opinion but you can't argue it does.

 

[Umbran]

@Manbearcat, this reflects my sense of things over the course of these threads; and my point was really about the rhetoric. Where it genuinely feels like no matter how many times we say "No that isn't what we do, you are missing the point of play for us" a lot of people here just plow forward with an analysis that has this level of certainty to it that is not capturing anything we recognize at work within these styles.

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.

Mod Note:

@Bedrockgames - you have done nothing major wrong here, but I want to use these tidbits as a stepping off point for an observation about the conversation.

There is what I have come to think of as a "dichotomy war". Edition Wars are an example. But it can happen with lots of topics - alignment, playstyles, GM authority, fudging dice rolls, and so on. It isn't a gaming-specific thing, even - you can see dichotomy wars over, say, chili with or without beans, or DC vs Marvel.

A war occurs when at least one fairly forceful voice in a conversation has no real inclination to give ground, or admit that the other side has a point, or what the other side does might actually be cool (gasp! the horror!).

It is typical for both sides to position themselves as the victim in a dichotomy conflict. One of them may be, but it is by no means assured. Obstinate discussion leads to someone saying something that gets read as personal or otherwise rhetorically not cricket (correctly or not).

I hate to tell you all.. but this thread's got a bunch of people who tend to end up in such conflicts. If you don't want to be part of that, it is best to walk away.

 

[Emerikol]

So I think that part of the problem is that any counter to "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" as @pemerton has described it, that has been offered relies on non-literal wording. Now, whether I agree with @pemerton's idea or not, I clearly understand what it is that he is saying.

What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?

I do not railroad my players. I give them a wide open sandbox where they can choose to do whatever they want. I provide tons of opportunities and make the world rich with possibility. The players then choose their path in that world.

"Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.

What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?

The problem is that I don't even agree with you on the word protagonism. I foster protagonism by giving my characters a well realized fantasy world where they can make whatever in character choices they want and thus they become the ultimate protagonists of their story. Player authoring is not protagonism.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The concept of a living world and how that is achieved has been explained. But if you will only accept answers where the players are doing things like taking on GM powers, I don' think we can have a fruitful discussion because then it is clearly just a style debate, and not really about understanding what we are doing at the table. Also there seems to be this weird paradox where if we answer the question literally (i.e. showing example of not literally going to the notes) we are reprimanded for taking him literally, yet if we answer in a non-literal way, we are told to be more literal. I think we've both answered in terms of higher concept and in terms of nitty gritty what we literally do

I didn't mention GM powers or anything of the sort. I am asking, for the sake of the conversation moving past this jam, what practices do you use to foster protagonism for the PCs in your game. What actual practices can be used. Actual play examples would be fantastic, but even just general practices.

I'm not on any side here. I just would like to see the conversation move along instead of continually saying that one phrase used is innacurate, or that we start to have to explain to each other how a Top Hat and a Shoe actually could wind up in Jail.

 

[Emerikol]

Mod Note:

@Bedrockgames - you have done nothing major wrong here, but I want to use these tidbits as a stepping off point for an observation about the conversation.

There is what I have come to think of as a "dichotomy war". Edition Wars are an example. But it can happen with lots of topics - alignment, playstyles, GM authority, fudging dice rolls, and so on. It isn't a gaming-specific thing, even - you can see dichotomy wars over, say, chili with or without beans, or DC vs Marvel.

A war occurs when at least one fairly forceful voice in a conversation has no real inclination to give ground, or admit that the other side has a point, or what the other side does might actually be cool (gasp! the horror!).

It is typical for both sides to position themselves as the victim in a dichotomy conflict. One of them may be, but it is by no means assured. Obstinate discussion leads to someone saying something that gets read as personal or otherwise rhetorically not cricket (correctly or not).

I hate to tell you all.. but this thread's got a bunch of people who tend to end up in such conflicts. If you don't want to be part of that, it is best to walk away.

Interesting points but why was it a mod note?

I agree that we get into disagreements and tend to stand our ground. Experienced intelligent people often do that when it comes to preferences. It's hard to prove anyone's experience wrong.

I am academically interested in all of the directions roleplaying has been taken over the years and I think it's healthy for the hobby. It's a sign of success in a way. I am happy when people find a way that suits their purposes. No one should need to invalidate anyone elses play though. I think even the designers at WoTC are guilty of making pronouncements about gaming styles that come across as absolute truths instead of (maybe) generalized popular approaches.

So I think there is a defensiveness about one's own approaches. I'm definitely not on a crusade to change any from their style to mine. I do think when we explain why we like our style it automatically triggers a response. If I say my style is more immersive, someone will say but my style is immersive too! Well sure, I guess I should have said, for me my style is more immersive. Yet even that gets blowback and someone tells me that it isn't even immersion that I care about and that I don't even know my own preferences. Then we really start having fun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I provide tons of opportunities and make the world rich with possibility.

What kind of opportunities? How are they presented? How do you come up with them?

How do you make the world "rich with possibility"?

The problem is that I don't even agree with you on the word protagonism. I foster protagonism by giving my characters a well realized fantasy world where they can make whatever in character choices they want and thus they become the ultimate protagonists of their story. Player authoring is not protagonism.

I didn't say that protagonism required player authoring. I offered one example of what I do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I didn't mention GM powers or anything of the sort. I am asking, for the sake of the conversation moving past this jam, what practices do you use to foster protagonism for the PCs in your game. What actual practices can be used. Actual play examples would be fantastic, but even just general practices.

I'm not on any side here. I just would like to see the conversation move along instead of continually saying that one phrase used is innacurate, or that we start to have to explain to each other how a Top Hat and a Shoe actually could wind up in Jail.

I would point to Emerikol's answer about not railroading, to my answers about having NPCs with goals, and applying those goals organically during play, so the interaction players have with them are not producing something scripted from notes, but allowing for new stuff in the setting to take shape, doing things like when the players acquire power in the setting, allowing them to use said power, leaning into what I called 'destruction of the scenery/destroying the setting', planning situations, adapting to what the players do, giving serious consideration to anything the players try to do and not trying to fit that into some pre-planned thing you had, making sure you run your NPCs and groups as living characters so they are doing things and pursuing agendas, even while the players are going in some other direction, etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If he wants to re-state his theory in a way that doesn't misrepresent what it is that we do and isn't pejorative, then I'll be happy to examine it. As it is stated, though, it doesn't at all represent the purpose or focus of our play. Words matter, as @pemerton well knows, since he's quick to remind us of his authority in the area. If he wanted to foster a real discussion, instead coming across yet again as poopooing on this particular playstyle, he could have done so.

Okay, that's all fine.

I just asked some questions. You ignored them in favor of complaining about how someone else phrased something. I get that you didn't like how he worded it. That's fine.

But how about we move past that.....maybe start by replying to what I posted? That'd likely get things moving along again before this all gets shut down for becoming a shouting match.

 

[Emerikol]

I didn't mention GM powers or anything of the sort. I am asking, for the sake of the conversation moving past this jam, what practices do you use to foster protagonism for the PCs in your game. What actual practices can be used. Actual play examples would be fantastic, but even just general practices.

I'm not on any side here. I just would like to see the conversation move along instead of continually saying that one phrase used is innacurate, or that we start to have to explain to each other how a Top Hat and a Shoe actually could wind up in Jail.

Fair enough, though again we probably don't agree on the term but I will pretend I've accepted your definition for the sake of continuing this discussion.

PCs have backgrounds that they develop before starting the campaign. Usually they state their desires in vague terms because they don't know the world. I work with them to make it campaign specific if at all possible. When rarely it's not possible, we table that idea for the next campaign.