What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

So there's been a theme running through many of the responses around sandbox play, which is that the goal or notion of the player only "playing through their character's viewpoint" is of high, nearly paramount importance.

There seems to be something fundamental about "actor stance" for sandbox play that while I don't really have a problem with it as an agenda, it doesn't really line up with what I've experienced in 30+ years as a player.

However, as a topic it doesn't seem to directly relate to the OP around GM prep / notes / setting prefabrication, so maybe I'll bounce it into a separate thread.

This is true. They’re distinct priorities.

As I mentioned upthread, the bulk of my play in TTRPGs has featured Sandbox (or Hexcrawl) play whether it’s RC, Dogs, AW/DW, or even Blades. Each of those are subtly (or more) different from each other.

However, one unifying aspect of all of them is that “stance pivoting” is a prominent feature of my games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

These two things are pretty different:

* the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​

​

* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​

I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.

This is definitely a 'distinction without a difference' as well as an oversimplification of what the GM is doing. At a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes enough that you'd concede he or she isn't still tethered to them (or is anything the GM does if notes are in play always ultimately 'notes'). I don't know. We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play, but there is a vast gray area that seems to be getting excluded, and I think my side has adequately explained why extrapolation, synergy and player's shaping things through their characters do not constitute 'playing to discover the GMs notes'.

 

[pemerton]

These two things are pretty different:

* the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he wrote in advance and that only s/he knows;​

​

* the player(s) extrapolating from shared fiction which (ipso facto, given it's shared) has been established at the table in the course of play.​

I've GMed using both sorts of approaches. I've played using both sorts of approaches. It's not the same.

This is definitely a 'distinction without a difference' as well as an oversimplification of what the GM is doing. At a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes enough that you'd concede he or she isn't still tethered to them (or is anything the GM does if notes are in play always ultimately 'notes'). I don't know. We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play, but there is a vast gray area that seems to be getting excluded, and I think my side has adequately explained why extrapolation, synergy and player's shaping things through their characters do not constitute 'playing to discover the GMs notes'.

What is your basis for saying this is a distinction without a difference? Especially as you go on to say We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play. Do you agree that I have identified a difference, or not?

I also don't understand what you think the difference is between the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he has written in advance and that only s/he knows and at a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is your basis for saying this is a distinction without a difference? Especially as you go on to say We are definitely talking about two different approaches to play. Do you agree that I have identified a difference, or not?

I also don't understand what you think the difference is between the GM extrapolating from notes that s/he has written in advance and that only s/he knows and at a certain point, a GM must move away from the notes.

The distinction that makes one note and one fiction is simply whether it comes from the player or the GM. There is a distinction between games where the players can add content out of character to the setting/story, versus ones where they must do so through their character. But I fail to see why when the GM is the one establishing and facilitating setting content its 'notes' but when a player is given this ability it is suddenly fiction. Again we just keep having this concept of notes forced onto the situation when people have loudly said this is not what is going on for them (and argued well against your points)

 

[pemerton]

The distinction that makes one note and one fiction is simply whether it comes from the player or the GM. There is a distinction between games where the players can add content out of character to the setting/story, versus ones where they must do so through their character. But I fail to see why when the GM is the one establishing and facilitating setting content its 'notes' but when a player is given this ability it is suddenly fiction. Again we just keep having this concept of notes forced onto the situation when people have loudly said this is not what is going on for them (and argued well against your points)

The difference is between stuff only the GM knows because it's in his/her notes and stuff that the GM makes up by extrapolating from those notes and stuff that a participant in the game (player, or GM) extrapolates from the shared fiction which has (ipso facto, given it's shared) been established at the table in the course of play.

The difference is brought out clearly in @Ovinomancer's post not far upthread, which sets out an imagined example of a player, in character, asking a barkeep about NotBob the Vile.

One possibility: the GM answers by referring to his/her notes, or extrapolating from them.

Another possibility: the GM answers by fist having the player make a Streetwise (or Barkeep-wise, or NotBob the Vile-wise, or <whatever is appropriate>) check, and then if that succeeds narrating the barkeep's helpful answer that leads to the PC to NotBob the Vile, or if that fails narrating some appropriate complication or obstacle that flows from the established fiction.

Only the first possibility constrains the outcomes of action declarations by reference to material that only the GM is privy to. This is one function that GM's notes can serve, and I think it's a pretty well-known function. It produces a different RPG experience from RPGing (such as @innerdude was describing upthread) where there is no such use of GM's notes, and other techniques are used to determine the outcomes of action declarations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The difference is between stuff only the GM knows because it's in his/her notes and stuff that the GM makes up by extrapolating from those notes and stuff that a participant in the game (player, or GM) extrapolates from the shared fiction which has (ipso facto, given it's shared) been established at the table in the course of play.

The difference is brought out clearly in @Ovinomacer's post not far upthread, which sets out an imagined example of a player, in character, asking a barkeep about NotBob the Vile.

One possibility: the GM answers by referring to his/her notes, or extrapolating from them.

Another possibility: the GM answers by fist having the player make a Streetwise (or Barkeep-wise, or NotBob the Vile-wise, or <whatever is appropriate>) check, and then if that succeeds narrating the barkeep's helpful answer that leads to the PC to NotBob the Vile, or if that fails narrating some appropriate complication or obstacle that flows from the established fiction.

Only the first possibility constrains the outcomes of action declarations by reference to material that only the GM is privy to. This is one function that GM's notes can serve, and I think it's a pretty well-known function. It produces a different RPG experience from RPGing (such as @innerdude was describing upthread) where there is no such use of GM's notes, and other techniques are used to determine the outcomes of action declarations.

But it is the same thing, just distributed among players now. If I am adding to the story as a player, well then I am just doing what the GM does, and I am working off my 'notes' being the only one who knows in that moment what the note is. So I just don't see how these are really different in terms of one being labeled notes and one fiction. I think if you replaced the term 'notes' with 'setting' you would honestly get a lot less push back on this concept. Playing to discover the GM's world, is at least a more accurate assessment of what is going on. Playing to discover the GM's notes, as I've said many times, is dismissive and insulting as a characterization.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The difference is between stuff only the GM knows because it's in his/her notes and stuff that the GM makes up by extrapolating from those notes and stuff that a participant in the game (player, or GM) extrapolates from the shared fiction which has (ipso facto, given it's shared) been established at the table in the course of play.

The difference is brought out clearly in @Ovinomacer's post not far upthread, which sets out an imagined example of a player, in character, asking a barkeep about NotBob the Vile.

One possibility: the GM answers by referring to his/her notes, or extrapolating from them.

Another possibility: the GM answers by fist having the player make a Streetwise (or Barkeep-wise, or NotBob the Vile-wise, or <whatever is appropriate>) check, and then if that succeeds narrating the barkeep's helpful answer that leads to the PC to NotBob the Vile, or if that fails narrating some appropriate complication or obstacle that flows from the established fiction.

Only the first possibility constrains the outcomes of action declarations by reference to material that only the GM is privy to. This is one function that GM's notes can serve, and I think it's a pretty well-known function. It produces a different RPG experience from RPGing (such as @innerdude was describing upthread) where there is no such use of GM's notes, and other techniques are used to determine the outcomes of action declarations.

I think that the whole "GM's notes" thing can be simplified a bit into just "GM decides." This mode of play is where the GM is the arbiter of what happens in the fiction, so play occurs according to the GM's understanding of the game world and the fiction.

Now, within this scope, there's shades of difference, one of which is very much dependent on the GM's notes, or, rather, that the GM has pre-established in a largely fixed way a large amount of the game fiction. The play is then to determine what is in the GM's pre-conception of the game fiction. This is where Skilled Play a la Moldvay dungeon crawls situates itself. It's still under the auspice of GM Decides, but it's a subset.

Another version of this is where the GM has few or almost no notes, but is still the source of how things come about in play. This is what's usually referred to as improv or ad-lib play by posters unfamiliar with systems built to generate content during play. This is what a D&D game with a "loosey-goosey" GM looks like.

To contrast "GM Decides" you have systems where the GM is tightly constrained, usually by having no pre-conception of the fiction, only the fiction as introduced, and with rules that state that actions cannot be blocked, only allowed to succeed or be challenged with the mechanics. They also have mechanical systems that allow for both player and GM input, and tight constraints on the outcomes. These are the Burning Wheel, PbtA, FitD style games.

Somewhere in the middle of both of these are systems that can swing either way, depending on the GM. FATE, despite my not grasping how it can be a GM decides game and work at all, is apparently one given play reports. D&D 4e is another. From how @pemerton describes Traveler, I'd say it fits as well.

 

[TwoSix]

I think if you replaced the term 'notes' with 'setting' you would honestly get a lot less push back on this concept. Playing to discover the GM's world, is at least a more accurate assessment of what is going on. Playing to discover the GM's notes, as I've said many times, is dismissive and insulting as a characterization.

The "GM's world" is a metaphor, the "GM's notes" is the literal item behind the metaphor. Unless someone's built a holodeck or a Matrix world, every GM's world consists entirely of their generated notes and their personal headcanon.

The only exception are published worlds like Golarion or the Realms, in which case the "world" is the distributed published notes and every user's own headcanon.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The "GM's world" is a metaphor, the "GM's notes" is the literal item behind the metaphor. Unless someone's built a holodeck or a Matrix world, every GM's world consists entirely of their generated notes and their personal headcanon.

The only exception are published worlds like Golarion or the Realms, in which case the "world" is the distributed published notes and every user's own headcanon.

Actually the notes aren’t literal either. The world can exist in notes, in the GM’s head, as a gut reaction the GM has to something the players do. Dismissing the world as metaphor misses the whole point of play (which is decidedly not exploration of the GMs notebook)

 

[TwoSix]

Actually the notes aren’t literal either. The world can exist in notes, in the GM’s head, as a gut reaction the GM has to something the players do. Dismissing the world as metaphor misses the whole point of play (which is decidedly not exploration of the GMs notebook)

It's not a dismissal. No setting is real. Calling a fictional setting a "world" is a metaphor.

You can't "explore the world" in a RPG anymore than you can "conquer the world" in Risk; it's merely a fictional conceit that overlays what the players are actually doing at the table, which is declaring actions and rolling dice to see how they turn out. The GM merely acts as an arbiter to allow for a wider declaration of possible actions. A module or a pre-defined setting is a tool that many DMs use to help them arbitrate these choices.